roflcopter
https://i.imgur.com/yEsEjn3.jpg
Printable View
roflcopter
https://i.imgur.com/yEsEjn3.jpg
Sadly I have confirmed that FBIanon is not telling the truth. Confirmation came via my impeccable Werewolf skills.
The law's not stopping you from doing it. It's just making you afraid to. All the materials you need are legal to buy, and there's a market out there. Now THRIVE!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Or, accept that maybe the world isn't gonna serve up your #1 dream exactly the way you want it and find a fall back.
I think Ong should join the army.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://www.vox.com/2017/2/14/1461731...ansparency-oil
Draining the swamp.
Holy Shit!! Need any more proof the democratic party is going down the toilet?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/...WL1?li=BBnb7Kz
Look at the state of the GOPQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/16/po...ent-elections/
Not seeing your point. If Trump can get elected President, and Kid Rock is a viable candidate for Senate, what does that say about their opposition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Seriously though, the absolute state of itQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLIT...ates.announce/
Dude....how can you knock Arnold? Four decades...nothin but net!Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIwEG9xQ-M
Think democrats will get the message?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...WFz?li=BBnbcA1
Unnamed Democrat would get beaten as badly. Once the name comes and the attacks come, everything changes. Clinton was ahead of the field by like 35 points at this time in the cycle. Political pundits (you know, those guys who don't understand politics) thought she was unbeatable because of that.
Honestly I'm not sure if the Democrats could do better than Warren right now. They would have to abandon their identity politics and their leftism. That ain't gonna happen; those have always been the purpose of the party.
Almost feels like a catch 22. Hillary tried for such broad-appeal that she ended up having no message. That hurt her. Warren has a message, and she still loses.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Perhaps Clinton didn't have a coherent explicit message. The implicit one was very coherent: if you're a white working Christian male with a family, fuck you. If you're a woman or outside of the mainstream in any way, you're a victim and I'm here to save you.
Warren may even lose 2018. The GOP party leadership is actively making her the face of the 2018 democrats. I wonder if Curt Schilling can beat her. Probably not, but you never know. Her being the face of Dems 2018 will go a long way to getting lots of red wins in other states though.
I will bet everything I have on Warren if Schilling is her opponent.
If he didn't border-jump, I'd say Scott Brown could beat her in a rematch
Why are you bearish on Schilling?
The only thing I know is that he's a baseball hero and says some stuff that people call him a prick for. Just the kind of thing that Massholes love. He'd get like 20% of the vote on baseball alone. Another 10% by being an asshole. I could be completely off on him since I know little. Enlighten me.
About Scott Brown, honestly I think he might be too boring or middle of the road. He does things like say "she didn't tell the truth about heritage" and nobody cares. But if instead her opponent calls her Pocahontas every day then voters would say "I don't like how she didn't tell the truth about her heritage."
Plus she's got the "goofy" branding, which is probably A-.
Granted it's only anecdotal evidence, but I listen a fair bit to new england sports talk radio, and no one seems to have anything good to say about Mr. Schilling. The consensus seems to be that people find him insufferable.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Massholes love guys like that cause they like to hate on people. Like, Massholes would love it if Roger Goodell ran for Senate in the Bay State. That doesn't mean they'd vote for the guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I've heard that of late sports newscasting has become highly virtue signally.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Among other elites, Trump has probably always been the single most hated elite. We saw how that turned out. Elites live in a bubble that doesn't include average people.
If sports elites don't like Schilling, honestly I think that could be a sign of strength because it could possibly signal that Schilling is liked by average people.
I think it'll be funny to see people who haven't even begun to understand what went on and will just start forcing through mental picks in various positions because they think that's what it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That being said of the cool as fuck people I could actually back running for a political role
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kane_(...#Personal_life
Unfortunately he'd come across more as a boring insurance person than the big red machine.
Maybe. I just know I don't hear a lot of people getting pumped for Schilling. Most commentary I hear is along the lines of "fat joke".Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't think it's comparable to Trump's situation. Trump has decades of business success to run on. Schilling's business ventures went down the tubes. Even his baseball career was 'meh'.
http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/mlb...tml/?a=viewall
Quote:
Curt Schilling has been called a lot of things during and after his career in baseball, but popular was never one of them.
Hulk Hogan would make a cool president imo. "What'dya gonna dooo when America invades youuu!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Never happen. He'd say "brother" too many times and alienate both women and black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4tfzcIXUAEW9by.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Trump v McMahon Wrestlemania 2018.
