WAR ROOM LOUNGE V17: The Stuff Under Your You-Know-What

[senri]

These threads can barely last even two weeks.

You can do something about this Mr. Brothir. That capacity is within you to begin a metamorphism of the what surrounds you....

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Gotta tell you. There's nothing more annoying than someone being called out for posting a bullshit source that's been debunked and then they double down on the stupid.

 

[nac386]

Right here he did. Maybe quit trying to expand what I'm saying in order to argue.

We can't ignore what he actually said there, and what he actually said was entirely incorrect. War Machine was not cuckolded, his ex had just moved on. Also, he did not shoot them (crime of passion), he raped and tortured them. He was there beating on Mack for 2 hours. Nothing Alan said was correct because he was applying all of it to a case that did not fit. That's especially frightening because he says he's a lawyer.

He says a "Normal reaction" is raping, torturing, and beating someone for two hours? That's psycho talk no matter how you spin it.

 

[curryjunkie]

Honest question, WR

How good is Björk



So fucking good right?

One of a rare number of original artists

 

[curryjunkie]

The guy I did some remodels with refuses to use them on anything other than a 1bed/1bath

They are common in the UK, and work fine on 3 bed houses, much more efficient

 

[brothir]

You can do something about this Mr. Brothir. That capacity is within you to begin a metamorphism of the what surrounds you....

It's not a problem though, just evidence of the popularity of these threads.

 

[Fawlty]

Well said.

That's the exact line in the sand that I drew when it came to @Fawlty and his shameless defense of Louis CK.

"Shameless" was a really good set though.

Also for the record, I've always thought he was really creepy and I thought his "apology" letter was bullshit. Jones is still the GOAT MMA fighter, Louis is still one of the best comics ever.

 

[Tekk]

Gotta tell you. There's nothing more annoying than someone being called out for posting a bullshit source that's been debunked and then they double down on the stupid.

Lucifer alpha?

 

[Gandhi]

Gotta tell you. There's nothing more annoying than someone being called out for posting a bullshit source that's been debunked and then they double down on the stupid.

Welcome to the WR BTFO liberal snowflake!!!!!!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Gotta tell you. There's nothing more annoying than someone being called out for posting a bullshit source that's been debunked and then they double down on the stupid.

Oh, I can think of some things, even if we're just focused on the WR.

Here's @waiguoren defending this statement:

"Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."

"Could Kavanaugh have known about how widely Trump consulted, and how many people Trump talked to? Yes. Could Kavanaugh have known the same details for all previous presidents? No. On that basis, I tend to agree that the statement appears hyperbolic. However, judging Kavanaugh to be a liar or a "bullshitter" is a step too far. The Democrats could have asked him to clarify the statement, but to my knowledge they did not."

Just so disingenuous.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Lucifer alpha?

Yuuup. That whereaboutism shit doesn't work on me.

He posted an article that was proven to be bullshit and instead of admitting he was wrong or blatantly posting fake news he kept bringing up whatabout instances. Which I refuted, but dude just went for the aw shucks I'm just trolling.

Be a dickhead all you want, God knows I am, but don't intentionally spread lies. Of your argument is solid you shouldn't rely on bullshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yuuup. That whereaboutism shit doesn't work on me.

He posted an article that was proven to be bullshit and instead of admitting he was wrong or blatantly posting fake news he kept bringing up whatabout instances. Which I refuted, but dude just went for the aw shucks I'm just trolling.

Be a dickhead all you want, God knows I am, but don't intentionally spread lies. Of your argument is solid you shouldn't rely on bullshit.

Haha. That guy was a terrible poster in the HWs, too.

 

[Tekk]

Yuuup. That whereaboutism shit doesn't work on me.

He posted an article that was proven to be bullshit and instead of admitting he was wrong or blatantly posting fake news he kept bringing up whatabout instances. Which I refuted, but dude just went for the aw shucks I'm just trolling.

Be a dickhead all you want, God knows I am, but don't intentionally spread lies. Of your argument is solid you shouldn't rely on bullshit.

