Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I will say this about ana, the lady doth protest too much. 

Someone is fucking his wife while he watches from the corner. I am certain of it. He screams insecurity.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You guys would support Al Qaeda if it furthered you view of American foreign policy "interests". By the way, how is that whole Syria thing going?

Big fan of chlorine gas attacks on civilians, aren’t ya?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)

I remember a time on these boards where there was broad consensus wrt the damaging blowback and long term outcomes associated with neocon foreign policy from the 90s and 2000s. It was actually a pretty broad adoption, across the political spectrum here. It's very amazing to me that all but the most dyed in the wool liberals, most of which sit on the sidelines in these exchanges now, have just totally condescended themselves to that nonsense. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I remember a time on these boards where there was broad consensus wrt the damaging blowback and long term outcomes associated with neocon foreign policy from the 90s and 2000s. It was actually a pretty broad adoption, across the political spectrum here. It's very amazing to me that all but the most dyed in the wool liberals, most of which sit on the sidelines in these exchanges now, have just totally condescended themselves to that nonsense. 

What the fuck is wrong with you. Just shut the fuck up. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

God it rules so hard that Ana couldn’t help himself during a Thursday happy hour from revealing that he’s been an Assadist all along. Being pro gassing Syrian civilians had been the one grey zone take he hadn’t previously revealed, but I always knew he could do it if he got drunk enough.

Just amazing stuff. Good job. Immamac thinks that this is the type of shit that will save his media. 

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
41 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The best part of Anastasis is how desperately he tries to project this aura of cool reserve, stoic and academic criticism of all.  And how pathetically transparent it is to everyone that he has completely stewed himself in the rankest of alt-right and angry manosphere discourse.  “Cuck” this, “neocon” that, for fucks sake just change your avatar to Andrew Tate or Scott Ritter and leave the act behind. 

IMG_4243.jpeg.7566ae0f285238f3b278b011c4cc5ca8.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Ana get sent to the gulag again? I am sure he will approve of that.

Funny if he hates this place why does he come back?

And when there are discussions going on, he never participates. Imagine being his neighbor.

Posted
3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Imagine being his neighbor.

You get cookies when the kids bake them, brisket and ribs when I smoke them, and on easter lots of lamb, some hard boiled eggs, and easter bread. 

I think most of us would get along in real life just fine, as long as politics and the particularly brain damaging toxicity of this board wasn't involved.

 

And you might just have to deal with a car getting worked on in the driveway. As long as you don't report me to the HOA there will be no FAFO. 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Who makes shittier brisket, Ana or John Cornyn?

This is actually a pretty good frame of reference for the basis in reality of most of your posts.  

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I do. Just really tired of good threads getting derailed by him.

I don't have many people on the ignore list, but he was the first one. I asked myself when was the last time that he had something worth reading. I couldn't think of anything. 

So, into the bin he went. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I gotta say, it's a special brand of fucking coward to not express your pro-russian stance in the DT thread Annie. Since when have we tolerated dead ass Russian propaganda on this topic? Crazy that he can come in to thread shit and spread horse shit putinist talking points and not even get a finger wag from the mods.

This isn't just being someone being a dumbass. This is him being a cancer.

Lets do what he would in this case, and deny treatment and tell him to fuck off.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

@Captainant

He did say something. Ana ain't listening

If only the owner of the site had some other mechanisms to communicate that a poster is fucking up and trolling and thread shitting. There's literally a rule against "shit posting" - at least insofar as whatever BL decides it is. Lol he'll hand out a two day ban for one post among many adding new sourced info, citing "shit posting". 

Tell me Annie ain't shitposting here. He is not adding to the discussion, and is literally advancing putinist propaganda as fact.

Just interesting the kind of stuff that gets a "knock it off" vs a posting timeout. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

If only the owner of the site had some other mechanisms to communicate that a poster is fucking up and trolling and thread shitting. There's literally a rule against "shit posting" - at least insofar as whatever BL decides it is. Lol he'll hand out a two day ban for one post among many adding new sourced info, citing "shit posting". 

Tell me Annie ain't shitposting here. He is not adding to the discussion, and is literally advancing putinist propaganda as fact.

Just interesting the kind of stuff that gets a "knock it off" vs a posting timeout. 

He just came out of the gulag.

Posted

Welcome to the Internet everyone!

What we're experiencing is commonly referred to as a "troll." As you may have noticed, he once again succeeded in derailing the thread and making it about him. 

You can minimize his impact by ignoring him or refusing to be baited by his obvious attempts to derail the conversation.

