Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[AncientBoi]

Considering Trump's the one who outright encouraged his supporters to vote twice (allegedly just for security purposes, but the actual intent there is about as subtle as a neon-painted brick up the ass), it'd fit quite nicely!

ooowww sounds kinky. LoL

 

[Lumstar]

ooowww sounds kinky. LoL

A fitting display for all the lawyers who tried to nullify the results.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

No wonder tthousand likes trump, they both can't accept defeat

 

[AncientBoi]

No wonder tthousand likes trump, they both can't accept defeat

Oh, they just like blowin' donald's trump__et. Oh look. they like have a foot fetish too. LoL

 

[Deleted member 414991]

yall need a mental health break

 

[AncientBoi]

[Goes to the doctor, doctor give me a clean bill of health, and the freakin Bill] I'm ok. You okay there @jupitteer?

 

[Deleted User]

yall need a mental health break

I've been taking mental health breaks to recover lost IQ. Handling too many low level ideas for too long will eventually result in permanent brain damage. Says a study I made up.

 

[Deleted member 668561]

 

[Deleted User]

So... We should be okay with 78% of Americans living pay check to paycheck... Not being able to afford surprise medical bills.
Or the fact there are people who just die... because they can't pay for insulin. Or the fact the minimum wage now is lower than the minimum wage then with inflation.



Regardless, saying "well it was worse back then. and we were angry" doesn't make a shit situation better. Biden likely won't address the deep systemic issues. He's a centrist, he's still in bed with corporations just like the rest. He will bring the status quo of 4 years ago. Marginally improve things, and that's that. The same status quo that brought us the previous president. the same status quo that still brought people struggling to pay healthcare. Until something is actually done about the healthcare system in the United States, people will avoid getting care they need, get sick, and have issues.And It's not just physical help. Mental health as well.

 

[Arecaidian Fox]

I gotta say, lurking and reading the last few days has been ... interesting. Arguments made by someone who tries to derail every discussion apparently by acting like a vapid airhead, another a zealot with seemingly no critical thinking skills. And on occasion a sprinkle of other flavors of crazy. And these folks wonder why they feel the world is against them.

 

[SG854]

You don't even know what research @smf allegedly did. You dismissed whatever research it was, without seeing it, solely because it was alleged that it contradicted what you had to say. You understand how ridiculous that is, right? You understand that you're the ridiculous one, right?

Given this information, I highly doubt you've contributed anything of value to any sort of real "news scene."

"When you have written as much news and contributed to the scene(s) as much as I have"

tthousand looks like he has a superiority complex. How dare you question me type of guy.

 

[gamefan5]

This thread is amazing.
My god, to all the actual sane people that had to suffer reading and/or argue through all the nonsense, I salute all of you.

Because my god... I am speechless.

 

[tabzer]

And that's what's called "conspiratorial thinking." To accept a claim without having any evidence of that claim requires a suspension of critical thought and a suspension of skepticism. Your ridiculous behavior here is subject to ridicule, by definition. It's not personal.

Nobody likes the RNC, but hardlining for the DNC is definitely ridiculous. There's plenty of evidence to cause a skeptic to think that the country that would rig other countries' elections would rig their own election. But that's just an appeal to the authority.

• Me: Dinosaurs are extinct.
• Tabzer: Ah, but the etymology of the word "dinosaur" is "big lizard," so by definition, you actually believe dinosaurs are not extinct.

That's what you sound like, and that's what your semantic argument boils down to. I don't fucking care if you want to redefine the soul into existence. It's not how I was using the word, and it's not how it's popularly used by those who say "I will pray for your soul" in this country.

Respectfully, this kind of semantic "argument" is mind-numbingly boring. I don't care if you want to call what I was talking about a "glib glob" instead of a "soul."

There are right definitions, and there are wrong definitions. What you demonstrate is that you don't care about the context of what a soul means via paper trail, but based on what other people say. It's the same way that you use the words "evidence" "truth" and "facts". You are appealing to popularity and not a reliable foundation. Essentially you are of the camp that believes history is decided by the victor, and think that you are on the winning side. Also, "terrible lizard" is more accurate, and also more interesting. I pray for your soul.

 

[Lacius]

Nobody likes the RNC, but hardlining for the DNC is definitely ridiculous. There's plenty of evidence to cause a skeptic to think that the country that would rig other countries' elections would rig their own election. But that's just an appeal to the authority.



There are right definitions, and there are wrong definitions. What you demonstrate is that you don't care about the context of what a soul means via paper trail, but based on what other people say. It's the same way that you use the words "evidence" "truth" and "facts". You are appealing to popularity and not a reliable foundation. Essentially you are of the camp that believes history is decided by the victor, and think that you are on the winning side. Also, "terrible lizard" is more accurate, and also more interesting. I pray for your soul.

There was nothing in your rebuttal that you couldn't say about the dinosaur example.

