By livefromkyoto Go To Post"Oh, I shouldn'ta said that."
*all of the face palms*
He actually had a difficult time saying it correctly after his initial fuck up too. Probably said that a million times while claiming *not racist*.
Well they certainly have their marching orders from leader regarding the narrative.
When is it going to end?
Like they really can't see the difference between historical figures in US history and the cunts who fought against that history to preserve slavery.
Columbus is also a cunt and shouldn't be celebrated. But let's work on Confederate idols first.
When is it going to end?
Like they really can't see the difference between historical figures in US history and the cunts who fought against that history to preserve slavery.
Columbus is also a cunt and shouldn't be celebrated. But let's work on Confederate idols first.
There's merit to the historical arguments for preservation of some of these statues. It was the bloodiest war we've ever fought. What irritates me about the historical arguments are:
A. The majority of these monuments were installed after post civil war era
B. The majority of these were installed to agitate the black community in the Jim Crown and Civil Rights era
C. The majority of the monuments are for the confederate side
That marist poll that came out was heavily used by the right wing to claim that a majority of Americans don't want the statues taken down. The questions were loaded though and were framed in such a way:
1. Do you want to keep the statues up for historical context
2. Do you want to remove the statues
When framed this way 60% of Americans want to see the statues remain, but when phrased differently we get different results.
Per PPP:
Every monument installed in the jim crow era and the civil rights era should be blown the fuck up. All the monuments installed in the post civil war era should be removed and put in a museum for proper historical context.
A. The majority of these monuments were installed after post civil war era
B. The majority of these were installed to agitate the black community in the Jim Crown and Civil Rights era
C. The majority of the monuments are for the confederate side
That marist poll that came out was heavily used by the right wing to claim that a majority of Americans don't want the statues taken down. The questions were loaded though and were framed in such a way:
1. Do you want to keep the statues up for historical context
2. Do you want to remove the statues
When framed this way 60% of Americans want to see the statues remain, but when phrased differently we get different results.
Per PPP:
Voters have nuanced views when it comes to Confederate monuments. Overall 39% say they support monuments honoring the Confederacy to 34% who say they oppose them. That's basically unchanged from the 42/35 spread we found on this question when we polled it in June. Trump voters support them by a 71/10 spread- to put those numbers into perspective only 65% of Trump voters oppose Obamacare, so this is a greater unifier for the Trump base. Even though voters narrowly support the monuments though, 58% also say they support relocating them from government property and moving them to museums or other historic sites where they can be viewed in proper historical context. There's bipartisan support for that approach with Democrats (72/14), independents (52/27), and Republicans (46/42) all in favor of it. Voters don't necessarily want Confederate monuments destroyed, but they also don't necessarily think they need to be places where everyone is forced to walk by them every day.
Every monument installed in the jim crow era and the civil rights era should be blown the fuck up. All the monuments installed in the post civil war era should be removed and put in a museum for proper historical context.
By Fenderputty Go To Postholy shit
You really need audio to appreciate the Freudian slip when it comes and boy o boy does it come.
it's simply amazing.
"heritage not hate!" immediately followed by martin luther coon
shes better at this than spicey
step 1, 2, and 3 is to give no fucks and stick to talking point
spicey couldn't ever not give a shit
step 1, 2, and 3 is to give no fucks and stick to talking point
spicey couldn't ever not give a shit
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostSean Spicer, to his great detriment, had a sense of shame.
nah
By Smokey Go To Postnah
Yo he hid in the BUSHES!
Remember how when he finally came out of the bushes, he wouldn't let reporters turn any lights on?
That was not a guy bursting with confidence and pride by the end.
That was not a guy bursting with confidence and pride by the end.
By Fenderputty Go To PostYo he hid in the BUSHES!
lol forgot about that
It's nice to know that key admin spots are not filled in 45s administration when Harvey is about to rekt the coast
Great.
