This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Anonymous (User Deleted)
Pages: 1 ... 456 78 ... 212
151
« on: November 28, 2016, 09:40:17 PM »
I've got an extra competitive Mimikyu for trade. Perfect 5IVs, fully EV trained, optimized moveset and all. Anyone want it?
Mimikyu is an absolute monster in the Battle Tree. You can very easily get your Attack to +4 or +6 with Swords Dance and just sweep because the AI just has no idea how to deal with Disguise + Red Card. Most based Pokemon ever.
bump Spoiler I'll take it if no one else wants it. Spoiler plus I don't have anything worthwhile to trade in return
152
« on: November 28, 2016, 06:34:42 PM »
Not watching.
153
« on: November 28, 2016, 06:34:24 PM »
Late game spoilers
Spoiler Did anyone actually name their Solgaleo/Lunala, Nebby? I was going too but I decided on this instead  Spoiler Edward for Solgaleo Alphonse for Cosmog Spoiler because Full Metal Body
Wouldn't you call Solgaleo Alphonse though?
but Al is the little brother
154
« on: November 28, 2016, 11:23:42 AM »
Late game spoilers
Spoiler Did anyone actually name their Solgaleo/Lunala, Nebby? I was going too but I decided on this instead Spoiler Edward for Solgaleo Alphonse for Cosmog Spoiler because Full Metal Body
155
« on: November 27, 2016, 11:02:03 PM »
fuck you
fuck you
fuck you
you're cool
fuck you
I'm out
Quoting this for posterity. Let's not pretend I'm the only one at fault here.
You'r still fucking retarded
but Sol isn't
okay
I didn't say he wasn't. Leave it to a stupid fucking liberal to put words in my mouth...
hope you get sucked into a jet engine
I hope you get AIDS from the next dude that you let fuck you in a car
that'd be an improvement because I don't get any action anyway
thanks for the well-wishes
piss off, liberal
but then who will pay for your government-subsidized motor scooter?
156
« on: November 27, 2016, 10:57:15 PM »
fuck you
fuck you
fuck you
you're cool
fuck you
I'm out
Quoting this for posterity. Let's not pretend I'm the only one at fault here.
You'r still fucking retarded
but Sol isn't
okay
I didn't say he wasn't. Leave it to a stupid fucking liberal to put words in my mouth...
hope you get sucked into a jet engine
I hope you get AIDS from the next dude that you let fuck you in a car
that'd be an improvement because I don't get any action anyway thanks for the well-wishes
157
« on: November 27, 2016, 10:52:16 PM »
fuck you
fuck you
fuck you
you're cool
fuck you
I'm out
Quoting this for posterity. Let's not pretend I'm the only one at fault here.
You'r still fucking retarded
but Sol isn't
okay
I didn't say he wasn't. Leave it to a stupid fucking liberal to put words in my mouth...
hope you get sucked into a jet engine
158
« on: November 27, 2016, 10:49:39 PM »
fuck you
fuck you
fuck you
you're cool
fuck you
I'm out
Quoting this for posterity. Let's not pretend I'm the only one at fault here.
You'r still fucking retarded
but Sol isn't okay
159
« on: November 27, 2016, 07:09:21 PM »
fuck you
fuck you
fuck you
you're cool
fuck you
I'm out
Quoting this for posterity. Let's not pretend I'm the only one at fault here.
Yeah, I didn't do squat and he still hates me. I feel special
oh um
160
« on: November 27, 2016, 07:01:28 PM »
fuck you
fuck you
fuck you
you're cool
fuck you
I'm out
Quoting this for posterity. Let's not pretend I'm the only one at fault here.
161
« on: November 27, 2016, 04:02:17 PM »
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections.
"It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"
Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.
I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.
Sure, from a purely evidence based argument, you can't make one without leaking classified information. And from a speculative argument, you have to add in a lot of "maybe"'s to your statements, as in:
"Some government agency might have incriminating evidence that maybe shows that Russia did something"
But at that point you're not saying anything of value beyond speculation, and you're certainly not proving that Russia rigged the election for Trump.