You should also understand that words don't have objective meanings. All that matters is how they're being used. Words are descriptive, not prescriptive.

You pray for me; I'll think for you.

 

[tabzer]

There was nothing in your rebuttal that you couldn't say about the dinosaur example.

The paper trail of "soul", especially considering the context, trails into other languages that you resist culturing yourself with, and the word "dinosaur" is nearly a two-century year old invention in cultivating an independent story.

You can reject facts, if you prefer to increase the divide instead.

I'll think for you.

Please do, and for everyone too.

 

[Lacius]

The paper trail of "soul", especially considering the context, trails into other languages that you resist culturing yourself with, and the word "dinosaur" is nearly a two-century year old invention in cultivating an independent story.

I don't reject anything you've said about the etymology of the word, just like I wouldn't reject anything said about the etymology of the word dinosaur. You don't seem to realize that these things are equally irrelevant to their respective conversations, and I was hoping the dinosaur example would help you to see this.

Please do, and for everyone too.

What does it look like I'm doing?

 

[tabzer]

You don't seem to realize that these things are equally irrelevant to their respective conversations, and I was hoping the dinosaur example would help you to see this.

Not equally irrelevant, because you didn't openly say that there is no evidence of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs might still exist; it is a nice fantasy--did you want to talk about dinosaurs?

What does it look like I'm doing?

It looks like you are trying to "decide" for everyone.

 

[Lacius]

Not equally irrelevant, because you didn't openly say that there is no evidence of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs might still exist; it is a nice fantasy--did you want to talk about dinosaurs?

In both examples, you are trying to redefine X into existence. It's not much different from confronting an atheist by saying, "Well, I define God as the universe, so therefore, you believe in God." All three responses are equally irrelevant to the points being made.

Dinosaurs might still exist; it is a nice fantasy

The non-avian dinosaurs went extinct approximately 65 million years ago.

did you want to talk about dinosaurs?

I always want to talk about dinosaurs, but this isn't the place to do so.

It looks like you are trying to "decide" for everyone.

Somebody doesn't recognize a rhetorical joke when he sees one.

 

[urherenow]

I can't see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either unconstitutional or unjust.

Um... the fact that impeachments are for someone in office, and he's no longer in office? The fact that what he's being accused of is entirely the interpretation of his words, by those biased against him; the SAME "those" who did the same thing all summer while cities and police stations burned?

And the point being? They're afraid of him running again? Afraid he could win again if Biden fucks up (not at all far-fetched considering his first day in office lost 1,000 jobs on the Keystone pipeline, with an estimated 10,400 US jobs to be created for that project, not to mention the border wall construction jobs. https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/v...claim/77-8955155e-457d-4fc2-bbd9-35ea8df83ee3
That first day also sent gas prices on an upward spiral. a month or two ago I was paying less than $2.80 on base. A week after Biden signed those executive orders, I paid $3.08. Today, I paid $3.12... $4+ here we come!

Then there's the ingenious minimum wage hike that all socialist and most Democrats in general, think is a good idea. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/08/raising-minimum-wage-to-15-would-cost-1point4-million-jobs-cbo-says.html#:~:text=Raising minimum wage to $15 would cost 1.4 million jobs, CBO says,-Published Mon, Feb&text=A rise in the minimum,Congressional Budget Office said Monday.

900,000 lifted from poverty! Yay! While 1.4 MILLION lose their jobs completely. And you want to talk about how ridiculous it is to be paid so little. Minimum wage jobs weren't meant to be careers. That's a whole other discussion though.

Back to the impeachment. Top goal is to prevent him from running for office again. So you want to talk about Democracy, and you're saying that if the majority of an election wants him back, we can't have him back? Highly doubtful that would happen anyway, but the concept is comical. The very definition of anti-democracy. Just as comical as all of the "Walls don't work" crap... and a wall (yea, you can call it a fence, but that's splitting hairs) with armed guards was erected pretty much overnight around that area.

No, I'm not really pro-Trump. But I'm definitely against 99% of the shit Democrats say and do (or don't do). Seriously, if you think there is no possible way he could run AND WIN again, then this impeachment after he is already out of office is just another waste of time and money. Congress might get shit done if they spent a fraction of the time and energy into fixing shit, as they do going after Trump. But instead, they inject stupid shit into spending bills that MUST get through or the government collapses, that has nothing to do with spending, because they know damn well it wouldn't be passed otherwise. Example: Any form of Vape products will be illegal to send by mail starting in March. THIS was in the OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL.

 

[Lacius]

Um... the fact that impeachments are for someone in office, and he's no longer in office?

Impeachment can be used on someone who is no longer in office. We have precedent for it happening, and virtually every legal scholar agrees. It was almost comical when Trump's legal defense misquoted a legal scholar in a desperate attempt to find someone who would agree with them that someone out of office cannot be impeached. Try again.