Lurker > Tom_Joad

These chicks are very cute. And they say, "Peep peep!"

Quoth the

supermichael11 posted...

Maybe I should have been clear, so I guess that is on me. I want to know ways to make a lot of money. To be able to make 30,000 and more a year.

Go into intelligence work. You won't get uber wealthy, but you'll be nicely compensated.

And you get into it by applying to an agency directly, or by joining the military and choosing an intelligence career field.

The military path is more certain, though. But less pay to begin with.

This is an important topic and should be stickied.

a midnight dreary

Once upon

Maybe the picture should be everyone left in their lineup before we judge?

I absolutely hated the show.

There where too many contrived situations that none of them should have tolerated.

Vegy posted...

I'll look into dis one

I was looking at dat price range on amazon, how are dey on gravel?

The Urbanglide ones are good on cobblestones, what with their shock absorbers. Dunno about gravel.

I see a lot of Urbanglide scooters around here.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/987be123.jpg

I don't like Americanized Chinese food.

I'd rather have real Chinese food if I'm going to eat Chinese... curated so that they aren't the super-exotic dishes that would gross a westerner out.

Kenny because

I'll believe it when I see it.

You are a billionaire... in Iranian rials.

42,143 Iranian rials = $1

1,000,000,000 Iranian rials = $23,764

If you have $23,764... you're a billionaire. Just go to Tehran to enjoy it.

:-P

No, because I don't use Chrome for my web browser. And I don't allow third party cookies to be enabled on any web page I peruse.

AsucaHayashi posted...

trump has got to be the best conman in history.

he could piss in the face of his voters not once but twice and they would still treat it as liquid gold the second time.

Trump is basically the shitbag version P.T. Barnum, he's rediscovered that there's a sucker born every minute... and doubly-so with voters.

Humble_Novice posted...

Yet he lost because he didn't do enough to win over Black voters in the South.

Except, ya know, actually be in the Civil Rights protests and marches in the 1960s.

I'd have thought that would have counted for something.

I guess not.

Sure.

$250,000/year salary
401k matching up to 15%.
6 weeks paid leave.
All federal holidays off.
20/hr week remote work.

Let's get the ball rolling, Amazon.

Farting Harley is the best Harley!!!

Robot2600 posted...

*karate fighting commences*

https://youtu.be/bmfudW7rbG0

I liked it when Harley farted in the Batmobile.

https://youtu.be/4Jj37XR1yFw

"Smells like... discipline!"

WingsOfGood posted...

as seen in the op thanks to a.i, , they may rest on these days

must we make up fiction because it breaks the mold of what we were told? interesting that we weren't told they only worked 3 days a week is it not?

Jesus fucking asshat Christ...

Those 3 days were coerced labor, the peasant got nothing for it. (except protection and a certain number of feast days, like Christmas)

The other four days were his "work week." In other words, all the work that he had to do in order to bring in his own crops... which would keep his family fed during the summer months, and during the winter months.

Sure he could rest, and starve to death.

I am.

Beware my wrath, for I have woken.

Phoro posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2bcfb59d.jpg

They were, back during his first campaign and Presidency.

You chose not to pay attention.

They don't say "G-d loves you".

They always say, "Jeebus loves you."

divot1338 posted...

Chicken nugget cooking instructions

1. Prepare the chicken for cooking. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0078f6d8.jpg

No!

These chickies will be laying eggs in 6 months!

Nobody likes the chickies.

:-(

fart perfumed

These are some very cute chicks. I just want to pick them up and give them a smooch.

Sehr gut, ya?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/03d512dd.jpg

Cheese sandwich.

Just think, 24 years after WWII ended was...

1969.

nocturnal_traveler posted...

Where did I say to protest a Democrat? I said to kick out bad faith actors and Dems with no spine. Besides, you must've missed the post where I was corrected on protests.

Like I said in another post, protesting against Republicans is ineffective.

Ergo, who do you protest against? Democrats.

It's an inverse axiom.

Mistere_Man posted...

Watched? They were the toilet paper.

Q was the poop that Picard pooped... every day of Picard's life. And he was the bidet that Picard used to clean his butt.

nocturnal_traveler posted...

Like I said in another post, protesting against Republicans is ineffective. More direct actions need to be taken against them. As for the media, that's why I said all over the Internet, and not just a few select spots. And news media like BBC could also help spread the word.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, dude.

The Republicans of today were the Dixiecrats of yesteryear.

And the civil-rights movement protested the ever-living fuck out of them.

They *DIDN'T*, I might add, protest John F. Kennedy.

Which is exactly what you are proposing to do.

---

Edit: And I'd point out that the civil-rights movement was a SUCCESSFUL movement.

Aztex posted...

Everyone is jealous of USA that's the downside about being the best.

By what metric?

Number of incarcerated?

Dungeater posted...

i dont mean the double post, i mean that the first two paragraphs are repeated immediately after

Is it?

Well, shit... I didn't even notice.

And I can't edit the post now to correct it.

Sorry about that, everyone.

Dungeater posted...

it's not a particularly long read. the double copy is irksome but not a slowdown. and it's an important and complex issue. either youre interested or you arent

the tldr is the title.

It's in two posts because GameFaqs doesn't allow any post to be longer than 8,000 characters.

NeonPhoenix posted...

I guess it needs a couple more paragraphs to flesh out the point

It's found in the preceding paragraph.

I know what youre thinking: Isnt Trump just doing what realists like you have been suggesting? Havent you been saying that Ukraine has no plausible path to regaining its lost territory and that prolonging the war is just prolonging suffering to no good purpose? Didnt you also argue that basing a European security order on open-ended NATO expansion was a dangerous pipe dream? Instead of pushing Russia and China closer together, doesnt it make good strategic sense to drive a wedge between them and fashion a European order that reduces Moscows incentives to cause trouble? Indeed, wouldnt a better relationship with Russia make Europe safer in the long run? And if disrupting the comfortable transatlantic consensus convinces the nations of Europe to get their act together and rebuild some real defense capability, then the United States wont have to keep protecting them and can focus more effort on China. In this view, Trump isnt Europes enemy; hes just dispensing some tough love to a complacent continent and following good realist logic.

If only that were true. In fact, Trump, Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and other administration officials have gone well beyond the long-standing disputes about burden-sharing, the need for a more sensible division of labor within the alliance, or the long-overdue reassessment about how to handle the war in Ukraine and relations with Russia. Their aim is to fundamentally transform relations with long-standing U.S. allies, rewrite the global rulebook, and, if possible, remake Europe along MAGA lines. That agenda is openly hostile to the existing European order.

Third, and most important, Trump, Elon Musk, Vance, and the rest of the MAGA team are openly backing illiberal forces in Europe. In effect, they are trying to impose a far-reaching regime change throughout Europe, albeit without using military force. The signs are unmistakable: Hungarys Viktor Orban is a welcome guest at Mar-a-Lago. Vance met withAlice Weidel, co-chair of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, while he was in Munich, but not with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and his declaration that the main challenge to Europe was the threat from within was an unveiled attack on the continents political order. (It was beyond ironic for Vance to criticize Europeans for anti-democratic behavior, given his refusal to admit that Trump lost the 2020 election or to condemn the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. But I digress.) Not to be outdone, Musk has been spewing his own false and hateful accusations at various European leaders, defending far-right criminals like Tommy Robinson, and interviewing Weidel and expressing his own support for her party.

Despite a few differences on certain issues, the MAGA movement and most far-right parties in Europe generally opposealmost all forms of immigration; are skeptical to hostile toward the European Union; see elites, media, and higher education as the enemy; want to reimpose traditional religious values and gender norms; and believe citizenship should be defined by shared ethnicity or ancestry and not by shared civic values or ones birthplace. Like their fascist predecessors, they are comfortable with and adept at using the norms and institutions of democracy to subvert democratic rule and strengthen executive power. Sound familiar?

Rachmans assessment that the United States is now an adversary of Europe is only partly correct, therefore, because Trump and his minions support European far-right nationalist movements that share their basic worldview. They are hostile to a vision of Europe as a model of democratic governance, social welfare, openness, the rule of law, political, social, and religious tolerance, and transnational cooperation. One might even say that they would like America and Europe to have similar values; the problem is that the values they have in mind are incompatible with genuine democracy.

Trump and co. think treating Europe as an enemy risks little, because they believe Europe is a declining region and incapable of getting its act together. Undermining efforts to strengthen European unity by backing the far right also makes it easier for Washington to play divide-and-rule. On the other hand, openly bullying other countries tends to encourage national unity and a greater willingness to resist (as we are now seeing in Canada), and the chaos Trump and Musk have been unleashing here in the United States may make Europeans wary of trying similar experiments at home.

It is also worth remembering that the initial push for European economic integration occurred in the 1950s, when European leaders believed the United States was going to withdraw its forces from the continent in the not-too-distant future and turn responsibility for European security back over to these states. Integrating key industries such as coal and steel was thus a first step to building sufficient economic and political unity to enable these states to stand up to the Soviet Union without direct U.S. assistance. The United States ultimately decided to keep its forces on the continent and the European Economic Community (and later EU) took on more openly economic and political objectives, but the early history reminds us that the prospect of having to go it alone was once a powerful driving force behind greater European cooperation.

Finally, if America is now an adversary, Europes leaders should stop asking themselves what they need to do to keep Uncle Sam happy and start asking what they must do to protect themselves. If I were them, Id start by inviting more trade delegations from China and start developing alternatives to the SWIFT system of international financial payments. European universities should increase collaborative research efforts with Chinese institutions, a step that will become even more attractive if Trump and Musk continue to damage academic institutions in the United States. End Europes dependence on U.S. weapons by rebuilding Europes own defense industrial base. Send EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas to the next BRICS summit and consider applying for membership. And so forth.

Because all of these steps would be costly for Europe and harmful for the United States, I dont want to see any of them actually happen. But Europe may be given little choice. Although Ive long thought the transatlantic relationship was past its high-water mark and that a new division of labor was needed, the goal should have sought to preserve a high level of transatlantic amity rather than encourage open hostility. If Trumps diplomatic revolution turns 450 million Europeans from being some of Americas staunchest allies into bitter and resentful adversaries increasingly looking for ways to hinder the United States, we will have only ourselvesor, more precisely, the current presidentto blame.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/21/yes-america-is-europes-enemy-now/

A few weeks ago, I warned that the second Trump administration might be squandering the tolerance and good will that Washington had long received from the worlds major democracies. Instead of seeing the United States as a mostly positive force in world affairs, these states might now have to worry that the United States is actively malevolent. That column was written before Vice President J.D. Vance gave his confrontational speech at the Munich Security Conference, before President Donald Trump blamed Ukraine for starting the war with Russia, and before U.S. officials appeared to preemptively offer Russia almost everything it wants before negotiations on Ukraine were even underway. The reaction of mainstream European observers was neatly summed up by Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times: [T]he Trump administrations political ambitions for Europe mean that, for now, America is also an adversary.

Is this view correct? A skeptic might recall that there have been serious rifts in the transatlantic partnership on many prior occasions: over Suez in 1956, over nuclear strategy and Vietnam in the 1960s, over the Euromissiles issue in the 1980s, and during the Kosovo war in 1999. The Iraq war in 2003 was yet another low-water mark between Washington and much of Europe. The United States did not hesitate to act unilaterally on numerous occasions, even when its allies interests were adversely affected, as Richard Nixon did when he took the United States off the gold standard in 1971 or as Joe Biden did when he signed the protectionist Inflation Reduction Act and the United States forced European firms to stop some high-tech exports to China. But few Europeans or Canadians believed the United States was deliberately trying to harm them; they believed that Washington was genuinely committed to their security and understood that its own security and prosperity was tied to their own. They were right, which made it much easier for the United States to win their support when necessary.

A few weeks ago, I warned that the second Trump administration might be squandering the tolerance and good will that Washington had long received from the worlds major democracies. Instead of seeing the United States as a mostly positive force in world affairs, these states might now have to worry that the United States is actively malevolent. That column was written before Vice President J.D. Vance gave his confrontational speech at the Munich Security Conference, before President Donald Trump blamed Ukraine for starting the war with Russia, and before U.S. officials appeared to preemptively offer Russia almost everything it wants before negotiations on Ukraine were even underway. The reaction of mainstream European observers was neatly summed up by Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times: [T]he Trump administrations political ambitions for Europe mean that, for now, America is also an adversary.

Is this view correct? A skeptic might recall that there have been serious rifts in the transatlantic partnership on many prior occasions: over Suez in 1956, over nuclear strategy and Vietnam in the 1960s, over the Euromissiles issue in the 1980s, and during the Kosovo war in 1999. The Iraq war in 2003 was yet another low-water mark between Washington and much of Europe. The United States did not hesitate to act unilaterally on numerous occasions, even when its allies interests were adversely affected, as Richard Nixon did when he took the United States off the gold standard in 1971 or as Joe Biden did when he signed the protectionist Inflation Reduction Act and the United States forced European firms to stop some high-tech exports to China. But few Europeans or Canadians believed the United States was deliberately trying to harm them; they believed that Washington was genuinely committed to their security and understood that its own security and prosperity was tied to their own. They were right, which made it much easier for the United States to win their support when necessary.