Calm down with the strawmen, jesus. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I think we're mostly in agreement here anyway.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, those were just the possible arguments that i'd come up with. Since this is the second time i've confused someone I'll just quickly explain: Being able to say "this piece of evidence logically leads to this conclusion, but replacing it with this other piece leads to this other conclusion" is the crux of mathematics, so if I ever start saying "if you accept that this happened, then this is the kind of argument you're also making", I'm not actually strawmaning you, just laying out the chain of logic that I see.
What you're explaining sounds exactly like strawmanning.
If you had read my first post in this thread, you wouldn't have made those assumptions to begin with. We're mostly in agreement here.
Yeah my bad, I think and talk in hypotheticals quite often.
It's a difficult habit to break. >.>
162
« on: November 27, 2016, 03:53:24 PM »
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections.
"It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"
Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.
I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.
Sure, from a purely evidence based argument, you can't make one without leaking classified information. And from a speculative argument, you have to add in a lot of "maybe"'s to your statements, as in:
"Some government agency might have incriminating evidence that maybe shows that Russia did something"
But at that point you're not saying anything of value beyond speculation, and you're certainly not proving that Russia rigged the election for Trump.
Calm down with the strawmen, jesus. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I think we're mostly in agreement here anyway.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, those were just the possible arguments that i'd come up with. Since this is the second time i've confused someone I'll just quickly explain: Being able to say "this piece of evidence logically leads to this conclusion, but replacing it with this other piece leads to this other conclusion" is the crux of mathematics, so if I ever start saying "if you accept that this happened, then this is the kind of argument you're also making", I'm not actually strawmaning you, just laying out the chain of logic that I see.
What you're explaining sounds exactly like strawmanning. If you had read my first post in this thread, you wouldn't have made those assumptions to begin with. We're mostly in agreement here.
163
« on: November 27, 2016, 03:04:48 PM »
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections.
"It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"
Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.
I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.
Sure, from a purely evidence based argument, you can't make one without leaking classified information. And from a speculative argument, you have to add in a lot of "maybe"'s to your statements, as in:
"Some government agency might have incriminating evidence that maybe shows that Russia did something"
But at that point you're not saying anything of value beyond speculation, and you're certainly not proving that Russia rigged the election for Trump.
Calm down with the strawmen, jesus. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I think we're mostly in agreement here anyway.
164
« on: November 27, 2016, 09:41:32 AM »
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections.
"It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"
Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.
I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.
165
« on: November 27, 2016, 09:04:38 AM »
PBS.
>an anonymous group nobody has ever heard of demands FBI investigations against the press >impossible to tell if this group is actually who they say they are >story itself appears to be fake news >media uncritically shares this story I'm hardly a fan of Putin, but this story is fucking ridiculous. Who exactly is behind PropOrNot, where it gets its funding and whether or not it is tied to any governments is a complete mystery. Timberg’s piece on the supposed ubiquity of Russian propaganda is misleading in several other ways. The other primary “expert” upon which the article relies is Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a pro-Western think tank whose board of advisors includes neoconservative figures like infamous orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis and pro-imperialist Robert D. Kaplan, the latter of whom served on the U.S. government’s Defense Policy Board.
What the Post does not mention in its report is that Watts, one of the specialists it relies on for its claims, previously worked as an FBI special agent on a Joint Terrorism Task Force and as the executive officer of the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. As Fortune’s Ingram wrote of the group, it is “a conservative think tank funded and staffed by proponents of the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia.”
166
« on: November 25, 2016, 11:33:02 PM »
Oh.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/cnn-accidentally-airs-30-minutes-hard-core-transsexual-porn
It was common knowledge that following the presidential election, one which a painfully biased, unprofessionally partial CNN called wrong every step of the way, the pro-Clinton network would be desperate to preserve its viewership and eyeballs using every means possible. What happened next was a surprise even to us.
On Thursday night, around the time families across the US were celebrating Thanksgiving dinner, CNN accidentally aired half an hour of hardcore pornography after "a grave error by RCN" a local cable TV provider based in New Jersey that provides CNN's broadcasting all down the east coast.
According to the Independent, as viewers were tuning in for a brand new episode of Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown, "the show's title took on a brand new meaning when the scheduled programming was replaced with explicit material starring adult transsexual film star Riley Quinn." 
Riley Quinn was kind enough to promptly thank CNN for the "free airtime" Hey @CNN thanks for the free airtime. The only thing that spared CNN from even greater embarrassment is that the "error" was confined, and according to the Independent's report, only viewers in the Boston are experienced the "mistake" on Thursday night as one viewer voiced her concerns on Twitter. “I can't wait until [RCN] wakes up [tomorrow] & realizes that hardcore porn was broadcast on [CNN] instead of [Parts Unknown] tonight,” user @Solikearose wrote. An hour later, the CNN channel was taken off-air.
“Did anyone else with RCN in Boston see the hardcore porn that was broadcast by CNN by mistake?” the user asked on Twitter before making her account private. “Vague update from RCN on the #BourdainPorn incident: everything “working perfectly,” can’t tell how many households affected.”
It's not immediately clear if the incident was a simple mistake—though it's hard to imagine how getting porn on air would be simple—or if it was the work of a rogue individual. It is also unclear how the unscheduled programming was allowed to stay on the air for 30 minutes.
It remains to be seen if in response to its collapsing ratings, CNN will refocus from waging war on "fake media", and make airing of hard core porn during primetime TV a part of scheduled programming. Come, pardon the pun, to think of it, "Deep Quote with Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper" is a "news" show we could certainly sink our teeth into. Possibly a hoax after all.
167
« on: November 25, 2016, 08:54:21 PM »
>Plot Holes The Movie
>Good
Pick one. Still better than Empire.
I adore the prequels because they hold a special place in my heart, but George obviously phoned them in. The thought that anyone can unironically prefer the prequels to the OT is astonishing to me. Contrarianism is useless if there's actually not a valid argument to be made. Spoiler TPM is fun, but it's maybe worse than AOTC as far as the concept of a trilogy goes. I know George made up Star Wars as he went along, but for that movie he stopped pretending otherwise. TPM is largely filler; the meat of the story mostly happens during AOTC and ROTS, and the original animated series. It's particularly disappointing seeing the deleted scenes from AOTC because it looked like it was once a coherent movie. ROTS was the best by a mile, but it still suffers from George's idea of "humor," awkward dialogue, and his disinterest in giving the actors much of anything to work with.
Ian McDiarmid was phenomenal in all of them, at least.
168
« on: November 24, 2016, 03:16:14 PM »
What is reading comprehension?
What is not being an ass? Excuse me for not reading in detail corpprate law while cooking dinner. I forgot that showing any sign of pushback towards the constant deluge of often disingenuous media attention towards him is tacit dickriding. The belief that his kids can run the blind trust comes directly from an NPR report.
Regardless, it seems like his position hasn't changed at all. From the beginning he's stated his children will control his assets, and yes, I'm sure there will be all sorts of controversial conflicts of interest during his tenure.
Oh, sorry. Next time I'll have to remember to post an excerpt the first time around.
169
« on: November 24, 2016, 01:12:53 PM »
A blind trust isn't some anonymous shadow organization.
No one said it was. But children being a blind trust is a blatant distortion of that term.
That specifies nothing about who specifically may be in control of a blind trust, let alone children of the official. It does in fact state that the purpose is remove the official from the management of the assets, as I said.
What is reading comprehension? Independent trustee. The trustee must be a financial institution, a C.P.A., an attorney, a broker, or an investment advisor who is independent of the federal official or any person interested in the trust, and whose officers or employees are similarly independent. Such independence requires that the trustee and trust employees not be able to be influenced by the official or other interested parties in investment decisions, and not be “associated” or “affiliated” with, nor an employee, partner of or a relative of, the public official or any interested party to the trust. 5 U.S.C. app. § 102(f)(3)(A). 5 U.S.C. app. § 102(f)(3)(A) states: (3) For purposes of this subsection, the term "qualified blind trust" includes any trust in which a reporting individual, his spouse, or any minor or dependent child has a beneficial interest in the principal or income, and which meets the following requirements:
(A)(i) The trustee of the trust and any other entity designated in the trust instrument to perform fiduciary duties is a financial institution, an attorney, a certified public accountant, a broker, or an investment advisor who-
(I) is independent of and not associated with any interested party so that the trustee or other person cannot be controlled or influenced in the administration of the trust by any interested party; and
(II) is not and has not been an employee of or affiliated with any interested party and is not a partner of, or involved in any joint venture or other investment with, any interested party; and
(III) is not a relative of any interested party.
