Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - superlurker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
Music, Movies, Tv and Books / Re: Aquaman trilogy
« on: January 10, 2019, 11:06:29 AM »
He was so comical angry at Aquaman when everything that went wrong was straight up his and his dad's fault. I never felt less sympathy for a character since everyone in Rent.

But isn't that basically Black Manta's entire character? In the comics, he just sort of showed up and started hating for no good reason; it was only after a few decades that they decided to give him some sort of origin. Him being a completely irredeemable douchebag that just really, really hates Aquaman without a good or remotely sympathetic reason to do so is part of his charm. A villain that's just unreasonably hateful and spiteful without reason and redeeming qualities is a nice change of pace from most.


Music, Movies, Tv and Books / Re: Aquaman (spoilers)
« on: January 09, 2019, 03:08:17 AM »
I thought it was enjoyable, though forgettable.

The thing with being the ruling class because of genetic superiority wasn't necessarily the best choice, though.

ICT / Re: Panthergod vs Afrika...
« on: November 11, 2018, 11:26:34 PM »
Only now seeing this desperate, childlike plea for attention, and  I love the effeminate impotent cuck fury on display here. Please, continue. Display your true natures as I have correctly noted for years.

dude your still a virgin arent you?

He likes turning girls into lesbians.

Debate / Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« on: October 10, 2018, 11:54:53 AM »
I've always found the term "liberal media" to be extremely vacuous. It's pushed either by various forms of fairly extreme ideologues who push the Overton window in their direction by branding everything less extreme than themselves as some opposite extreme, or even worse, by figures that push politics of ignorance by branding anything that doesn't fit their false worldview as a form of political opposition. There are genuinely liberal media, but those aren't necessarily the mainstream ones.

Debate / Re: Will Trump go down as the worst president ever?
« on: September 30, 2018, 12:28:00 PM »
(An aside: Rufio, what was your first forum name. It's been so long.)

He was Jimmy-San.

Debate / Re: Lindsey Graham...
« on: September 29, 2018, 04:58:38 PM »
I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

To me, that event has multiple elements to it. If it happened, he was inebriated, and people have occasionally been known to do things they wouldn't otherwise while drunk. Of course, it may also be that the actions he took points to personality traits he's otherwise keeping in check. However, he was also 17 years old.

A 17-year old male brain still isn't fully developed, especially when it comes to some of the traits pertaining to doing stupid shit and taking dumb risks. In that regard, the brain isn't fully developed until much later, around 25 years of age. Meanwhile, the legal system has chosen some arbitrary cutoff points (like 18 years of age for some things, or 21 years of age for other things). What I'm getting at is that there should be some rethinking about how criminal justice in particular applies to young people. There is something to the "boys will be boys" line that some Republicans have trotted out, but I don't see them lining up to take that reasoning to its next logical step.

When it comes to anyone that does not belong to Kavanaugh's particular and privileged group, of course, there are no boys -- only criminal adults that are completely rational in their decision-making and ability to assess consequences, and hence responsible for their actions once some specific age is reached.

Kavanaugh today is likely a very different person than he was then. If he hasn't exhibited any similar behavior since (of which some are accusing him, but many of those accusations seem opportunistic), I don't think that should weigh decisively against him, if his judgement today is otherwise sound. He's not been nominated to be a saint. However, at this point, the picture as a whole makes him a very weak candidate overall.

The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

It doesn't even take outside influence. People make up their own false memories anyway. In this case, that swings both ways -- some of the yearbook references and some prior references from other sources seems to paint a very different picture of Kavanaugh than he did himself. Ford seems sincere, but as you note, her story has apparently changed over time, though it could also be true that the therapist's note-taking was sub-standard.

And I agree that the investigation is likely to lead to little being changed. It would have to take some pretty heavy evidence to sway the other side that one side or the other is correct, and that's just not likely to be found here. Even if all the witnesses suddenly swing heavily one way, that can be waved off as a conspiracy to pressure them somehow. I would even consider as possible a scenario where Kavanaugh is confirmed, only to later be impeached by a Democratic Congress once they find some appropriate nail to drive in.

Debate / Re: Lindsey Graham...
« on: September 28, 2018, 09:04:13 PM »
Looking at the overall context and circumstances, Graham's eruption definitely isn't unreasonable. But there's so many other things that are not as they should be about this case I find it hard to sympathize much, even if the character assassination here is probably the lowest blow in the process. Graham wasn't making public outbursts about the way document releases related to Kavanaugh's previous jobs were handled, nor was he making any fuss about how rushed the whole thing is.

I find it hard to know whether to believe Kavanaugh or Ford. The other accusers seem like opportunists, though. And even if what Ford claims happened, I'm not necessarily sure whether it would count as disqualifying him. That would only be if he's lying about it (as opposed to not remembering). Regardless, the whole story will permanently stain his reputation and diminish his stature.

Worse is that he made some nakedly partisan attacks and statements which basically shit all over his own prior ritualistic pretense at impartiality. The way he defended himself and attacked the Democrats will undermine his position in the long run if he does get on the Supreme Court. Any politically fraught decision he's involved in will lack legitimacy for it. People will drag those quotes out every time. And that weakens the whole court, not just an individual Justice.

Debate / Re: Will Trump go down as the worst president ever?
« on: September 25, 2018, 06:35:04 PM »
Also getting on stage and talking about how great you are isn't going to resolve any world problems.

On the contrary, it helps unite the world in a good, hearty laughter. Everyone came together in a beautiful, global moment.