Something like only 25% of the nation thinks that's a good move. "If you want to serve, you should be able to serve" is pretty universally accepted.
https://qz.com/1062835/hurricane-harvey-immigration-checkpoints-will-check-people-evacuating-in-texas/
Opportunistic cunt gonna use the Hurricane like a force to herd rats.
As Hurricane Harvey nears the Texas coast, thousands of people are evacuating along the state’s major highways to escape 125 mile per hour winds and “catastrophic flooding” that the US government predicts will accompany the storm.
In an unusual move, Border Patrol checkpoints, which check individuals’ documents to make sure they are legal residents of the US, will stay open as the storm approaches, the Customs and Border Protection agency said Friday in an emailed statement
Opportunistic cunt gonna use the Hurricane like a force to herd rats.
I think I was previously against the DOD paying for the transition surgeries.
But then I saw how much of their overall budget it makes up and flipped. It makes no sense for someone who wants to dedicate their life to serve to have to live with a constant battle within their own mind and body if they don't have to.
It may be an elective surgery (the most elective of surgeries!), but if it makes a better soldier, then what the hell is the problem?
But then I saw how much of their overall budget it makes up and flipped. It makes no sense for someone who wants to dedicate their life to serve to have to live with a constant battle within their own mind and body if they don't have to.
It may be an elective surgery (the most elective of surgeries!), but if it makes a better soldier, then what the hell is the problem?
By Fenderputty Go To PostSomething like only 25% of the nation thinks that's a good move. "If you want to serve, you should be able to serve" is pretty universally accepted.Its poorly thought out and hands-off thinking. Every time the military lowers standards, there's consequences direct and indirect long-term.
People still don't want to sit and consider that letting people in with the promise of facilitating any form of sex change leads to people joining just to be non-deployable or mission capable for the majority of their contracts. That's new and recent. You say these guys deserve to be soldiers, cool. But if a team is assigned 6 people and one is guaranteed to be out, then you've got 5 doing extra work. Extra work is injuries and mistakes.
Its a complicated issue and not a yes/no question. Shit, we still can't even get women to where they should be.
By GQman2121 Go To PostI think I was previously against the DOD paying for the transition surgeries.They get the surgery and bounce. No value added. It doesn't make them better fast either. Mental health is a bitch in the military, just because we spend money all kinds of shit doesn't mean we should hop into cashing out for what's essentially a social experiment.
But then I saw how much of their overall budget it makes up and flipped. It makes no sense for someone who wants to dedicate their life to serve to have to live with a constant battle within their own mind and body if they don't have to.
It may be an elective surgery (the most elective of surgeries!), but if it makes a better soldier, then what the hell is the problem?
People that've been in should and are being held to a different criteria. Then comes habitat stuff... if a guy says he's now a woman, he IMMEDIATELY is put into female dorms or tents once signed off on by processing. Obviously, some women will never be cool with that.
I mean, the dumbed down argument is "anyone should be able to die for your country" but like.... that's not the goal. Its to be an effective part of a machine that's generally pretty fucking good at what it does. If transgender people want to join, why is it demonic to suggest that they be evaluated fit to serve first than to pay them to sit on the sidelines?
If Trump goes all Trump whatever, but this never should've happened the way it did to begin with.
By DY_nasty Go To PostThey get the surgery and bounce. No value added. It doesn't make them better fast either. Mental health is a bitch in the military, just because we spend money all kinds of shit doesn't mean we should hop into cashing out for what's essentially a social experiment.That's more than reasonable and I completely agree. I didn't go into the detail of it, but a mental eval should absolutely be the first step to being accepted to serve.
People that've been in should and are being held to a different criteria. Then comes habitat stuff… if a guy says he's now a woman, he IMMEDIATELY is put into female dorms or tents once signed off on by processing. Obviously, some women will never be cool with that.
I mean, the dumbed down argument is "anyone should be able to die for your country" but like…. that's not the goal. Its to be an effective part of a machine that's generally pretty fucking good at what it does. If transgender people want to join, why is it demonic to suggest that they be evaluated fit to serve first than to pay them to sit on the sidelines?
