What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Dump Term 2 Part 5: He Didn't Specify Which Civilization Would Die...

Humor relies on contradiction, nuance, and double meanings. Totalitarian ideologies require rigid, literal-minded adherence to rules. Fascists do not understand jokes.
 
And, I'm not a pool contractor, nor a truck bed liner guy, but I'm pretty sure the granite would need to be cleaned pretty well then scuffed/scored to create a rough surface, and a primer/adhesive coat applied before even spraying the lining down.

Which, I'm sure none of that took place. Or if it did, there were obvious shortcuts.
 
Maggie Haberman & Jonathan Swan - On “Regime Change” & Inside The Trump Presidency | The Daily Show

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
So:

1. Maggie Haberman sucks
2. She wants to jump Jon's bones so hard; that there is Intense Jewess Erotic Thirst
3. Jonathan Swan is one of the funniest and quickest people on Earth
4. Jon's best work in 15 years

Brilliant stuff. Thank you, Scoob.
 
Kepler said:
Humor relies on contradiction, nuance, and double meanings. Totalitarian ideologies require rigid, literal-minded adherence to rules. Fascists do not understand jokes.
Click to expand...
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

argument clinic.jpg
 
Kepler said:
So:

1. Maggie Haberman sucks
2. She wants to jump Jon's bones so hard; that there is Intense Jewess Erotic Thirst
3. Jonathan Swan is one of the funniest and quickest people on Earth
4. Jon's best work in 15 years

Brilliant stuff. Thank you, Scoob.
Click to expand...
1. I like Maggie.
2. I don't care if she wants to fuck him or not.
3. No, not really.
4. Jon is just as good as any other court jester out there right now. It's not like we have tons of great options. He certainly is better than Bill Maher who sold his soul to Trump and Bibi.
 
You know, I expect nonsense from Dump, no matter how ridiculous he gets. The guy is a racist asshole with probable NPD and/or APD and has been enabled to act this way his entire life thanks to his inherited wealth. The senility and added media attention of being POTUS has just made him worse to the Nth degree. Take out the senility and it's the same with Flaggy - a friendless anarchist who hates everyone but himself and likes a firestorm.

The worst part of all of this, is the realization that yes, a majority of your neighbors were some combination of stupid, selfish, and/or heinous enough to vote for him multiple times. And yes, a majority of them would do so yet again given the chance, unless they literally lose everything.
 
Dump is the Kantian Moment for American politics, when we realized the paradox that the people who do not typically vote in a democracy will invariably vote for a strong man who will end the democracy.

To keep any type of electoral fairness we need to limit electoral fairness.

The Founders knew this but chose the wrong criteria: sex, race, property. The right criteria are kindness, intelligence, and optimism.

Jim Crow is the right idea with the wrong targets.

Yet the true friend of the people should see that they be not too poor, for extreme poverty lowers the character of the democracy; measures therefore should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity; and as this is equally the interest of all classes, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor, if possible, in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a little farm, or, at any rate, make a beginning in trade or husbandry. -- Aristotle
Click to expand...

Substitute* "the stupid" for "the poor" and you've got the ticket.

Give the MAGAts a farm, not the vote.

* If we had a perfect system with no bias and true equality of opportunity then the two eventually tail into one. Oligarchy would be okay if wealth were distributed based on ability and true behavior outcomes rather than misogyny, racism, and inheritance. Meritocracy plus an extremely comfortable welfare state sounds like a pretty good way to live, as long as you always have a frontier for we misfits to explore and take our chances outside the confines of the rules, in which the benefits and penalties for our folly only accrue to us.
  • Epistocracy for power
  • Communism for wealth
  • Anarchism for discovery
 
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo said:

I hope Handy got/gets a huge payday. No one who got fired deserved that shit.
Click to expand...

If Handy was at a private school, he may be SOL. If it was a public school or a publicly funded one like a charter school, he's got a much better chance.

My wife used to work with the main person in that article for a number of years when they were both in the same office. She probably could've held out for more but don't blame her for getting the quick cash.

Fun fact: the state updated its employee handbook shortly afterward to try to give them an out in the future for speech that "condones violence." Somehow I doubt that will be applied even handedly, and I doubt it survives 1A scrutiny except in the most extreme case (which would likely already be covered under existing threat/harassment language)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top