For most European leadersand certainly for those in attendance at Munich last weekthe situation feels very different today. For the first time since 1949, they have valid reasons to believe that the president of the United States is not just indifferent to NATO and dismissive of Europes leaders, but actively hostile to most European countries. Instead of thinking of the nations of Europe as Americas most important partners, Trump appears to have switched sides and sees President Vladimir Putins Russia as a better long-term bet. Speculation about Trumps affinity with Putin has been swirling for years; those sympathies now appear to be guiding U.S. policy.

I know what youre thinking: Isnt Trump just doing what realists like you have been suggesting? Havent you been saying that Ukraine has no plausible path to regaining its lost territory and that prolonging the war is just prolonging suffering to no good purpose? Didnt you also argue that basing a European security order on open-ended NATO expansion was a dangerous pipe dream? Instead of pushing Russia and China closer together, doesnt it make good strategic sense to drive a wedge between them and fashion a European order that reduces Moscows incentives to cause trouble? Indeed, wouldnt a better relationship with Russia make Europe safer in the long run? And if disrupting the comfortable transatlantic consensus convinces the nations of Europe to get their act together and rebuild some real defense capability, then the United States wont have to keep protecting them and can focus more effort on China. In this view, Trump isnt Europes enemy; hes just dispensing some tough love to a complacent continent and following good realist logic.

If only that were true. In fact, Trump, Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and other administration officials have gone well beyond the long-standing disputes about burden-sharing, the need for a more sensible division of labor within the alliance, or the long-overdue reassessment about how to handle the war in Ukraine and relations with Russia. Their aim is to fundamentally transform relations with long-standing U.S. allies, rewrite the global rulebook, and, if possible, remake Europe along MAGA lines. That agenda is openly hostile to the existing European order.

First, Trumps repeated threats to impose costly tariffs on close allies either to coerce concessions on other issues or solely because they are running trade surpluses with the United States is hardly an act of friendship. Serious trade disputes have occurred in the past, of course, and prior U.S. presidents have sometimes played hardball with our allies on these issues. But they have not done so capriciously or used transparently dubious national security rationales to justify them. They have also recognized that inflicting deliberate economic harm on ones allies makes it harder, not easier, for them to contribute to the common defense. Past administrations have also stuck to the deals they negotiated, a concept that seems utterly alien to Trump.

Second, not only has Trump made it clear that he thinks great powers can and should take things they want, but he has made no secret of the fact that he covets some of our allies possessions. No wonder Trump is not troubled if Russia ends up with 20 percent of Ukraine, given that he wants all of Greenland; may reoccupy the Panama Canal Zone; thinks Canada should give up its independence and become the 51st state; and raves about taking over the Gaza Strip, expelling its population, and then building some hotels. Some of these musings might seem utterly fanciful, but the worldview they reveal is something no foreign leader can afford to ignore.

Funny how we saw crowds cheering HAMAS's attack on Israel, and massive protests upset as Israeli retaliation.

But when shit happens that will personally affect the protesters themselves, in a very negative way, there is silence.

These fucks were HAPPY to send America, their own friends and family, and themselves to hell. For these were, most definitely, part of the "uncommitted" crowd.

Fuck them. You are suffering right now, partly because of their actions.

Never forget that.

Whelp, America has its Stasi now.

People will learn about how their neighbors suddenly "disappeared". And they'll keep quiet, for fear of disappearing, themselves.

Dadaism is great.

Just listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqTBlft8gQA

Q WAS the poop Picard pooped!

All of it. Every log.

Sing this back to them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM

Accolon posted...

Musk openly said he would massively fund primaries for any Republican in Congress who didn't fall in line.

Not if legislation is passed to sanction his money. Then he can't use it to do anything.

And here come the "Champions of Gaza" to, once again, shit on the only alternative to the Republicans we have.

Never the GOP.

Don't fall for their shit, again.

Voidgolem posted...

None of us are involved in those.

So I ask again: why worry now, as a civilian reading the news? Worry when we have a projected impact zone

You will have the opportunity to vote for politicians between now and then.

So you will directly effect whether we have politicians who will give a shit about this or not.

How is this not apparent to you?