The more you know....

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Welcome to the Internet everyone!

What we're experiencing is commonly referred to as a "troll." As you may have noticed, he once again succeeded in derailing the thread and making it about him. 

You can minimize his impact by ignoring him or refusing to be baited by his obvious attempts to derail the conversation.

The more you know....

What will be really funny for @Anastasis is when his child dies because the administration and policies he support lead to a dramatic build up of new nuclear weapons and nuclear war. He'll totally be laughing in his troll graveyard then. And he'll totally have shown those neo-cons (who the fuck even says that anymore?) that they were... uh, sort of right? 

Posted
30 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Damn no wonder your USC team sucks Lincoln, your too busy being a bitch on surly all day.

That one does look a little tight in the flat, huh. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, Saint Austin said:

What more is there left to sanction? And tariffs against a county we essentially have zero trade with?? Ffs...

Yeah, I asked the same thing in the other thread.

What else is there and why?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

What more is there left to sanction? And tariffs against a county we essentially have zero trade with?? Ffs...

He's just trying to look like an impartial third party making an effort to broker peace instead of a Russian sympathizer who wishes he could do to Canada what Putin is doing to Ukraine.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

What will be really funny for @Anastasis is when his child dies

You are one sick puppy dude. 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

the administration and policies he support lead to a dramatic build up of new nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

Clowns like you that want to prolong and drag out a proxy conflict between nuclear powers are worried, in rhetoric only of course, about policies and actions that increase the risk of nuclear war. What a world.  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
13 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

How would you characterize the indiscriminate bombings of civilians?

I cited the most widely known terrorist attack on America. It's not hyperbole to say that they ignored the available intel. Tenet is not a political commentator. 

 

Nuance is a part of everything. So, it depends.  9/11 - terrorism, more than obviously.  Most recent missile attack in Ukraine? It's too soon to know for sure, but it appears to me to be collateral damage.  Was it really "indiscriminate bombings of civilians?"  Was the hotel the intended target?  From what I understand, Russia frequently targets that city because it's Zelensky's hometown. Can they aim the missile used with pinpoint accuracy?  Did it hit its intended target?

The intel failure surrounding 9/11 isn't the same thing as what has happened here.  It's not in the same ballpark; it's not even the same fucking sport. 

The Newsweek article, which is the one I was talking about as being flawed information, did not use Tenet as a source.

People have got to be able to recognize bias, misinformation and propaganda.  Especially now that so much of the "media" is solely focused on making money and journalistic integrity is a quaint concept from the past.  Look at the headline:  "Missile Strike on Americans."  Really?  Was the missile strike intentionally aimed at Americans, like the headline would lead you to believe?  Or is it that there just happened to be Americans staying at the hotel that was hit?  (No Americans were injured or killed, by the way.)  Why would the Russians target Americans now?  Right after our president just publicly sucked off Putin?  Putin's going to do something to turn the American people against Trump at the moment he has us right where he wants us?  That doesn't make any fucking sense.

Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Can they aim the missile used with pinpoint accuracy?  Did it hit its intended target?

Try again. tell me what happened here.

While we're still beating the horse, let's reset. Give us the quotes you find so objectionable that you are willing to forgive the poor Russians for having such shitty tracking of the drones they lob into civilian areas with no military targets.

g2jt966hwbme1.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Nuance is a part of everything. So, it depends.  9/11 - terrorism, more than obviously.  Most recent missile attack in Ukraine? It's too soon to know for sure, but it appears to me to be collateral damage.  Was it really "indiscriminate bombings of civilians?"  Was the hotel the intended target?  From what I understand, Russia frequently targets that city because it's Zelensky's hometown. Can they aim the missile used with pinpoint accuracy?  Did it hit its intended target?

The intel failure surrounding 9/11 isn't the same thing as what has happened here.  It's not in the same ballpark; it's not even the same fucking sport. 

The Newsweek article, which is the one I was talking about as being flawed information, did not use Tenet as a source.

People have got to be able to recognize bias, misinformation and propaganda.  Especially now that so much of the "media" is solely focused on making money and journalistic integrity is a quaint concept from the past.  Look at the headline:  "Missile Strike on Americans."  Really?  Was the missile strike intentionally aimed at Americans, like the headline would lead you to believe?  Or is it that there just happened to be Americans staying at the hotel that was hit?  (No Americans were injured or killed, by the way.)  Why would the Russians target Americans now?  Right after our president just publicly sucked off Putin?  Putin's going to do something to turn the American people against Trump at the moment he has us right where he wants us?  That doesn't make any fucking sense.