Also fucking lol at how similar her hand placement is on that kids chest compared to the whole Pizza related photo posted.
(I assume the photo is a joke of some kind I don't get really get so just ignore it)
She's obviously copping a feel of the girl's future breast. Fucking pizza eater.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Trump was definitely "a joke" before he announced. Even after, long after. Still a joke after he won. Still a joke after the Dow demonstrated that he is better for the safety and prosperity of the world than Obama was and Clinton would have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I thought Schilling was considered a Red Sox hero. ??
I can't speak for every red sox fan out there, and I'm certainly the least qualified person to comment on baseball. But, it seems to me, that no one around here gives a flying frisbee about Curt Schilling. The bloody sock game was dramatic, sure, but he also got shelled in Game 1 of that series. In fact, he wasn't even the biggest hero of that series, Johnny Damon's grand slam seems to be what people remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But then they remember that Johnny shaved his beard and moved to the Bronx. So.....fuck him.
Schilling is probably on the low B-list or high C-list when it comes to Boston sports heroes. This is what happens when a city gets tired of winning.
Luls at the Dow demonstrating anything other than Wall Street ejaculating over the upcoming tax breaks and deregulation, such as the one I linked earlier on this page.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yep. And, what you just said, shows that the Dow believes Trump is better for safety and prosperity than Obama was and Clinton would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The Dow is by leaps and bounds the best single source of information about the world. The next best source isn't even close, and it would be a different stock exchange anyways.
I agree, with a minor éclaircissement. Amend "better for safety and prosperity" with "of our corporate overlords, but cares fuck-all about anyone else's", and we're quite accurate. If anything, Trump seems to be bullish regarding war, conflict and pissing everybody on the globe off, apart from those willing to do lucrative business deals with him and/or stay at his hotels.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think it's absolutely clear that Dow is excited about the upcoming dismissal of pesky regulation such as Dodd-Frank, oil company transparency, EPA, FDA etc. What's good for the small number of megacorporations and their shareholders that mainly influence the Dow, has very little bearing on what's good for the consumer.
Do that with FTR wuf, I dare ya.
The price level changes represent information impacts in virtually the entire economy. There is no better single source of determining expectations for that which is good for consumers than behavior of stock prices on the Dow.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
If Trump was bullish on war, stock prices would fall (by a lot). Stock prices give us all sorts of empirical information regarding claims.
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
FTR is its own "area of human activity".Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Neat idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Even though analogy is not persuasive, to somebody who is already open to being persuaded, by analogy "doing it for FTR" would be very enlightening at how ridiculous the logic identified as SJW is when applied to broader society.
This is because "doing it for FTR" would include things like "those better at debate are oppressing those worse at it" and "those better at debate should be hated." Both claims are clearly stupid. Understanding that they're stupid opens the door to understanding why something like a demographic that makes more money than another is not oppressing the other.
Changes in the DOW reflect investor confidence. If the DOW goes up, there is less uncertainty, hence more confidence in taking risks, hence higher stock prices. That's good for everybody. Those 'megacorporations' have to sell things. If there is confidence in their ability to sell, then we must also have confidence in consumer's ability to buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The confidence fuels new investment, and deters sell-offs. That means more capital. Which means more investment, more innovation, and more jobs.
The DJIA tracks 30, yes 30 stocks, and even those are weighed to give higher priced stocks more influence. It has very little correlation with the stock market, let alone the economy as a whole.
Your argument seems to be that the latest surge is due to investors believing Trump will have a stabilizing effect, lack of uncertainty so to speak. Exactly how everyone would describe the Trump administration, right? I on the other hand believe that Trump's aggressive deregulations will heavily favor the 30 stocks and their shareholders, causing their price to hike. I guess we'll never know.
Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo stocks have gone up ~25% since the election. So obviously they're feeling very comfortable with Trump in charge.
Can someone explain how that helps the average person?
They have very broad holdings, and what their holdings represent go far beyond what they are explicitly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If there's an activity (like a deregulation) in the housing market and then a bank with a large proportion of its assets in housing sees a stock rally, this means that investors view the housing market as a whole as increasing in respective value. The cynic may look at that and just think that it benefits the bank because the rally is in that bank's stock, but what's really going on is the rally in the bank's stock is coming from the value increase in the market itself, which is made up of homeowners themselves, whose home values are expected to rally. This means that that activity that initially sparked the rally benefits the individual homeowner.