If Trump goes all Trump whatever, but this never should've happened the way it did to begin with.
By DY_nasty Go To PostThey get the surgery and bounce. No value added. It doesn't make them better fast either. Mental health is a bitch in the military, just because we spend money all kinds of shit doesn't mean we should hop into cashing out for what's essentially a social experiment.
People that've been in should and are being held to a different criteria. Then comes habitat stuff… if a guy says he's now a woman, he IMMEDIATELY is put into female dorms or tents once signed off on by processing. Obviously, some women will never be cool with that.
I mean, the dumbed down argument is "anyone should be able to die for your country" but like…. that's not the goal. Its to be an effective part of a machine that's generally pretty fucking good at what it does. If transgender people want to join, why is it demonic to suggest that they be evaluated fit to serve first than to pay them to sit on the sidelines?
If Trump goes all Trump whatever, but this never should've happened the way it did to begin with.
Being trans is lowering standards now? I know that wasn't your intent, but the content of my post still stands. You shouldn't ban somone who wants to serve because they're trans.
To your point of people get surgery and bouncing, that shit should be stopped. Ideally we would have UHC and this wouldn't be an issue, but if bouncing puts others at risk, they should be held accountable for their costs and pay it back. Maybe that would help weed out those looking to abuse the system.
Trans ban signing and s Shapiro pardon on the eve of the a devistating hurricane so the bad press is drowned out.
By Fenderputty Go To PostSomething like only 25% of the nation thinks that's a good move. "If you want to serve, you should be able to serve" is pretty universally accepted.
You realize a shit load of people that want to serve are told no when they go to MEPS right?
By Fenderputty Go To PostBeing trans is lowering standards now? I know that wasn't your intent, but the content of my post still stands. You shouldn't ban somone who wants to serve because they're trans.Its absolutely lowering a standard. If someone is due years of therapy and treatment right at the door and someone else isn't, then why should the military bend over backwards to accommodate? To what end? Its not about "how it sounds", its how it is. Someone's going through a jarring physiological change, and you strap a 80+ LIGHT combat load on them - they will break.
To your point of people get surgery and bouncing, that shit should be stopped. Ideally we would have UHC and this wouldn't be an issue, but if bouncing puts others at risk, they should be held accountable for their costs and pay it back. Maybe that would help weed out those looking to abuse the system.
Mattis' review isn't due until Feb 2018 I think, but people joining just have the military pay for a sex change is irresponsible as fuck.
But I mean the US defence sector probably has the most excessive funding of any US department. Why not use it for something useful?
By Rhaegar Jergaryen Go To PostYou realize a shit load of people that want to serve are told no when they go to MEPS right?
Yes, but I hope that's based off various clinical physical and intellectual capabilities. Not that somone is trans. I feel this way for women too. I don't be agree physical standards are lowered so much. This is people's lives on the line. That being said, if you can pass muster you should be allowed to serve regardless of gender, trans or sexual orientation
By Laboured Go To PostBut I mean the US defence sector probably has the most excessive funding of any US department. Why not use it for something useful?I agree.
By DY_nasty Go To PostI agree.
Literally or inferentially?
By Laboured Go To PostLiterally or inferentially?We spent ages on trying to get women integrated properly. Money on research, facilities, support systems, etc
But transgender soldiers - just throw em in, and if you say no or wait or stop you're a bigot.
By DY_nasty Go To PostWe spent ages on trying to get women integrated properly. Money on research, facilities, support systems, etc
But transgender soldiers - just throw em in, and if you say no or wait or stop you're a bigot.
You're now making this sound like it's a matter of speed of integration and not money. Which is it?
Does America not have both?
By Laboured Go To PostBut I mean the US defence sector probably has the most excessive funding of any US department. Why not use it for something useful?
This would all be solved with a viable healthcare system
By Laboured Go To PostYou're now making this sound like it's a matter of speed of integration and not money. Which is it?My argument on this never included money. I'm saying that if YOUR point is money, then that's how you should be giving a fuck.
