Smeevy
I'll sort of miss Harvest, but I'm acclimating myself to the idea of just writing my own timesheet software.
I suppose that I must have lost this impromptu high school debate with your Calvinball rules. Oh, agony!
Also, I wanted to take this opportunity to state that, if you were writing a joke about whataboutisms, it wouldn't be funny because it would be you writing it.
That's a bingo, everybody!
Do I hear 3? Anybody?
This classification, just like every other action taken by this administration, is a means to inflict damage on their ever-expanding list of enemies. The great thing about vague nonsense like this Antifa EO is that they can control who is and isn’t defined as Antifa.
With regard to your political affiliation, I honestly do not care. If you want to gabble on about Antifa as if it's a real threat, you might as well just fly the Trump 2028 flag and drop the silly pretense.
That's great and I totally believe you. Thumbs up emoji and all that.
>I've seen what antifa militants do almost every time they protest,
Oh my gosh, you were serious. Can you point out the "Antifa militants" to me? How would someone go about training to join the Antifa Elite Guard?
I see there's a whole process to get into the Proud Boys and all sorts of other right wing extremist groups on Facebook, but I'm not quite seeing the path to membership for Antifa. Is it because they're so well organized and funded by billionaires?
>The topic was about if there was any leftwing violence.
Was it? I mentioned the leftist violence, and absence thereof, in particular circumstances that you ignored. There was a slew of other stuff in there, but the main gist was attempting to counteract the other poster whataboutsing Biden saying that MAGA are awful people which, in turn, caused a whirlwind of hurt feelings that forced them vote in an authoritarian. You ignored that and wanted to review financials about black people rioting, thereby missing the forest for the trees and I should not have bothered to respond. Mea culpa.
>"You brought up this bad thing, oh yeah, well what about this other completely unrelated bad thing that the other team did!" is precisely the team sports thinking that you have engaged in, not me.["]
I hope you are not expecting me to take you seriously. I've been whatabouticized so many times by conservative pearl-clutchers online that it has no effect anymore. Near as I can tell, there's only one "team" here and I ain't on it. It seems to revel in disgusting me.
If you can spend even a second defending this administration running roughshod over our Constitution then I have no interest in your political viewpoint. The best time to have been shaming conservatives was decades ago, but I guess now will have to do. My only hope is that the America Right can rediscover their sense of shame.
January 6th damage was estimated at $2.7 billion dollars by the GAO. That riot (more of an attempted coup) actually was coordinated by actual, tangible right wing extremist groups rather than the shadowy "Antifa" fiction that hides underneath all of your beds.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106625.pdf
>It is riots like those mentioned that I presume this executive order is targeting. You presume? This administration has lost the benefit of any doubt. This is a cabal of shameless liars and they should be denounced at every turn.
This is yet another transparent attempt to circumvent basic American rights and you're defending it like I said something mean about your local sports team.
Remember the time that Biden canceled Gutfeld! and everyone went crazy about it? What about the time that Biden just gave himself the magical ability to tariff the rest of the world based on whimsy? What about all of the violence from those awful leftists every time some MAGA chud wore a "Let's go, Brandon!" shirt or put a sticker of Biden hog-tied and gagged on their back of their chudmobile?
The important thing here is that you are awful people. I'm saying that based on the lack of morals, empathy, and basic human decency that has become the calling card of American regressives.
Even if he does, there is damage here that will not be undone.
We need to stop treating this monster like a wayward child.
I'm not being sarcastic or anything here. Accepting a few limitations on the theoretical extents of my personal freedom so that I can exist and not worry about being murdered for my possessions on a minute-by-minute basis seems like a pretty good deal.
Not that Russia cares about committing war crimes, of course.
For comparison, in AZ we had legislators caught in a sting operation that were selling individual votes for gambling legislation for between $660 to $60,000 in the 1990s.
We should not normalize this. That was a outright bribe even if it wasn't as big as what others gave. I wouldn't get off the hook for murder just because I argued that Ted Bundy killed waaaaaaay more people than me.
Let's look at "rich flight" through the lens that is not colored with difference to the affluent. The idea here is that, if you make rich folk pay more taxes, they'll pack up their hoard pile of gold, jewels, and dwarf skeletons and fly away to somewhere they're less taxed and more appreciated.
That sounds great until you realize that rich people have massive roots in the places they live. Their expensive homes and professional lives are very closely tied to the community in which they're located. This flight is something that gets threatened very frequently and acted upon very rarely. If past performance is any indicator of future returns, then I'd gladly take my chances that those jerks stick around and pay their fair share.
>You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand because you think the paper is from a "right wing think tank" - regardless of the fact that an extremely well-respected fiscally liberal podcast, Freakonomics, supported the findings.
My disgust comes from actually looking through the Mahattan Institute and seeing it's every bit as trash-flavored as the Heritage Foundation. I absolutely don't need to entertain their disingenuous, fascist-adjacent prattle. After the last few months, it's advisable to write off anything that still claims to be conservative. They've squandered all benefit of the doubt and, for the sake of our own survival, should be reviled at every opportunity.
On a more targeted note, you are switching between "I find this idea intriguing" and "this idea is a fact that's supported by the liberals on Freakonomics" so fast I'm getting whiplash over here. Freakonomics, while entertaining, has been spectactularly wrong enough times that it's more entertainment than anything else. You're appealing to an authority that has a predilection for results that are "surprising."
I don't know if you support the erosion of civil liberties, but it seems like you enjoy repeating things from folks that do.
There might be the promise of free home internet, but , darnit, the folks in charge just couldn't do that in a way that appeases broadband providers. I guess we'll all just have to make do with nothing. Again.
Your pearl clutching about government waste seemed weird to me until I read your links. Manhattan Institute? You're citing positions from right-wing think tanks after Project 2025?
Unless you need guidance for how to kidnap gardeners or stop women from voting, anything coming these organizations is dangerously ridiculous.
Now that I think about it, I'm not quite sure where to put cost-effective LLM access in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
If you're truly honest about doing that, you should wind up being disgusted 24x7.