170
« on: November 24, 2016, 12:39:44 PM »
Anyways, if he doesn't solve these conflicts of interest about his companies, he can't be President. It's the law.
Actually, the president and vice president are exempt from conflict of interest laws. That doesn't make it right, but that's just the way it is for whatever reason.
171
« on: November 24, 2016, 12:33:08 PM »
A blind trust isn't some anonymous shadow organization.
No one said it was. But children being a blind trust is a blatant distortion of that term.
172
« on: November 24, 2016, 12:07:38 PM »
His kids can run it in a blind trust
That is not a blind trust.
173
« on: November 24, 2016, 10:31:02 AM »
In NYT's softball interview with Donald Trump, the President-elect doubled down leaving the business to his children: Spoiler SHEAR [interrupts]: And if the reaction from foreign leaders is to slap tariffs on American goods to offset the carbon that the United States had pledged to reduce, is that O.K. with you? And then the second question is on your sort of mixing of your global business interests and the presidency. There’s already, even just in the 10, two weeks you’ve been president-elect, instances where you’ve met with your Indian business partners …
TRUMP: Sure.
SHEAR: You’ve talked about the impact of the wind farms on your golf course. People, experts who are lawyers and ethics experts, say that all of that is totally inappropriate, so I guess the question for you is, what do you see as the appropriate structure for keeping those two things separate, and are there any lines that you think you won’t want to cross once you’re in the White House?
TRUMP: O.K. First of all, on countries. I think that countries will not do that to us. I don’t think if they’re run by a person that understands leadership and negotiation they’re in no position to do that to us, no matter what I do. They’re in no position to do that to us, and that won’t happen, but I’m going to take a look at it. A very serious look. I want to also see how much this is costing, you know, what’s the cost to it, and I’ll be talking to you folks in the not-too-distant future about it, having to do with what just took place.
As far as the, you know, potential conflict of interests, though, I mean I know that from the standpoint, the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest. That’s been reported very widely. Despite that, I don’t want there to be a conflict of interest anyway. And the laws, the president can’t. And I understand why the president can’t have a conflict of interest now because everything a president does in some ways is like a conflict of interest, but I have, I’ve built a very great company and it’s a big company and it’s all over the world. People are starting to see, when they look at all these different jobs, like in India and other things, number one, a job like that builds great relationships with the people of India, so it’s all good. But I have to say, the partners come in, they’re very, very successful people. They come in, they’d say, they said, ‘Would it be possible to have a picture?’ Actually, my children are working on that job. So I can say to them, Arthur, ‘I don’t want to have a picture,’ or, I can take a picture. I mean, I think it’s wonderful to take a picture. I’m fine with a picture. But if it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again. That would be like you never seeing your son again. That wouldn’t be good. That wouldn’t be good. But I’d never, ever see my daughter Ivanka.
UNKNOWN: That means you’d have to make Ivanka deputy President, you know.
TRUMP: I know, I know, yeah. [room laughs] Well, I couldn’t do that either. I can’t, that can’t work. I can’t do anything, I would never see my, I guess the only son I’d be allowed to see, at least for a little while, would be Barron, because he’s 10. But, but, so there has to be [unintelligible]. It’s a very interesting case.
UNKNOWN: You could sell your company though, right? With all due respect, you could sell your company and then …
TRUMP: Well …
UNKNOWN: And then you could see them all the time.
