Lurker > Suprak the Stud

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I've been hooked on Dead by Daylight recently, and I don't know anybody else who's even heard of it.

This was one of like the top five streamed games for several months, so I think it has fairly decent name recognition.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

DeathChicken posted...

That also heavily sounds like "Okay he really fucked up this time, quick throw someone under the bus"

The sorry my friend stole my phone haha defense. Typically the defense of drunk college aged dudes. Not as frequent a defense of a sitting president though.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Not_an_Owl posted...

Eddv posted...

The point is no one in this topic is going to reap the rewards of this tax bill aside from maybe SephG.

Wow, I wonder why he was so excited about it ????????????

In full disclosure I stand to make an extra 4K a year.

Not that I support the bill but my quick calculations showed we would actually be pulling down a decent chunk more. My wife and I both have high paying jobs and and we had been taking the standard deduction in past years. That is the primary situation where youll be benefitting under the bill, sadly.

Unless you identify as a corporation. Then youre in good shape too.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

TheRock1525 posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Corker seems to be the only Republican voting no on the tax bill.

Primary time

He's not running, you twit.

CAGE MATCH THEN

I'm just waiting for the day until Trump challenges one of the senators to a Hell in a Cell match on Twitter, because I'm like 95% sure its going to happen.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The other possibility is that he is monumentally stupid. Like, historically so. Lying directly to the FBI over something that isn't illegal is certainly a thing that could happen, but you'd have to be just almost impressively dumb to think that's a good idea.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

By the way, it is very, very clear that this was done today to distract people from tax cuts and the Steinle verdict. Not falling for it.

No it was done to distract from the Garcia Zarate verdict, duh.

No it was done to distract us from the MOON PEOPLE stealing our memories.

There goes one right now! You don't even know which one it was anymore.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

GuessMyUserName posted...

https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/936626364106584065

-> ABC's Brian Ross says Flynn IS prepared to testify against President Trump and that Trump had "ordered him to make contact with the Russians." Ross says move was only made in last 24 hours to cooperate

Everything I've seen since then seems to indicate it will be THE KUSH who will be taking the fall, not Trump himself.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Anyway, thank you for not believing that Republican senators are sitting in their evil lairs writing these bills with the blood of poor minorities

Obviously.

Well, except for Ted Cruz.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/362834-kushner-is-senior-trump-transition-official-who-ordered-flynn-to

"LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP!"

"That's right guys, we're going to lock her up!"

*cue It's Always Sunny them song*

THE GANG GETS LOCKED UP
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Will be the first real thing the Trump Admin has achieved outside of Gorsuch!

"winning the war against ISIS" doesn't count as a real thing they have achieved? weren't you saying that was a super big deal?

I guess we could count this even if I attribute it more to Mattis and the Iraqi army

Mattis was the one "good" thing he's done so far, so he gets partial credit for this at least!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LordoftheMorons posted...

Espeon posted...

If the SALT thing is out, that was my main fear for this bill. It just felt like this bill was so specifically vindictive towards the people who didnt vote Republican (as opposed to representing the entire country). At least now it feels more like its fucking over everyone equally.

SALT is still being majorly gutted. Including it up to a cap is definitely way better than killing it completely, but blue states are definitely still being fucked over.

It isn't ideal, but keeping it up to a cap is still much better for blue states than what it was going to be initially, and I think the cap isn't exceeded until you are pretty much upper class anyway. Like I said, I still don't particularly like the bill, but this was one of my major complaints about the Senate version of the bill. And the Senate version of the bill was already not nearly as disastrous as the house version. Some version of this is going to pass, so at this point I'm basically hoping for the Senate version as that won't do nearly as much damage.

Could be worse! Better thing for Collins to hold out for than what Murkowski held out for, at the very least.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/01/how-parents-of-adopted-children-foiled-a-us-republican-tax-proposal.html

Dropped in the house Nov. 2 and was never even considered in the Senate.

You're good!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Just the Senate bill in the news recently.

If I had to guess, this passes, the conservative tea party wing in the house makes a big fuss that amounts to nothing, and then they basically send the Senate version of the bill to be signed.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The Mana Sword posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

They could decide to only lower the corporate rate to like 21 or 22 or 23% instead of 20%

Just to throw out a CRAZY possibility

This was sort of in there yesterday, where they corporate rate would start at 20% but then increase 1% every year back up to 25%. I don't know if that's still in play or not. I'm sure not anyone knows what's actually still in play in regards to this bill.

I would feel personally a lot better if this was the case, but last I read that was just a proposal that didn't make it into the final bill.

But again, I am not 100% sure of anything at this point.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LordoftheMorons posted...

They could decide to only lower the corporate rate to like 21 or 22 or 23% instead of 20%

Just to throw out a CRAZY possibility

That would fix it!

...but Trump already threw a fit when they wouldn't agree to lower it to 15%.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Ashethan posted...

I think my taxes are slated to go up under the Senate Plan.

I wouldn't mind so much if the money were... you know, going to good causes like Universal Healthcare, Public Education, and not... toward you know fortune 500 companies and invading whichever country the dart lands on this week.

I think everyone is ok for the next seven (?) years. Higher income definitely see a bigger chunk of cash back, but I think everyone gets a tax cut temporarily. Middle class/lower class for some reason (thinking face emoji) aren't made permanent like the corporate/upper class cuts are.

I think.

There are so many versions flying around I'm not 100% positive on this.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The Mana Sword posted...

The issue is I don't think they actually have a completed bill? These additions could potentially push it over the $1.5bn deficit increase, which I don't think they can do.

Hm, that's a good point. I know they were right on the boarder with their original bill. I like the SALT deduction as it tends to help blue states/lower income families (considering the cap), but yeah allowing for a 10k deduction here would definitely add to the deficit.

Now I'm curious what was cut to make room. Or if anything was? I feel like something had to be otherwise I'm not sure if the numbers add up.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Susan Collins is likely a yes after the Senate bill was revised to allow for deductions for state/local property taxes. Per her twitter:

The Senate tax bill will include my SALT amendment to allow taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 for state and local property taxes.

Delighted that the Senate has agreed to include my property tax deduction amendment, that will allow 166,000 Maine taxpayers who itemize to deduct a total of $725 million in property taxes each year.

Still don't like the bill overall, but I actually like this modification.

But yeah, it is 100% passing now. They have Collins, and 2/3 "NO INCREASE TO THE DEFICIT" holdouts.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LapisLazuli posted...

ExThaNemesis posted...

Kenri posted...

Extha has also been in a face turn lately, honestly it's been kinda great.

It's so eye-roll to me that face turn = saying stuff that I agree with to you guys.

I've said this before, but it's amazing to me that you aren't aware of how you used to sound.

^

From what Ive seen, both you and MWC still disagree with us on most things.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

StealThisSheen posted...

MWC, I want to congratulate you on being a hundred times more mature than Ulti, for the record.

MWC has been doing a face turn in these topics for like the last five or six topics at the very least, imo.

(Although to comment on his post commenting on this post, I don't think it is fair to lump ExTha and Ulti together either because they didn't have nearly the same level of response.)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Kenri posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

More info from the article:

Surveillance video showed Garcia Zarate running away. After his arrest, investigators found gunshot residue on his right hand, prosecutor Diana Garcia told jurors.

Garcia Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.

Prosecutors said Garcia Zarate was playing his own "secret version of Russian roulette" and deliberately fired into an unsuspecting crowd on the pier, killing Steinle.

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier. He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged. But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.

The ol' "sorry I thought you were a seal" defense, eh?

Works for sharks...

10/10

I did laugh out loud at this, so yes, 10/10 deserved imo.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

More info from the article:

Surveillance video showed Garcia Zarate running away. After his arrest, investigators found gunshot residue on his right hand, prosecutor Diana Garcia told jurors.

Garcia Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.

Prosecutors said Garcia Zarate was playing his own "secret version of Russian roulette" and deliberately fired into an unsuspecting crowd on the pier, killing Steinle.

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier. He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged. But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.

The ol' "sorry I thought you were a seal" defense, eh?

Theres your reason.

The gun was a Sig Sauer, aka a pistol with a magazine.

You literally cant play Russian Roulette using a pistol with a magazine.

What an awful prosecution.

I think it was not literal "he was playing Russian roulette" but a "he was playing a dangerous game with someone's life by aiming randomly and not caring who he hit".

I think.

I'm hoping they understood how guns work.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Inviso posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

And of course Inviso and Moogs are defending it.

This is LITERALLY why you people have no credibility.