General Chat / Re: Houston opens Robot brothel
« on: September 25, 2018, 03:58:59 PM »
Guys, the pussies are modular. They can be swapped out or upgraded for a personalized user experience.

You seem to know a lot about mechanical hookers. Or is that your friend?

Debate / Re: The Deficit should we care
« on: September 22, 2018, 10:02:24 PM »
I'd like some clarification on that argument.

The Treaty of Versailles took down Germany. People RIGHTFULLY shit on Hitler, but we can't ignore what made him popular. His resentment of the Treaty of Versailles, blaming the foreign powers for imposing the Treaty on them, is what got him support. When your dollar is worth nothing (which is what happened to Germany), it impacted the poor the most. The cost of milk may not matter to someone whose rich, but someone who is living paycheck to paycheck (or worse, unemployed) feels that pain. Printing money to pay back debt does just that.

You can cite past countries with debt but its hard to point a country that even comes close to the amount of debt the US has. 21 trillion is a hard number for any country despite how entwined America is in the global economy. I believe its largely a saving grace that America's issues would have catastrophic impact on the rest of the world but that doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels. There's some economists that will argue increasing the debt when the economy is down is a way to stimulate the economy. Let's say that's true, does that mean we do it indefinitely? Since W, there have been waves of the economy being good and did we cut the debt at all since? We didn't when the economy was temporarily good under, we didn't when the economy was temporarily good under Obama, and we aren't doing it now when certain numbers in the economy are high. It's impractical and immoral to indebt future generations for short-term stimulus. We are getting drunk on spending.

The Treaty of Versailles specified that the debt had to be paid in a value tied to gold. That's different than having a debt that's specified in a floating currency. It meant the Germans had to buy stable foreign currency or gold to pay their debt. The U.S. debt can be paid in dollars. If the German post WW1 debt had functioned the same way, they would have just printed a stack of Marks and been on their merry way.

Debate / Re: Will Ted Cruz lose to Beto O'Rourke?
« on: September 20, 2018, 03:56:29 PM »
Ted Cruz is more likely to win. O'Rourke has a realistic chance of winning, though. I don't have a strong gut feeling about the race, though O'Rourke seems more energetic and focused. Cruz so far seems like he's sort of been on cruise control and then gone towards panic mode.


If Cruz loses, no one would miss him. As Lindsey Graham put it:
“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

I'd like to see Lyin' Ted turned into Cryin' Ted, crawling around on all fours desperately trying to avoid getting thrown out of the Senate WWE-style. His face would really sell it.

Debate / Re: Will Trump go down as the worst president ever?
« on: September 13, 2018, 05:48:17 PM »

Just don't look at the debt, deficit, inflation, average wages over time, the failing wars, the failing mass surveillance, or the endless corruption and investigations.

Controversial opinion time: The tax cuts are a good idea ONLY in conjunction with cutting spending. Otherwise, tax cuts are stupid. Example, imagine a household making 100,000 a year. They open a credit card and spend 300,000 a year. They APPEAR to be doing well, but are they? In reality, they are screwing their future for the short-term.

Well, Trump is on it! He declared that federal wages would be frozen and changed to be performance-based, arguing that it would be necessary to do so to balance the budget.


Debate / Re: Lindsey Graham...
« on: September 09, 2018, 04:31:51 PM »
By that logic, wouldn't the Steele dossier, researched by a brit with sources from russian intelligence also be russian collusion?

Steele wasn't running for any elected post anywhere, and he wasn't using that info to that effect. He had been retained to find dirt on Trump at one point, which he clearly did.

By contrast, the Trump campaign was sought out by agents of the Russian government that sought to influence the election, and at minimum agreed to meet them in secret to see what they could offer.

One is normal research by an apparently competent researcher. The other is secretly receiving aid from a foreign government to influence the election. If all that took place was the meeting that's been known (and that Trump has been trying to mislead investigators about) it's not exactly a grand conspiracy, but it's still a form of collusion.

In the best case scenario for Trump, that meeting may just have been a case of them gleefully thinking they'd do politics just the way it's done on TV, like some kind of Donald Underwood. In a worse case, there may be other elements to it, like the question of Trump's financial ties to Russia, or even what's up with the  Trump Tower server business.

I feel like this thread is judging him awfully hard. I can't really think of any Republican senators that I think wouldn't be a better casualty.

Even though he was clearly in the wrong on some issues, he always seemed refreshingly honest as politicians go, and he clearly had a strong sense of honor and duty.

I prefer to remember him for moments like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk I strongly preferred his campaign of 2000 to the one in 2008, though. The 2008 campaign seemed like he was being forced to pander to an increasingly loony Republican base.

The one thing that stood out the most to me in all of this was seeing his 106-year old mother attend when he was lying in state, though. And how his sons looked like parts of their faces were cloned.

Debate / Re: Don't "Monkey It Up" says Trumpanzee candidate in Florida
« on: September 05, 2018, 11:44:26 AM »
To "monkey it up" is definitely a term I've heard before.

But putting it in this context is indicative of either mindless stupidity or a brand of rather unsubtle dog-whistling. Considering the political climate, the latter seems likely. Because it's an existing expression, there's plausible deniability, but it would still attract accusations, which would also help energize a certain anti-PC crowd of voters. He likely wasn't going to score with the voters who care anyway, but creating a controversy like this will help with mobilization of the deplorable ones that don't appreciate being told what they can't say about simians.

So it's either stupid or evil.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37