Furthermore, it means that particular activity benefits every sector of the economy since benefiting homeowners on average means their demand for other products services will increase.
Those 30 are good enough to show the effect I described above. Those 30 companies are selected specifically to best represent the economy as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
You're right. Pretty much the only people who disagree with that are economists, who tend to criticize the DJIA heavily and favor S&P500 or Wilshire5000.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I have no idea why you would think that. 3 out of 4 stocks move with the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Great, that means favorable results for 75% of the market as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
They're the firms responsible for financing economic growth. They're the ones loaning out the money to support new businesses, expansions, and research. For their stock to go up that much, it means the market is expecting one or both of the followingQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
1) Profits - which is tied to the volume of loans and investments these companies make. If more money is going out the door....it's gotta be going somewhere. Jobs!
2) Cash Flows - which is tied to the collection of principal and interest on those loans and investments. In other words, people paying their bills. If people are paying their bills....then business is good.
My understanding is that no actual economist claims that DJIA should be used to represent the market. Also, 63% != 2/3 but 75% = accurate?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The stock market can surely affect the economy and it does follow it, but I wouldn't start claiming that it represents its health.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Wow, you guys here are gonna be dick-holes over this forever huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
If you want to change the constitution, it's not ok to equate 63% and 2/3. The difference matters.
And 75% out of a population of thousands and thousands of stocks is most definitely a meaningful trend.
We, whoever that is, never forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Great. So when the bill to eliminate the electoral college fails in the senate by a vote of 63-37.....remember who called itQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
They do. It isn't a complete representation, but economists do believe that a change in information about the economy will result in a change in the Dow. Not all of them talk about this*, but some do talk about it and it is the theory taught in intro money/banking economics classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
*Due to political biases, many don't like the theory.
Both of which have paced the Dow.Quote:
You're right. Pretty much the only people who disagree with that are economists, who tend to criticize the DJIA heavily and favor S&P500 or Wilshire5000.
Where I was wrong is in saying that the Dow is better than other exchanges. As you pointed out, these other exchanges also show the economy has great preference for Trump.
This is kind of a silly argument. The Dow is meaningful.
Most news outlets will give updates on the Dow 20 or more times a day. Every newspaper in the country puts the previous day's results on their front page. If there is any significant movement at all, it's a story.
They do all this for a reason. People care. And not just people who own stock in those 30 companies.
Can't Robb Stark the Based Sheriff Clarke!
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/st...64638408028160
Unless it's about his flimsy ass guns. Homeboy needs to hit the gym.
http://i.imgur.com/BCwRifd.jpg
WTF could possibly explain UK growth forecasts tripling since Brexit predictions?!?!?.
A theory (from the smartest people): the hand-hold heard 'round the world.
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com...=all&strip=all
Bonus: one of them looks like a totem pole and the other a hamster.
Brexit hasn't actually happened and everything that has happened as a result of it has been stopping them doing stupid shit which no doubt strengthens things.
Also George Osbourne has been replaced by someone much more competent.
I'd say May is better than Cameron too but unfortunately her awful views on things such as government surveillance and backwards ideas about technology are pretty damning. Actually thinking about it she's fucking awful.
You're basically right but that is not a worthy shitpost.
Nonshitpost: the change in forecast and Brexit are unrelated.
Sorry I get confused because all you do is shitpost.
If only.
Here's one for you right wing people.
Why do so many people (men and women) hate female comedians and female comedic actors?
Because they're not funny.
Next.
So you are right wing?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
1-0
Fuller story:
South Park got it right. Hollywood and media elites push the narrative that women are funny even when they're not. The narrative is so internalized that unfunny women are called funny; thus crowding out actual funny women. Steven Crowder lampoons this with his parody video of laughing hysterically at Amy Schumer mentioning her vagina every ten seconds. Some women are very funny, but women in Hollywood that are promoted as funny are typically not those women.
Lisa Lamponelli always made me laugh. I remember watching Sarah Silverman's show when I was a youngster, wondering why such an unfunny show was on something called Comedy Central. That was back before I had any opinion about anything political. Somehow Silverman's entirely unfunny ass got famous and comedy magicians like Dave Chappelle went crazy in the jungle.
A+ move. Serious smarts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
FWIW though yes I consider myself right-wing. I consider libertarianism and the Enlightenment and all that good stuff with its roots in the Hellenistic Greeks right-wing. Left-wing is that shit that grew outside of Hellenistic Europe: Marxism and its progeny of fascism and communism and your garden variety socialism and welfarism. Your basic collectivism and statism.
