Clown Car V: 2020 version!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eh, another clown youtube channel. Not sure how Tom Hanks would visit Greece often? Could it be cause his wife is part greek? :shake:
Also, who told this moron that in Greece pedophilia is legal...
Also, having double citizenship doesn't mean you don't plan to return to the USA.
 
there was some yuge effort in the this kinda Leftist echo chamber ı read these days , about Hanks and some internet marketing company . So , yes , Pizzagate or Clintons ordering underage kids pedophilia has been really slow motion in this campaign .
 
Also, who told this moron that in Greece pedophilia is legal...
Suspect that this might be a "misunderstanding" regarding legal age-of-consent.

According to Wikipedia, AoC=15 in Greece (and France, and Poland); and in Germany and points south I am astonished to find that it's 14 (oh crap...). But it's 16-17 in about 2/3rds of the US-states (surprisingly, all the more religious/ conservative midwest states seem to have a lower AoC!) and 18 everywhere else.

So if the YT-er is from a state where AoC=18, saying that Europeans "allow pedophilia" may well be a common local slander. You know, along with the one about how we're all Communists as well.
 
The Democrats have started contempt of Congress proceedings against Pompeo. I don't know if this will lead to anything more than a slap on the wrist.
 
Congress should fund itself a jail and a police force to collect and hold those who fail to show when subpoenaed.
 
what kind of car you can drive → denounces ecologists
what sources of information are credible → i.e. they actually seem to give a crap about verosimilitude
and even how many hamburgers you can eat. → wow, as if 'Murica didn't have health issues already and didn't trade in pollution and disease under the guise of having a food industry

As I said a few days ago, it's ‘these people want to help you, and only the weak admit to weakness! Don't let people help you!’
 
Actually the argument that imho gets them is a little bit more nuanced. Your sentence and then: „You pay for all that with your taxes - and you pay too much“. And they know how much taxes they pay and they think it‘s too much because they want that car and have to pay that medical bill. (Which yes - circle argumentation - they wouldn‘t have to pay themselves for the whole amount if ....)

The circle then goes on: Because of course the tax breaks they then get only help the super-rich, while the benefits that they would benefit from are cut more and more. Also, economically, abolishing the taxes for the super-poor, keeping them low for he lower classes („blue collar workers“) and then so on for above nets the best result. The opposite of triple-down.

I‘m just saying, it‘s the tax argument that gets them the majority, as the racist and religious-nut block is fairly in their corner already.
 
McConnell inexplicably claims that Democrats want to tell Americans 'how many hamburgers you can eat'
He added that Democrats "want to tell you what kind of car you can drive, what sources of information are credible, and even how many hamburgers you can eat."

https://theweek.com/speedreads/9343...s-want-tell-americans-how-many-hamburgers-eat
I think that there's some interesting psychology here.

Conservatives are by inclination deferential to authority figures; that's really the essence of conservatism. This means that, for conservatives, an authority figure telling you that you should do something is not clearly distinguished from telling you that you must do something. Deference to authority is good citizenship.

This means that medical experts providing advice about what food and how much you should eat is taken to be functionally identical to instructions about what food and how much you are permitted to eat, and when this advice is endorsed by government institutions, these prohibitions become a matter of state policy. The result is that what appears to most people as innocuous, even gentle dietary advice can appear as grotesque government over-reach.

A large part of conservative complaints about encroaching liberal totalitarianism are made in very bad faith, but to a certain very real extent, this is genuinely how they think the world works.
 
I always knew that the structure of our government was pretty restrictive when the parts weren't working in unison - things like the filibuster and Senate approval of appointments and the like have always been a challenge to governance. Even then, I did not realize how completely impotent the House by itself would be if the Senate decided to allow presidential power to go unchecked. I mean, permissiveness to presidential power has been a feature of our system since probably WWII (if not earlier) but now it seems there's almost nothing the House can do on its own to stop any of the madness. That's been eye-opening and surprising but I guess it shouldn't be given so many of our checks and balances ultimately rested on norms and tradition rather than force of law.
 
Congress should fund itself a jail and a police force to collect and hold those who fail to show when subpoenaed.
Unnecessary
The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States charged with protecting the United States Congress within the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its territories. It answers to Congress, not the President of the United States, and is the only full-service federal law enforcement agency responsible to the legislative branch of the Federal Government of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Police
 
I think that there's some interesting psychology here.

Conservatives are by inclination deferential to authority figures; that's really the essence of conservatism. This means that, for conservatives, an authority figure telling you that you should do something is not clearly distinguished from telling you that you must do something. Deference to authority is good citizenship.

This means that medical experts providing advice about what food and how much you should eat is taken to be functionally identical to instructions about what food and how much you are permitted to eat, and when this advice is endorsed by government institutions, these prohibitions become a matter of state policy. The result is that what appears to most people as innocuous, even gentle dietary advice can appear as grotesque government over-reach.

A large part of conservative complaints about encroaching liberal totalitarianism are made in very bad faith, but to a certain very real extent, this is genuinely how they think the world works.
When McConnell delivered the line about Democrats wanting to control the number of hamburgers people could eat, he chuckled, it was quick, but it was detectable... because he knew damn well that he was full of horsehocky. If he was as good as Kellyanne Conway he would have been able to suppress that chuckle into a smile or smirk, but he couldn't, because few people are as good at bald-faced lying as her, but the statement was an obvious lie, so obvious that he literally couldn't say it with a straight face.
 
When McConnell delivered the line about Democrats wanting to control the number of hamburgers people could eat, he chuckled, it was quick, but it was detectable... because he knew damn well that he was full of ****. If he was as good as Kellyanne Conway he would have been able to suppress that chuckle into a smile or smirk, but he couldn't, because few people are as good at bald-faced lying as her, but the statement was an obvious lie, so obvious that he literally couldn't say it with a straight face.
I don't read the chuckle in quite that way, but it's possible. But in this context, I am less interested what McConnell the flesh-and-blood human actually believes than what McConnell the public persona believes, what he presents to Republican voters who, by and large, will take his comments in good faith. I think that he is telling us something pretty significant about the way that conservatives thing about political authority and the way that shapes conservative responses to public health policy.

Politics in the age of a twenty-four news cycle is professional wrestling but more boring, and I don't need to know whether Randall Poffo thinks Terry Bollea is a good dude or a pain in the ass to know that the Macho Man Randy Savage hates Hulk Hogan with all his heart, and is going to destroy the Hulkster at SummerSlam, ooooh yeeeeaah.
 
Why did the WWF champion title include the term "intercontinental"? Due to Hawai? (I mean technically it would count, but it is just some islands...)

The same reason as the World Series includes the word World.
 
The same reason as the World Series includes the word World.

Not entirely, though, I mean afaik lots of US leagues market themselves as "World" league. There it just means only the US matters (to the US public or otherwise). Also, a few of those leagues are on sports not many other countries care about, such as baseball.

But calling something "intercontinental", when literally the only part outside North America is Hawai, is a bit pompous.
And we all know the WWF never is pompous :mischief:
 
Why did the WWF champion title include the term "intercontinental"? Due to Hawai? (I mean technically it would count, but it is just some islands...)
The Intercontinental Championship was a secondary title, ranked below the World Heavyweight Championship. Traditionally it denoted the second-ranked wrestler within the storyline-universe of the company, although the nature of a fake sport is that the prestige of the championship tends to derive from the popularity of wrestler rather than the other way around, so it would sometimes end up as the de facto top championship.

(The continents in question were North and South America; in theory the championship was formed from the merger of the North American and South American championships, but the South American championship never actually existed, because pro wrestling is at heart a circus side-show that got out of control.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom