CitizenVectron

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

Uhhhhh, yeah, yeah it does and yeah it should

 

You are necessarily saying the act of being sexually submissive is negative when you use it as a metaphor for the political relationship between Trump and Putin. Think about why being sexually submissive is a presumed negative in this metaphor.

Because submission (in any context) is seen as weak by society, as someone else has power over you.

12 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Again, I think this is giving the people saying this stuff far too much credit. Besides, even if you’re going to take that angle... there’s nothing negative about being a sub, either.

 

It’s a lazy fucking “criticism” all around.

There's nothing wrong with being an employee and someone else being a business owner...but you can still say "man he's not the boss of you!" to someone to imply that they are being submissive to someone else and are an idiot for allowing it.

I mean don't get me wrong, I am glad that X-Men and F4 are now going to be a part of the MCU. But the price for that is too great here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

Quote

Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.

 

The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.

 

Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed.

 

The shifting narrative underscores the degree to which Mr. Trump regularly picks and chooses intelligence to suit his political purposes. That has never been more clear than this week.

Yeah, there's no way that Putin doesn't have something on Trump.

Quote

Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed.

 

The shifting narrative underscores the degree to which Mr. Trump regularly picks and chooses intelligence to suit his political purposes. That has never been more clear than this week.

Or he is traitorous and views his own good fortune above the defense of the country.

13 minutes ago, Jason said:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheriff-who-once-endorsed-roy-moore-accused-of-having-sex-with-underage-girls_us_5b4f6279e4b0de86f488eb64

 

Reddit comment:

 

 

 

Hmm, that's actually more plausible than the pee pee tape, though still less plausible than "money laundering through our banks."

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

 

It is absolutely homophobic language. The root of its is misogyny, though. The insult originated from the notion that a gay man receiving anal sex is like a woman by virtue of a man penetrating him, and being penetrated by a man is a way in which a woman’s weakness is shown. If you have to perpetuate ugly narratives about innocent bystanders to make your joke, you shouldn’t make the joke.

 

It is indefensible.

I don't make the jokes or comments, I am just curious how people view them. I don't know that I completely agree that all usage of the word "fucked" is homophobic or misogynistic, though. If you take it down to the root level, "fuck you!" could be seen as both. But in reality the phrase has nothing to do with sex at all, and is just used to express anger. To draw a parallel, in Quebec many of the curse words are actually real words used by the Roman Catholic Church. Originally they were used to refer to Church things, like tabernacle. But now, saying "tabarnak!" just basically is like an extreme version of "fuck!" The original meaning is completely lost in the context of the insult or curse.

I agree that the cartoon and things like it (portraying someone as gay to make them look weak) are homophobic. But are all things related to sex (with the implication between men) homophobic, if used to insult someone? Like my aforementioned examples "He really took it up the ass on that one" or "wow, he got fucked"? 

15 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

1) they’re not alt right

2) it’s homophobic 

It's something I've not really thought about, the use of "taking it up the ass" or "bending someone over" as insults. Are they homophobic? To me it seems more of a dominance thing than a gay thing (you are fucking someone, or getting fucked by them). Similar to how someone might say "man I got fucked on that deal." Is "getting fucked" homophobic because of the implication that you as a male are on the receiving end of another male? I am honestly curious if these things are widely considered homophobic. I could be wrong (and opinions can and will change over time), but I've always viewed those sayings as apart from sexuality, and to do with dominance.

3 minutes ago, DPCyric said:

You know I hate the guy and almost everything he has done and all the ideas in his head but I feel this is a haters gonna hate situation... I am not even patriotic but having Air Force One red white and blue seems ok 

Using the colours is fine, if done in a reserved and tasteful manner. But do you think any design he is involved with would be either of those?

Fortunately by the time it actually is built and in use someone will have changed whatever he insists on.

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/mining/trade-war-spills-into-uranium-as-u-s-weighs-import-tariffs

Quote

The Trump administration began an investigation into whether uranium imports threaten national security, a move that may lead to tariffs on the nuclear power plant fuel.

 

Imposing uranium duties would deal another blow to nuclear power plants already struggling with low electricity prices and flat demand. The investigation also adds to trade tensions that the International Monetary Fund warns represents the biggest risk to the global economy. U.S. uranium miners supply less than 5 per cent of domestic consumption for the metal and say it’s increasingly difficult to compete with state-subsidized companies abroad.

Why this is a bad idea:

Quote

U.S. production of uranium necessary for military and electric power has dropped to 5 per cent of domestic consumption, from 49 per cent, said Ross. Prices for the commodity have slumped since the 2011 Fukushima disaster led big buyers including Japan and Germany to shut down or decommission reactors. Compounding the problem was a global supply glut that prompted Kazakhstan, the world’s biggest producer, to cut back last year. Canada’s Cameco Corp., the top North American supplier, followed suit in November.

 

Canada and Kazakhstan are the main sources of U.S. uranium imports, each accounting for about a quarter of the total, followed by Australia, Russia and Uzbekistan, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Almost 90 per cent of uranium delivered to U.S. reactors was from foreign nations in 2016, according to the government agency.

The US only produces 5% of its own Uranium for both military and civilian use. So Canada contributes 25% (largest importer), followed by Khazakstan (also 25%) and a bunch of others like Australia and Russia.

But to say that it should be subject to tariffs because it's a security threat is...I can't even describe how preposterous it is since it's used by the US for its own security.

In reality it's an attack both on trading partners (or "leeches" as Trump would believe) as well as the nuclear power industry. Gotta save coal, even if it means artificially making all of the other options losers. Next up is a 50% surcharge on all sunlight entering the US from it's space border!

Yeah, this is fucked up.

Truly a great man who is not at all isolated from the people and the issues that face them.

Assuming that this is true, then it doesn't really affect the rarity of diamonds since we have no foreseeable way of extracting them from the mantle.

5 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Ok, who is U.S. Person 1???

It's believed to be Paul Erickson:

10 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Here's a stage show of the beta demo they had at E3

 

 

the TL;DR if you don't want to watch it.

 

- Greater emphasis on melee combat

- Individual characters have different special skills

- You have a camp that you upgrade with items you find on missions and also seems like some items you find you can craft items like lockpicks and such (for characters that use those skills)

- There is a noise meter so hordes aren't just triggered by a witch (like in L4D)

- There are humans, not everyone is a zombie.

- There is character progression, skill trees, etc

- Expect a lot of post launch content (like payday 2)

 

Here's just straight gameplay of the beta mission (no interview)

 

 

Thanks, I'll watch this later today!

57 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Then may I suggest Overkill's L4D3 The Walking Dead?

 

 

 

@Triage

Hmm! Tell me more! How is it different from l4d2?

14 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

He's done a VERY good  job of just maintaining a low profile.

Mushroom clouds on the horizon will be a good reminder.

That sucks that this is mediocre. Vermintide II is fantastic, but I really was hoping for a spiritual successor to L4D2.

dp

Apparently the currently one is too boring, and the new one will be red, white, and blue (in other words, gaudy). 

I believe people when they say the current jet is getting old and a new one is needed for technological reasons, but the current look is so classic (and classy):

26 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Which gets to my point that Democrats don’t understand power.  They would rather pretend to be characters from the West Wing than actually make a meaningful difference.

I mean, the preservation of norms is a good thing if both sides are willing to play by the rules. Otherwise you would be okay with the next Democratic President expanding the Supreme Court to 500 seats and stacking it with every single one of their friends.

I'm glad I avoided it when it first launched, but this might get me into it! Is this update for PC as well?

I think one thing I will grant Obama is that Presidents only really seem to have 1 year of political mandate in the US before everyone turns against them. So you get 1 year to do what you want, maybe 2 if you are lucky and get re-elected. Unfortunately for Obama much of that time was spent with the bailout, which for some reason was seen as a political issue that needed to use up political goodwill. Then he had to fight for the ACA, and that was pretty much all he was ever allowed to do (and didn't even get what he really wanted). 

Also yeah, Clinton made some big mistakes but she was far from being a bad candidate. She received the second-highest votes of any Democratic candidate in US history and won the popular vote by a decent margin. People like Kerry and Gore were worse candidates than her. Honestly her positions were pretty liberal (for American politics) but received almost no coverage. But that's normal, because US elections aren't about policies they are about personalities because the US electorate is a collection of Neanderthals and troglodytes.