Irony of today: some areas that were never Hellenized (the Visegrad Group) are more freedom-loving than those that were (France).
Maybe it's because all the Huguenots evacuated from France, leaving only the cockgobblers of statism.
So you're saying that because unfunny women were pushed (why was this?) actually funny women were in some way stopped? Also I'd like to point out that the 80s/90s were a great time for funny women on tv.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sarah Silverman is actually much hotter than any of those earlier people I can think of and as a result this can only have been a mechanism by worried men in power. Pushing hot girls who weren't particularly funny and blaming them getting famous on being hot.
I bought into the political compass stuff around the time I was introduced into it which was probably 2009 at the latest. I think that does a good basic job of defining things on a political level when talking about them. My views these days are probably considered quite right wing on that scale whilst very libertarian (when I was younger I used to get left and libertarian).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yep. Fran Drescher4lyfe!Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Fantastic point. Because that's totally true. Hotness was a problem among women comics. Or at least my brand new hairy testicles thought so.Quote:
Sarah Silverman is actually much hotter than any of those earlier people I can think of and as a result this can only have been a mechanism by worried men in power. Pushing hot girls who weren't particularly funny and blaming them getting famous on being hot.
I would say that Silverman was pushed due to hotness instead of some SJW narrative. The SJW came much later. Gamergate later.
Honestly I have no idea if Fran Drescher was funny. But goddamn was she hot. And annoying. She made annoying hot. And funny, because when a chick is hot she's funny. We already had this lesson.
You must be joking somewhat, men are in power of deciding what's on tv. Women get a push based on them being funny coming through* and then hotter women get more chances than ugly ones. I wonder why that was????
*This isn't actually true just my narative is thinking of those same women at todays age rather than the age they were at. Given they were less hot.
Which I should point out isn't that different to men in any sense. Funny does shine through but being hot makes it so much easier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PUu6M8ThhM
Larry Wilmore going full tilt on Milo
Hahaha Christina Applegate was such a hottie back thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
There is another thing, referencing Chris Hitchens, that women just aren't as funny as men. It's probably true. Probably to a big degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
But that still doesn't explain why the women that are considered funny are not. There are still funny women even if fewer of them are funny compared to men.
If I'm being completely honest about it, I would say that It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is showing us the true nature of things. Dee is funny, but she is one among five. That's probably representative. Also, note that the comedy use with her is just different. It almost has to be more sophisticated than with the men. Dudes, frankly, don't like funny chicks that much. It's like having bigger biceps. No man wants a chick who can pick him up and throw him on the bed like a side of beef. Likewise few dudes want a chick who cracks jokes faster than he does.
Funnily enough Married with Children was an early comedy I used to watch. I can't remember fancying women in a tv show until charmed though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Yeah I think that's correct. Silverman and others are certainly funnier than non-funny women, but you are right that sex sells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
The joke with dee though is she's always the butt of the jokes whilst none of the jokes really apply to her. The whole thing is a parody on women not being funny and those that are must not be hot.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The whole men develop being funny to pick up hotter girls I can somewhat buy into but I don't think I've ever met a guy who doesn't like funny girls & the exact same applies for women. Maybe being a loud and confident girl is off putting to men generally but being funny isn't.
On Sunny, yeah I wouldn't have made that point except for the latest episode focused on Dee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
For a few seasons I think they've been playing with Dee, reluctant to jump into centralizing her as a comedic figure. But they did so in the latest episode and the patience paid off.
True. e.g. andreaespadatv is hot as fuck, and yet completely unfunny yet still somehow passes as comedianQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Point taken. I'd say Rogan has had lots of funny women on his poddy who are also hot. They are probably more careful with their loud and interjecty-ness than men have to be. I could see them being extra witty and less boisterous than men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
The latest episode was kind of them claiming that exact role for her though in a slight reference to south park. When Cartman did it OMG don't fuck with him, when she did it it was considered rock bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The joke is that the only kind of demographic she isn't hot in is a young 20ish applying for women in movies role & her being in improves is the standard not hot chick thing to do. The idea that anyone here goes to a bar and sleeps with her and that isn't amongst the best things that ever happened to them...
I don't know who that is but is that not essentially Ashon kutcher?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I don't know her but checked her gram and video reminded me of vines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Some vines chicks are quality funny.
