Go Back   Sonic Youth Gossip > Non-Sonics
Reload this Page Is Trump really a serious contender for the Republican nomination?
Register FAQ Members List Mark Forums Read

 
Thread Tools
Old 09.08.2017, 09:35 PM   #3101
Severian
invito al cielo
 
Severian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,334
Severian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
I have thought about it. Which overreach an I defending by calling it a response to another one? And to which other threats by Trump do you refer?

You're justifying the threatened action of Trump to repeal Daca by executive order based on the premise that Obama implemented it by executive order. You're justifying circumventing the legislative process by saying someone else did it. So your argument against against this kind of overreach, while justifying more overreach to fix it, is flawed to the point of not being much of an argument for anything. You can be against both or neither based on what you've said... unless you've turned the issue into an emotional one for some reason.
Severian is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.08.2017, 09:36 PM   #3102
Severian
invito al cielo
 
Severian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,334
Severian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
Instead of addressing my argument, you're dismissing it by means of an ad hominem attack falsely imputing odious racial opinions to me. I guess you concede the point.


Good thing you put ad hominem in italics and loosely defined it. Certainly none of us have ever taken an introductory college composition course.
Severian is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.08.2017, 10:39 PM   #3103
Robert Schunk
the end of the ugly
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 1,199
Robert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Severian
You're justifying the threatened action of Trump to repeal Daca by executive order based on the premise that Obama implemented it by executive order. You're justifying circumventing the legislative process by saying someone else did it. So your argument against against this kind of overreach, while justifying more overreach to fix it, is flawed to the point of not being much of an argument for anything. You can be against both or neither based on what you've said... unless you've turned the issue into an emotional one for some reason.

Rescinding an unconstitutional executive order by means of a new executive order does not, by itself, constitute executive overreach, as he has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. I would, however, argue that simple rescission of President Obama's order is the limit of President Trump's authority, and that his delayed implementation of the rescission prolongs the original overreach, and is, itself, unconstitutional for that reason.
Robert Schunk is online now   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.09.2017, 01:40 PM   #3104
Severian
invito al cielo
 
Severian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,334
Severian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
Rescinding an unconstitutional executive order by means of a new executive order does not, by itself, constitute executive overreach, as he has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. I would, however, argue that simple rescission of President Obama's order is the limit of President Trump's authority, and that his delayed implementation of the rescission prolongs the original overreach, and is, itself, unconstitutional for that reason.

Yeah, ok, but DACA wasn't truly unconstitutional. You know this. Of course there's an interpretation to all of this nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. Constitution and Congress have, always and willingly, given the Executive Office this kind of power. It's a matter of prioritization and the president has the constitutional authority to prioritize an issue by executive order if the legislature can't get its shit together. It's not truly circumventing the legislative process. It's indeed part of the legislative process. It can be undone or blocked by the Supreme Court, and that too is technically constitutional.

Just saying "Daca was unconstitutional, even Obama admitted it" (quoting shittily-written headlines here, not you) is missing the point and simplifying the issue for effect. Emotional effect, actually, which you seem to frown on. The word "unconstitutional" is a reliable gut-punch for the public, and it's wielded far too often.

I'm pretty sure you know this. You've quoted Article II plenty of times. You know both the executive order and the potential rescinding of it are technically constitutional with loads of precedent.
Severian is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.09.2017, 03:14 PM   #3105
!@#$%!
invito al cielo
 
!@#$%!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,202
!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
Instead of addressing my argument, you're dismissing it by means of an ad hominem attack falsely imputing odious racial opinions to me. I guess you concede the point.
your argument is caca

you're an obnoxious dissembler

i concede nothing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Severian
Yeah, ok, but DACA wasn't truly unconstitutional. You know this. Of course there's an interpretation to all of this nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. Constitution and Congress have, always and willingly, given the Executive Office this kind of power. It's a matter of prioritization and the president has the constitutional authority to prioritize an issue by executive order if the legislature can't get its shit together. It's not truly circumventing the legislative process. It's indeed part of the legislative process. It can be undone or blocked by the Supreme Court, and that too is technically constitutional.

Just saying "Daca was unconstitutional, even Obama admitted it" (quoting shittily-written headlines here, not you) is missing the point and simplifying the issue for effect. Emotional effect, actually, which you seem to frown on. The word "unconstitutional" is a reliable gut-punch for the public, and it's wielded far too often.