This kind of pedantry is insanely fucking stupid and ghoulish.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Clowns like you that want to prolong and drag out a proxy conflict between nuclear powers are worried, in rhetoric only of course, about policies and actions that increase the risk of nuclear war. What a world.  

Imagine thinking that a strategy that incentivizes numerous additional nation states becoming nuclear armed (if you don't have a nuclear deterrent right now, you should get one) is the one that's LESS likely to lead to nuclear conflict.

We've had proxy conflicts between nuclear powers.  Several of them....see the mid-20th century, including a complex and ongoing "Cold War" during that period.  Nuclear proliferation was relatively limited during that period (some additional nation states acquired nukes, but a whole bunch did not).  Hell, nuclear proliferation was REDUCED at the end of the Cold War by promising former Soviet Republics that their security and independence would be guaranteed if they gave up their nukes (Russia being one of the parties making that promise.....which it has broken the hell out of).

If you are interested in making nuclear conflict LESS likely, then a path that draws the line here and now, and shows nation states that they do not need to obtain their own nukes to become a porcupine too prickly to swallow is the smart path. Ana is 100% opposed to that path.  Indeed, he favors only one path: full capitulation to Russia (who has no fault or responsibility for anything that has happened, because the west was "asking for it" when......Ukraine actually resisted and fought back against a corrupt Russian puppet in Yanukovych -- you can't blame Russia for getting mad that it couldn't keep a completely controlled puppet government in place in a purportedly "independent" country!)  Full capitulation....to nuclear blackmail.  Yeah, that SURELY won't lead to other states worried about a similar fate getting nukes of their own (and why shouldn't they be worried -- our approach to Ukraine tells them "look, if you want to have a fighting chance, you best get some nukes of your own").

Nevermind the fact that this take -- which purports to be super-concerned about anything seen as anti-democratic or less than pure in Ukraine -- ignores the MASSIVE such failings and bullshit from Russia on the same front.  Imagine 1) complaining about a country not having a perfect democracy, 2) having some dangerous/cruel ideology in segments of its society, 3) being combative......and then concluding YEP, Russia is the good guy!  Log in your own eye, to cry about the speck in Ukraine's.  Nobody is lily-white on this earth.  But to relentlessly champion Putin's oligarchical autocratic kleptocracy....well, that certainly is a take.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

Oh look, another totally not terroristic attack on civilians.

UKRAINE, KHARKIV, Mar 7 — In the morning, Russia attacked the civilian infrastructure in Kyivskyi district of Kharkiv with a ballistic Iskander-M missile. According to the local Prosecutor’s Office, the strike injured eight people and damaged one three-story, two nine-story buildings, and 30 houses around the impact site. 

Gwara Media went there to document the consequences of the attack. 

https://gwaramedia.com/en/russian-iskander-m-strikes-residential-district-of-kharkiv-injures-8-people-photos/

img_2719-1.jpg

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Maybe I'm in the minority, but it's refreshing to see Ana finally admit what side he's on and take his beating straight up.  The both sides shit was so exhausting.  

He should be taking more of a beating for posting a picture of that abortion of a brisket.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Imagine thinking that a strategy that incentivizes numerous additional nation states becoming nuclear armed (if you don't have a nuclear deterrent right now, you should get one) is the one that's LESS likely to lead to nuclear conflict.

A foreign policy strategy that incentivizes nuclear proliferation? Jesus Christ, what do you think American military interventionism over the last 25 years has demonstrated quite clearly? We have been demonstrating to the world, and in particular the Arab world, that without nuclear deterrence you are subject to the whims of American interventionism and capricious regime change based on whichever way the winds (and the propaganda) blow at the moment in DC. Again, and more to the point in this particular situation, there were lots of people out there beating the drums about the dangers of our NATO policy after the fall of the USSR. They were fucking telling us that we were doing would be viewed as an existential threat, was going to spark and get out of control, was going to end up threatening our national security as well as Europe, and potentially bring us to the brink of nuclear war. And here we fucking are. Your answer is "mOaR oF tHe SamE PlEaSe".

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
41 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Maybe I'm in the minority, but it's refreshing to see Ana finally admit what side he's on and take his beating straight up.  The both sides shit was so exhausting.  

I am on the American side of finding a path to cease the death and destruction quickly, and stop dumping endless amount of US taxpayer dollars into conflicts all around the world that only undermine our national security interests in the long run.

  • Fuck You 2


×
×
  • Create New...