I've seen this with a lot of my conservative FB friends. They read the title of some click bait post and take it as gospel. They either continue to double down on stupid, start with the name calling or resort to the tried-and-true but Hillary but Obama.

How many times have we heard that isis didn't exist before Obama. Race relations were better before Obama. The economy was terrible under Obama.

 

[Tekk]

Just wondering. Does anybody else remember conservatives having an aneurysm when Obama gave some official the title of czar?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Lol wtf

 

[Higus]

Gotta tell you. There's nothing more annoying than someone being called out for posting a bullshit source that's been debunked and then they double down on the stupid.

 

[Sycho Sid]

Man, that SCOTUS thread is just aids.

And people wonder why women don't come out about this stuff.

 

[waiguoren]

Oh, I can think of some things, even if we're just focused on the WR.

Here's @waiguoren defending this statement:

"Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."

"Could Kavanaugh have known about how widely Trump consulted, and how many people Trump talked to? Yes. Could Kavanaugh have known the same details for all previous presidents? No. On that basis, I tend to agree that the statement appears hyperbolic. However, judging Kavanaugh to be a liar or a "bullshitter" is a step too far. The Democrats could have asked him to clarify the statement, but to my knowledge they did not."

Just so disingenuous.

Perhaps I didn't explain in a way that allowed you to understand my view. I will try again.

From your previous comment, I take it that you don't have much issue with the first sentence of Kavanaugh's statement. Therefore I will not again explain why I found Yglesias to be off-base on that point.

As for the president "consulting widely", my view is that the set of judges qualified by virtue of experience and satisfactory to Trump by virtue of interpretive methodology to serve on the Supreme Court is quite small. Therefore I think there is a hard upper limit (a low ceiling) on how widely Trump could have consulted with any hope of finding new candidates. I think Trump (through McGahn, of course) probably consulted no less widely than any previous president, which would make Kavanaugh's statement accurate.


There's also the question of which point in the selection process Kavanaugh was referring to---before the "list" was created? After the "list" was created but before it was narrowed? After the "list" was narrowed? After Trump had focused on Kavanaugh but had not officially selected him?

Again, I think the Democrats could have asked him about these statements if they were concerned.

 

[Trotsky]

Man, that SCOTUS thread is just aids.

And people wonder why women don't come out about this stuff.

Topical metaphor since posters there are re-posting anonymous (and clearly fake) STD claims against the 3rd accuser.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Perhaps I didn't explain in a way that allowed you to understand my view. I will try again.

From your previous comment, I take it that you don't have much issue with the first sentence of Kavanaugh's statement. Therefore I will not again explain why I found Yglesias to be off-base on that point.

As for the president "consulting widely", my view is that the set of judges qualified by virtue of experience and satisfactory to Trump by virtue of interpretive methodology to serve on the Supreme Court is quite small. Therefore I think there is a hard upper limit (a low ceiling) on how widely Trump could have consulted with any hope of finding new candidates. I think Trump (through McGahn, of course) probably consulted no less widely than any previous president, which would make Kavanaugh's statement accurate.

There's also the question of which point in the selection process Kavanaugh was referring to---before the "list" was created? After the "list" was created but before it was narrowed? After the "list" was narrowed? After Trump had focused on Kavanaugh but had not officially selected him?

Again, I think the Democrats could have asked him about these statements if they were concerned.

Here's the thing: To me that statement is just obvious bullshit, something Kavanaugh said to make Trump happy even though he can't know it is true and must strongly suspect that it is very, very far from being true. I don't think anyone who follows the news or who knows anything about Trump truly believes that he was out there doing research and talking to lots of people with different backgrounds to really figure out who would be the best choice. I think that's a comical suggestion. What's more, I think you know that. If someone did a skit of Trump acting really serious-like, and marching in people with different backgrounds to give a rundown, asking them questions and taking notes, and poring over written material, even if the skit were played totally straight, it would make you laugh because it's so incongruous with what we know of the man.