There are lots of guys who are meant to be funny and just aren't but if they are hot they are hot and if not it doesn't matter. With women if they are hot they are hot and if they aren't OMG ITS SEXISM THEY AREN:T FUNNY!!
You don't think they were breaking new ground? I thought what she did was more sinister than what The Gang typically does. I could be wrong though, I haven't thought much about it, but that was my first and second impression. Even though they're all shitty people, she seemed to actually be worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Dennis. That's kind of the whole point.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That being said the point wasn't about why women might be treated differently in comedy now i twas about why that would ever happen in the firstplace.
They could have Milo in a noose if they didn't go down the silly conspiracy route. Milo is a fake. Yeah, maybe he believes what he says. That which he focuses on typically is very important stuff, but the dude is a total fake. Check out videos of him from years ago. He was a 100% different person. This hyper gay hyper Trump hyper-anti-SJW persona is a facade. He showed his skin in this video, and the others pounced and they were onto something. But they got into the weeds with nonsense, giving Milo an out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
If you don't like Milo, just know that he would have much less sway with conservatives if liberals stuck to reasonable positions like those in the video did at first. His opening depends upon the ridiculousness. His opening comes from things like 36 genders. While I was watching the video, even though I'm generally pro-Milo, I was on Wilmore's and co's side, but then they veered into the standard leftism hallucination and I remembered why Milo has so much power.*
*Calling Milo out early on his confusion was A+. It's intuition into his fakery. But then they ignored Hillary's Saudi hypocrisy and drumbeated the fictional Russia myth. They gotta get their shit together if they want to beat people like Milo. The day the left admits that Democrats have been lying non-stop for years and that America isn't the worst place in world history is the day they start winning battles again.
Also fuck off doing this it makes me like you less.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That wasn't my standard attempt at persuasive and/or ridiculing language. I thought you legitimately got me to say something I might not have otherwise said. I was impressed.
Unlike in Britland, we don't have to call each others' mothers cuntgrubbing sallywags just to get along.
I was under the impression you were being sincere.
Love your haircut.
Do you ever wonder why everyone is on coke when MDMA is much better drug?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I prefer Dr. Pepper.
Literally me too. Medicinal.
I find her funny and not hot (at least definitely not as a preggo).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUezzUZYD70
But agreed being hot helps.
Since the previous video was taken down, here it is again for those that missed it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cDLflyQ8TA#t=453.926111
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6O92PE551I
Fantastic. She's great. Thanks for showing.
https://www.cnet.com/news/congressma...android-phone/
In a reality-based universe, this would be as big a deal as Clinton's emails.
At first I was like: because compromising an account used for shitposting is the same as one used for classified information /s
But then I was like: compromising an account assumed to be the voice of the President could actually be an enormous disaster.
And now I'm like: it's easily as important to make sure that Trump's device is as secure as it was for Crooked's devices. Too bad the left blew all its capital to hold him accountable by screaming nonsense at the top of its lungs.
I can just imagine it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Hacker 1: "We've done it, we've hacked Trump's phone. Now we can tweet a bunch of chaotic nonsense that will scare the shit out of everyone."
Hacker 2: "Uhhh, yeah."
I challenge you, go for 20 posts in either of these threads without mentioning The Left or The Right (particularly not in a derisive manner), just sticking to your opinions without trying to be a card-carrying member of either.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The O/U is on 20, too bad I don't have PokerStars money, I'd take props on this
slowclap.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
See Wuf? You *ARE* completely capable of reasonable thought. :p ;)
"Crooked" wasn't POTUS at the time. Plus, a server has better security (you know, people manage such servers) than a run-of-the-mill android phone. Have you heard the news about the amount of Twitter-specific hacks that happened last year?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"OurMine" are notorious for this. If a bunch of script kiddies can, how about state sponsored actors?
[TECH_RANT]
For starters, Twitter's 2FA is particularly shitty, as they only use phone number auth. It's shit. It's 2010's, and as we know, in the tech industry a year is more like a millenia. There are so many vectors of attack for this I'm not even kidding. Godspeed.
[/TECH_RANT]
A respectable train of thought. Also, it's not just that he's tweeting from his personal phone, he's refused the secret service provided more secure device, and seemingly is using it for all official business. Email, calendar, calls & texts etc. None of that shit is private anymore, though arguably it probably wouldn't be completely so even with a hardened device. If that's the case, this is exactly comparable to Clinton's private email server.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
question: what are the ways his account could get compromised?