I'm pretty sure you know this. You've quoted Article II plenty of times. You know both the executive order and the potential rescinding of it are technically constitutional with loads of precedent.

 
!@#$%! is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.10.2017, 08:44 AM   #3106
Robert Schunk
the end of the ugly
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 1,199
Robert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Severian
Yeah, ok, but DACA wasn't truly unconstitutional. You know this. Of course there's an interpretation to all of this nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. Constitution and Congress have, always and willingly, given the Executive Office this kind of power. It's a matter of prioritization and the president has the constitutional authority to prioritize an issue by executive order if the legislature can't get its shit together. It's not truly circumventing the legislative process. It's indeed part of the legislative process. It can be undone or blocked by the Supreme Court, and that too is technically constitutional.

Just saying "Daca was unconstitutional, even Obama admitted it" (quoting shittily-written headlines here, not you) is missing the point and simplifying the issue for effect. Emotional effect, actually, which you seem to frown on. The word "unconstitutional" is a reliable gut-punch for the public, and it's wielded far too often.

I'm pretty sure you know this. You've quoted Article II plenty of times. You know both the executive order and the potential rescinding of it are technically constitutional with loads of precedent.

That analysis creates rather massive separation of powers problems, and I would argue that Congressional inaction in the face of Executive usurpation of Congressional powers does not create valid legal precedent; just as I agrued in my Korea thread, it creates a danger of an unconstitutional situation persisting to the point of it acquiring backhanded institutional status on its own, which I view as an intolerable situation. In Korea, as I pointed out, President Truman used UNSCRs 82 and 83 as his declaration of war in direct contravention, not only of the Constitution, but of Section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which constituted the last Congressional statement of fundamental policy which controlled (or should have controlled) that matter.

In any case, priority in enforcing against illegal immigrant labor should, as I've always advocated, be directed against the employers, as hitting the demand side would tend to take care of the supply side on its own. Further, illegal immigrant labor is only one of many means used by capital to undermine the wage value of American labor. alongside clearly excessive use of prison contract labor as well as abuse of the visa program for skilled workers and the offshoring of American industry.
Robert Schunk is online now   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.10.2017, 09:19 AM   #3107
Severian
invito al cielo
 
Severian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,334
Severian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
That analysis creates rather massive separation of powers problems, and I would argue that Congressional inaction in the face of Executive usurpation of Congressional powers does not create valid legal precedent; just as I agrued in my Korea thread, it creates a danger of an unconstitutional situation persisting to the point of it acquiring backhanded institutional status on its own, which I view as an intolerable situation. In Korea, as I pointed out, President Truman used UNSCRs 82 and 83 as his declaration of war in direct contravention, not only of the Constitution, but of Section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which constituted the last Congressional statement of fundamental policy which controlled (or should have controlled) that matter.

In any case, priority in enforcing against illegal immigrant labor should, as I've always advocated, be directed against the employers, as hitting the demand side would tend to take care if the supply side on its own. Further, illegal immigrant labor is only one of many means used by capital to undermine the wage value of American labor. alongside clearly excessive use of prison contract labor as well as abuse of the visa program for skilled workers and the offshoring of American industry.


Wow. Symbols is right. You are a dissembler.

I can't tell if you're deliberately obfuscating my point about the constitutionality of Daca, but you're factually wrong about it being unconstitutional. That's the deal. Period.
Severian is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.10.2017, 10:16 AM   #3108
Robert Schunk
the end of the ugly
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 1,199
Robert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Severian
Wow. Symbols is right. You are a dissembler.

I can't tell if you're deliberately obfuscating my point about the constitutionality of Daca, but you're factually wrong about it being unconstitutional. That's the deal. Period.

I'm neither obfuscating nor dissembling; I'm disagreeing with your point. I deny that either Section 2 or Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution grants the Executive any authority to exercise any of Congress' Article I Section 8 powers. I aver that any Congressional inaction in the face of such usurpation creates no valid legal precedent.

DACA is caca!
Robert Schunk is online now   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.10.2017, 10:29 AM   #3109
ilduclo
invito al cielo
 
ilduclo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,415
ilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's assesilduclo kicks all y'all's asses
"undermine the wage value of American labor"

talk to the 1%
ilduclo is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.10.2017, 05:51 PM   #3110
Severian
invito al cielo
 
Severian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,334
Severian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
I'm neither obfuscating nor dissembling; I'm disagreeing with your point. I deny that either Section 2 or Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution grants the Executive any authority to exercise any of Congress' Article I Section 8 powers. I aver that any Congressional inaction in the face of such usurpation creates no valid legal precedent.