Does America not have both?
My stance has always been personnel-based. Most money arguments for or against anything with our budget are a bit ridiculous to a degree. However, money can also allow and encourage stupid shit. Yes, the military COULD pay for sex changes and even not so subtly advertise it as an enlistment benefit, but should it?
This isn't a summer camp.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThis would all be solved with a viable healthcare system
Honestly, that would be the answer to a lot of the US' problems.
smh @ the pardon
that's two bold printed lines on a list towards a no confidence vote
- "both sides" with kkk'ers
- pardon of a guy without even letting due process of the law play out
we're really not that far from this thing tipping over the cliff
that's two bold printed lines on a list towards a no confidence vote
- "both sides" with kkk'ers
- pardon of a guy without even letting due process of the law play out
we're really not that far from this thing tipping over the cliff
I think the pardon thing is a bad move, politically. It's obviously vile. There was an article the other day about Trump basically going to war with the eGOP as campaign strategy and a political one. He's playing to his base in the way he won the election. He's also going to blame them for not doing anything and failing by not following his lead. IMO this is a miscalculation on his part. This ain't no campaign anymore and his numbers are cratering. Fuck even Bob Corker has been popping off.
Also, there were several people (lawyers) on MSNBC suggesting that he's legally safe here, but that it shows he's got a pattern of feeling he's above the law. He's not even letting the legal process play out because the guy is His racist campaign pal. So it means two things to Mueller. First it's an example of a behavioral pattern to present in an obstruction case. Two it shows he's willingness abuse the power of the presidency around him when he's investigating those around him.
I don't think this sherif thing will play well. Who knows what the fucks gonna happen with Texas. If he ficks up tax reform and / or the budget shutting us down, I think he will have sealed his fate. He keeps attacking at the establishment while fucking up their agenda and cratering, they're gonna start hitting back.
Also, there were several people (lawyers) on MSNBC suggesting that he's legally safe here, but that it shows he's got a pattern of feeling he's above the law. He's not even letting the legal process play out because the guy is His racist campaign pal. So it means two things to Mueller. First it's an example of a behavioral pattern to present in an obstruction case. Two it shows he's willingness abuse the power of the presidency around him when he's investigating those around him.
I don't think this sherif thing will play well. Who knows what the fucks gonna happen with Texas. If he ficks up tax reform and / or the budget shutting us down, I think he will have sealed his fate. He keeps attacking at the establishment while fucking up their agenda and cratering, they're gonna start hitting back.
What a fascinating garbage person...
I knew about the pink underwear, outdoor tents and general racism, but a lot of the other stuff is new to me and is pretty wild. Good reporting from the PHX New Times.
I knew about the pink underwear, outdoor tents and general racism, but a lot of the other stuff is new to me and is pretty wild. Good reporting from the PHX New Times.
that dude is an absolute piece of shit. i've heard many stories but some of those just skimming through are absolutely insane
the only one i read in detail was the one with the inmate that had crohn's disease. i've had friends asked what i would do if i had to go to prison and i always say suicide. as someone that has crohn's that story just shows why. with medicine my life fucking sucks, i cant imagine the pain that guy went through being untreated
the only one i read in detail was the one with the inmate that had crohn's disease. i've had friends asked what i would do if i had to go to prison and i always say suicide. as someone that has crohn's that story just shows why. with medicine my life fucking sucks, i cant imagine the pain that guy went through being untreated
He's taking this as an opportunity to campaign.... which I mean shows he's probably somewhat engaged. So I guess in that respect it's good.
It's crass, lacks perspective and may be premature as Houston has another 24-48 hours of this though
It's crass, lacks perspective and may be premature as Houston has another 24-48 hours of this though
He is truly an astounding fucking moron. Think about how bad Katrina was and Bush is wayyyy more competent than he is.
What, you thought Bush flying over New Orleans was out of touch?
Hold my Presidents self banded bottled water.
Hold my Presidents self banded bottled water.