TRUMP: That’s a very hard thing to do, you know what, because I have real estate. I have real estate all over the world, which now people are understanding. When I filed my forms with the federal election, people said, ‘Wow that’s really a big company, that’s a big company.’ It really is big, it’s diverse, it’s all over the world. It’s a great company with great assets. I think that, you know, selling real estate isn’t like selling stock. Selling real estate is much different, it’s in a much different world. I’d say this, and I mean this and I said it on “60 Minutes” the other night: My company is so unimportant to me relative to what I’m doing, ’cause I don’t need money, I don’t need anything, and by the way, I’m very under-leveraged, I have a very small percentage of my money in debt, very very small percentage of my money in debt, in fact, banks have said ‘We’d like to loan you money, we’d like to give you any amount of money.’ I’ve been there before, I’ve had it both ways, I’ve been over-levered, I’ve been under-levered and, especially as you get older, under-levered is much better.
UNKNOWN: Mr. President-elect …
TRUMP: Just a minute, because it’s an important question. I don’t care about my company. I mean, if a partner comes in from India or if a partner comes in from Canada, where we did a beautiful big building that just opened, and they want to take a picture and come into my office, and my kids come in and, I originally made the deal with these people, I mean what am I going to say? I’m not going to talk to you, I’m not going to take pictures? You have to, you know, on a human basis, you take pictures. But I just want to say that I am given the right to do something so important in terms of so many of the issues we discussed, in terms of health care, in terms of so many different things. I don’t care about my company. It doesn’t matter. My kids run it. They’ll say I have a conflict because we just opened a beautiful hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, so every time somebody stays at that hotel, if they stay because I’m president, I guess you could say it’s a conflict of interest. It’s a conflict of interest, but again, I’m not going to have anything to do with the hotel, and they may very well. I mean it could be that occupancy at that hotel will be because, psychologically, occupancy at that hotel will be probably a more valuable asset now than it was before, O.K.? The brand is certainly a hotter brand than it was before. I can’t help that, but I don’t care. I said on “60 Minutes”: I don’t care. Because it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters to me is running our country.
Notably, one benefit of voting for Mr. Trump, as touted by his supporters, was that unlike his opponent, Ms. Clinton, Trump would not have conflicts of interest, such as the Clinton Foundation. At the least, Mr. Trump's businesses provide somewhat greater transparency because nearly all of them have his name on them. But his defense largely boils down to the problematic 'it's not wrong if the president (or similar authority figure) does it.'
174
« on: November 24, 2016, 12:57:02 AM »
>President-elect has an unprecedented hostility towards the media and press freedom >Throws a tantrum at the media >Trump cucks will attempt to normalize this >Media journalists celebrities agree to an off-the-record meeting, which they should not do >apparently it was to negotiate access or some cozy bullshit like that>put it on the record anyway, which they also should not do >turn around and complain that a big meanie said mean stuff  >utter mishandling of the situation by the media >sensationalist media gets baited by him yet again >their actions seemingly validate Trump's tantrum There are no winners here, but the media was fucking incompetent. I'm nearly speechless. This whole story sounds like something out of Network except it's literally the state of our country right now.
175
« on: November 20, 2016, 07:45:54 PM »
So... are we good now?
177
« on: November 20, 2016, 07:54:10 AM »
Let's not ignore that the supreme court gets the final say on this matter, it's partisan as fuck.
Everyone knows that, it's basic civics. But a conservative Supreme Court could overrule itself, if Trump gets a second appointment, and an appointment is for life. It could have long-term consequences that last decades beyond a Trump presidency.
178
« on: November 19, 2016, 10:36:03 PM »
this is obsessive, class
I feel like making up mental diagnosises for people you dont like is more obsessive than making a thread
I'm done with this conversation. Regular diets will work if you stop lying to yourself.
except for the time I went on a rigourous diet and only dropped to 161
not what this thread is about anyway retard
go leak some more PMs for attention thanks
mods can lock this
179
« on: November 19, 2016, 10:32:49 PM »
this is obsessive, class
I feel like making up mental diagnosises for people you dont like is more obsessive than making a thread
I'm done with this conversation. Regular diets will work if you stop lying to yourself.
180
« on: November 19, 2016, 10:30:14 PM »
the fuck are you talking about
also tell Kupo to let me into the discord and stop being a whiny bitch
who are you?
Pages: 1 ... 456 78 ... 212
|
Show Posts