DACA is caca!

Ok, so you don't like the constitution, or our interpretation of it is flawed. Not my prob. Take it up with a forefather.
Severian is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.10.2017, 06:54 PM   #3111
!@#$%!
invito al cielo
 
!@#$%!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,202
!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses
habitual drunkard skunk wouldn't be employable even if there were infinite positions to be filled, and as an immigrant and a traitor (he claims to be "german" and loyal to the british crown) he should be deported on that basis alone, instead of being a drain on the public coffers.

but you know how it is with the deplorables-- they'd rather blame someone else than admit and fix their own faults. hate "the guvmint" and "mexicans" but live off disability checks--paid for in part by mexicans. fucking bullshit and drunkard denial is what that is.

fuckem. lazy. racist fuck.

--

eta: no mercy from me for those unwilling to be merciful to young, hard-working, law-abiding young people who through no fault of their own got stuck in limbo in america. if law-breaking is inheritable, then let's try skunk for his great-grandmammy's crimes.
!@#$%! is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.10.2017, 09:25 PM   #3112
Robert Schunk
the end of the ugly
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 1,199
Robert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Severian
Ok, so you don't like the constitution, or our interpretation of it is flawed. Not my prob. Take it up with a forefather.

It's the interpretation which you state which I find flawed. The Constitution itself is, in my opinion, the greatest statement if public law in human history.
Robert Schunk is online now   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.10.2017, 09:37 PM   #3113
Robert Schunk
the end of the ugly
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 1,199
Robert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's assesRobert Schunk kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
habitual drunkard skunk wouldn't be employable even if there were infinite positions to be filled, and as an immigrant and a traitor (he claims to be "german" and loyal to the british crown) he should be deported on that basis alone, instead of being a drain on the public coffers.

but you know how it is with the deplorables-- they'd rather blame someone else than admit and fix their own faults. hate "the guvmint" and "mexicans" but live off disability checks--paid for in part by mexicans. fucking bullshit and drunkard denial is what that is.

fuckem. lazy. racist fuck.

--

eta: no mercy from me for those unwilling to be merciful to young, hard-working, law-abiding young people who through no fault of their own got stuck in limbo in america. if law-breaking is inheritable, then let's try skunk for his great-grandmammy's crimes.

Once again, you attack me personally instead of debating me on the merits of my argument (save for the legal limbo into which the DREAMers' parents, not I, knowingly brought them), but let's see:

1) Your assessment if me as an habitual drunk would be quite shocking to the people in my building, particularly the nighttime security guards who see me many times each night ever since smoking inside my building was banned: they have never seen me drunk;

2) Were I a racist. I would also have a difficult time living in my building, as it is predominantly minority;

3) As a socialist, I certainly am a statist, hardly opposed to "the gubmint" per se;

4) My unemployability, due to disability, is the reason I'm on disability. Rather tautological, isn't it?

5) Illegal immigrants do not pay into the Social Security system;

6) I am opposed to illegal immigration regardless of race, including Irish and Greek people who overstay their visas (a major problem);

7) What crimes did my great-grandmother commit?
Robert Schunk is online now   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.11.2017, 10:00 AM   #3114
!@#$%!
invito al cielo
 
!@#$%!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,202
!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
Once again, you attack me personally instead of debating me on the merits of my argument (save for the legal limbo into which the DREAMers' parents, not I, knowingly brought them), but let's see:

1) Your assessment if me as an habitual drunk would be quite shocking to the people in my building, particularly the nighttime security guards who see me many times each night ever since smoking inside my building was banned: they have never seen me drunk;

2) Were I a racist. I would also have a difficult time living in my building, as it is predominantly minority;

3) As a socialist, I certainly am a statist, hardly opposed to "the gubmint" per se;

4) My unemployability, due to disability, is the reason I'm on disability. Rather tautological, isn't it?

