- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
and a little incoherent
you can't even that it has deranged you too much
and a little incoherent
you can't even that it has deranged you too much
Thanks for catching that. I missed the word "see" between "even" and "that".
The point being that the video has "triggered" you and you are now processing it emotionally and can't look at it rationally.
I am using the word "deranged" in the Cambridge sense as in "unable to think clearly", i.e. as a synonym for "irrational" though apparently the US sense is more akin to "insane" in connotation.
I hold that you cannot see what it IS because of how you FEEL about it. You are offended. You are snowflaking out.
Yes.Triggered?
Non sequiturLOL! Do you see me calling for someone to be thrown in jail?
Non sequiturSomeone to be censored?
Non sequiturCalling for violence against someone?
My emotions are in check, thank you.Focus Fluffy, focus.
For some reason in your own mind you have decided this is nothing but tongue in cheek satire. The creator is not claiming this, SJW are not claiming this, journalists are not claiming this, the foundation is not claiming this, you are literally the only person on the internet claiming this.
You find it "hilarious" but I doubt that you meant that to mean that you laughed out loud because you found it funny.
Good for you. Guess I was wrong about you not laughing.I've probably watched it 15 times so far because I find it so funny. I get a belly laugh each and every time I watch it.
Hmm. This must be another one of those words with a peculiarly different meaning to Americans.I think you are projecting, Fluffy.
.. someone who just has grotesque sex with hundreds of men..
I can't say I'm familiar with the work of Ms. Daniels or any of her co-stars* but I am intrigued as to how the author of the above came to the conclusion that the sex was always grotesque.
Also, your disdain for "a self proclaimed prostitute" seems a little hollow given your high regard for a man who apparently used her services.
Generally speaking I am not a fan of tariffs, but at this point they are a 'necessary evil'. Trade imbalance has harmed the US for far too long.
I don't disagree with you, there. I don't really have a problem with tariffs, other than that they need to be applied delicately and thoughtfully. I'm not sure the steel ones aren't a bit overboard. Generally, you don't want to tariff a supply material more than the finished good. Right now, I'm not sure that is the case. By protecting input steel stronger than finished goods, we're ensuring a net export of jobs, as the new cheapest method is to buy the steel and make the finished product outside the US and then just import the final finished product.
This can be solved by tariffing the finished goods even stronger. But so far, for whatever reasons, the administration seems reluctant for that step.
We'll see how this plays out long term. Trump has an awful lot on his plate. I am amazed at his energy for a 71 year old man. He'll probably address finished goods at some point. I don't think tariffs are his long term goal, it is a way to negotiate proper trade agreements.
You'd probably agree though that short of some sort of black swan event, midterm elections will not see any sort of blue wave being predicted by the Liberal Media. The economy and employment are entering into a scenario rarely seen in US history.