8
APDSmith 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yeah, one of the things that rarely gets mentioned about Kent State was that the National Guard troopers were jumpy as fuck because those protesters were trying to burn their barracks down, and hadn't shown a great deal of concern about anybody who might be in the barracks at the time!

9
APDSmith 9 points ago +9 / -0

Yes, but they do this particular bit of hypocrisy so often they have they own mantra for it:

"It's not politics, it's human rights!"

(And yet, strangely, those rights advocates never even breathe a word in favour of the 2nd...)

3
APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

... I'm surprised Patagonia's lawyers signed off on that.

Could that not easily be construed as Patagonia financing criminal action, at least to the extent for private parties to haul Patagonia into court and sue them for damages inflicted by their employees?

34
APDSmith 34 points ago +34 / -0

I guess they're assuming they can bring a lot of people.

Do you think they've worked out how a local police department would react to a massive angry mob of out-of-towners intent on arson and murder?

24
APDSmith 24 points ago +24 / -0

BLM types need cover from local law enforcement to be able to loot, rape and murder peacefully.

5
APDSmith 5 points ago +5 / -0

. Coney Barrett is a woman, retard.

For people like this, "Woman" is a political party - one that Coney Barrett is not welcome in.

Honestly, I would have expected you to have more sympathy for that viewpoint, given how close it is to your own, Imp...

5
APDSmith 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'm speaking in a monolith

This is your wife, this is your sister, this is your friend, this is your girlfriend, this is the mother of your children

Funny, isn't it, that all of these people who appoint themselves to right to speak for all women everywhere always find that all women everywhere always seem to want to do what they find politically expedient.

Were women actually a monolith the US Supreme Court would not have needed to act as an additional part of Congress and start legislating from the bench, because the matter would have been settled at state level for some time already.

4
APDSmith 4 points ago +4 / -0

Doesn't account for when you have to adjust rates to handle different economic cycles.

Who has to adjust which rates?

If we're talking interest rates, that would be something each bank would have to assess for themselves, taking into account that bank's circumstances. Not sure what other rates you'd be talking about...

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

Inferring dual loyalties would imply that they have any loyalty to their conquest at all.

7
APDSmith 7 points ago +7 / -0

You guys have only had a Federal Reserve since 1913.

Before that you had individual banks exposing themselves and collapsing - since then, the Fed has worked to broaden the risk so that when one goes, everybody goes.

I'm not sure that's a better system, personally.

It appears to be the antithesis of making the component parts of your financial system small enough that the failure of any individual one can be tolerated. Since 1913, the US seems to have been diligently working towards a system where the taxpayer - being the only entity in this entire diagram that's allowed to be landed with the bill - is regularly shafted as ever-more parts of the system become "too big to fail"

3
APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

They're the ones yelling "smash the patriarchy!" as they disembowel those filthy white men of Gondor.

4
APDSmith 4 points ago +4 / -0

One thing that does unfortunately ring true is that nobody's talking about DHS even inconveniencing the mostly-peaceful firebombers.

4
APDSmith 4 points ago +4 / -0

Like as not, Biden will say it, if it comes to that.

Because the JCS would have told him to.

10
APDSmith 10 points ago +10 / -0

Apparently, there's an important principle in the military:

Never give an order that you know will not be followed.

11
APDSmith 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yeah, this is something I've noticed myself.

British elites - and American, too, for that matter - seem to view the countries they are meant to benefit as some kind of hostile conquest that they are present in merely to strip the resources from before they can evacuate.

7
APDSmith 7 points ago +9 / -2

Respectfully disagree. I have some small hope of fixing the shitshow in the UK, whereas the EU is designed to be insulated from mere public opinion.

25
APDSmith 25 points ago +25 / -0

The female competitors haven't raised their voices at all

Well, no, after the examples that have been made of those few that have, are you surprised?

2
APDSmith 2 points ago +3 / -1

Me, I'm intrigued as to who's giving this chap upvotes. It's only going to encourage them!

2
APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

But the passport and the birth of place cannot be changed

Well, we only got to the third sentence before we got to our first factual error.

Want to change your passport? Emigrate to a different country. People do it all the time.

The rest of it is just defining a new untermensch class based off wealth, by the looks of it. Not interesting.

6
APDSmith 6 points ago +6 / -0

No mean tweets!

Either that or the poor fool actually believes everything he was asked to believe, feels that his vote was the only thing standing in the way of an eternal Trump dictatorship.

2
APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fair enough, but that's not official and when it comes out into the light it tends to get defeated.

Now imagine if that wasn't even an option.

6
APDSmith 6 points ago +6 / -0

That's what it's about — making amends.

So the Biden administration's policy is that you are all sinners and must be made to pay?

I mean, OK, but I'm fairly surely "crazed serial killer" talking points is not a great way to get elected...

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›