5) Illegal immigrants do not pay into the Social Security system;

6) I am opposed to illegal immigration regardless of race, including Irish and Greek people who overstay their visas (a major problem);

7) What crimes did my great-grandmother commit?

in a hurry, so quickly to say:

bullshit claims of socialism when you lack solidarity. all you want is more government checks: pure self-interest. a confused ayn randite parasite without a job is not a socialist.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-taxes/499604/ - say "thank you"

that old bootlegger who stole land from the indians? please! she was here illegally. now you go back to the land of your ancestors.

eat shit. and die.
!@#$%! is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.11.2017, 10:17 AM   #3115
h8kurdt
invito al cielo
 
h8kurdt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In Mulder's Basement room
Posts: 5,251
h8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's assesh8kurdt kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
in a hurry, so quickly to say:

bullshit claims of socialism when you lack solidarity. all you want is more government checks: pure self-interest. a confused ayn randite parasite without a job is not a socialist.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-taxes/499604/ - say "thank you"

that old bootlegger who stole land from the indians? please!

eat shit. and die.


Saying stuff like that just negates any argument you may have. You're better than that; don't stoop to that level.
__________________


Down with this sort of thing.
h8kurdt is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.11.2017, 10:41 AM   #3116
!@#$%!
invito al cielo
 
!@#$%!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,202
!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by h8kurdt
Saying stuff like that just negates any argument you may have. You're better than that; don't stoop to that level.
i know what you mean, and thanks for saying that, but i've lost patience arguing with this sort of weasel.

it's pointless to argue with those who feign reason in bad faith. i called him an obnoxious dissembler and i meant it.

like this shit about "illegals don't pay social security"

utter bollocks and drunken lies--the working undocumented are supporting his entitled jobless existence

but instead of saying thank you he wants to punish a bunch of blameless kids, while claiming "socialism"

i've no time for dialogue with the insincere

and to fulfill godwin's law: how long would you spend "convincing" goebbels?

(godwin btw says it's ok to call nazis nazis)

thanks again friend. i know what you mean. seriously. but it doesn't apply here. or to that shitbird tesla.

there's a time to have a conversation and there's a time to strike back at the vaseline that attempts to slide in the nazi cock. i've had it with the toxic liars.

fuck and destroy "national socialists" and their bullshit "logic".
!@#$%! is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.11.2017, 02:44 PM   #3117
greenlight
invito al cielo
 
greenlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,109
greenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's assesgreenlight kicks all y'all's asses
as someone said recent Kid Rock speech resembles scene from Idiocracy
__________________







greenlight is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.11.2017, 03:16 PM   #3118
evollove
invito al cielo
 
evollove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,036
evollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's assesevollove kicks all y'all's asses
Holy shit.

Went to youtube. Looked for vid. Found it, but couldn't stand the applauding comments. "A little less bad language would be nice" was most scathing criticism.

So I go to another channel. Same thing. Another. Another. Another.

They love him.

Jesus fuck he could win.
evollove is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.11.2017, 03:34 PM   #3119
!@#$%!
invito al cielo
 
!@#$%!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,202
!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by evollove
Holy shit.

Went to youtube. Looked for vid. Found it, but couldn't stand the applauding comments. "A little less bad language would be nice" was most scathing criticism.

So I go to another channel. Same thing. Another. Another. Another.

They love him.

Jesus fuck he could win.

there was a washington post article today about st augustine's "city of god" in light of/remembrance of 9/11-- the writer happened to teach that text that day as the towers crumbled.

one of the points that augustine makes (i'll confess, i've never been much interested in reading him until now) is how civilizations can suddenly collapse. he wrote it seems in the aftermath of the fall of rome, and claimed that those who pursued the mastery of others were doomed to fail in the end.

while some may dispute this and argue that rome actually just changed hands rather than fall, it seems to have been perceived as a sudden collapse of power by augustine and his contemporaries.

i don't know if this is the end of anything at all, but i know that ends can come quicker than anyone expects. so i guess the lesson is to always expect them quickly, and be ready for what may come.

with this im not endorsing alpacalypse scenarios by the way. but history clearly hasn't "ended" as fools claimed at the end of the last century. the shit will keep hitting the fan one way or another, always.
!@#$%! is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
Old 09.11.2017, 04:29 PM   #3120
tw2113
expwy. to yr skull
 
tw2113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,793
tw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's assestw2113 kicks all y'all's asses
From my quite 5 minute googling, it looks like it's mostly older generations that voted Trump. The Kid Rock stuff above brought it to mind. It's something that can't be completely blamed on Millennials. Would be interesting how many senior citizens would get behind Kid Rock, who they probably don't know at all.
__________________
Shake shake
tw2113 is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|
56
106146153154155 156 157158159166206256 > »
-->

Thread Tools

All content 2006 Sonic Youth