I don't know anything about the details of this case, I wasn't in the courtroom and don't know what the jury heard that led them to their decision.

I find it more plausible that the prosecution did a poor job arguing their case than your theory that the twelve jurors just like it when illegal immigrants murder people (?).

Yeah, this. I think the guy should've been convicted or manslaughter, but blaming California liberals on the jury immediately assumes the prosecutor did nothing wrong. I'm sorry, but if you blew a slam dunk manslaughter case by getting greedy and trying to go for first degree murder, that's on you. I'm sorry, when Ulti become the guy saying "hold up, the it's the VOTERS' fault that this dumbass lost."

They actually tried him with second degree murder, and the jury was told to consider fist degree and involuntary manslaughter as well.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

kevwaffles posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Ohhh that makes slightly more sense and wasn't included in the article I read. That is a ridiculous defense, but at least provides some context for how they possibly could've acquitted him on involuntary manslaughter. Thanks!

But then they turned around and did convict of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which to be would indicate they don't buy that argument? Seems odd, but it may more come down to not believing the prosecution proved their case than actually buying the defense's argument.

Oh, huh, that's a great point, actually. They convicted him of being in possession of the firearm which means they didn't buy "he just happened upon a mysterious wrapped package at the pier that happened to be a gun and happened to go off when he picked it" up part of the story.

So I am confused again.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

More info from the article:

Surveillance video showed Garcia Zarate running away. After his arrest, investigators found gunshot residue on his right hand, prosecutor Diana Garcia told jurors.

Garcia Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.

Prosecutors said Garcia Zarate was playing his own "secret version of Russian roulette" and deliberately fired into an unsuspecting crowd on the pier, killing Steinle.

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier. He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged. But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.

The ol' "sorry I thought you were a seal" defense, eh?
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

banananor posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14. But Garcia Zarate's defense attorney said the shooting was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.

Like perhaps I am completely ignorant of the law, but isn't his own defense attorney basically using "it was involuntary manslaughter!" as a defense here?

when the charge is murder, of fucking course

That doesn't matter because he was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter as well. It says so in the very first line of the thing you quoted.

Inviso posted...

Actually, I just watched the video associated with the article. They claim the defense didn't argue "he shot her by accident" so much as "he picked up a cloth-wrapped package that he did not know contained a gun, and said gun went off in his hand". It's a STUPID and ridiculous defense, but when the prosecution overreaches and undermines their own credibility by trying for a CLEARLY not first degree murder charge, it looks bad for the prosecution in the eyes of the jury.

Ohhh that makes slightly more sense and wasn't included in the article I read. That is a ridiculous defense, but at least provides some context for how they possibly could've acquitted him on involuntary manslaughter. Thanks!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that when the jury is not given the ability to convict for a lesser offense, the jurors might opt to convict a less culpable defendant instead of letting defendant go free, essentially convicting of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. As the Court noted, the failure to give the jury the third option of convicting on a lesser included offense would seem inevitably to enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction. Such a risk cannot be tolerated in a case in which the defendants life is at stake.

Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes.

From Wikipedia, so perhaps not the best source, but that is what I was talking about.

So even thought he was on trial for murder 1, he should still have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Unless I am missing something.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

MoogleKupo141 posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

sounds like the prosecutors fucked up

I'm what way?

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14.

by trying to convict him of intentional murder instead of the thing he actually did

But unless California is different than the midwest, usually when you get put on trial for first degree murder, you are also on for second, manslaughter, etc.

So I fully understand the prosecution overreached here considering there was no evidence for first degree murder. But how does the jury hear the defense attorney go "yeah it was involuntary manslaughter" and then not convict him of that? Again, I could be ignorant of the process here in some way, so if I am someone with more knowledge please feel free to correct me.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14. But Garcia Zarate's defense attorney said the shooting was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.

Like perhaps I am completely ignorant of the law, but isn't his own defense attorney basically using "it was involuntary manslaughter!" as a defense here?
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html

Illegal immigrant charged with homicide found not guilty

This case was a lynchpin of Trumps campaign against illegal immigrants as he had already convicted the killer in his mind.

Oh well.

I totally understand why he was innocent of first and second degree murder, because there was no basis to charge him with that.

I am not quite certain how he was able to get out of that involuntary manslaughter charge, though.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The turnaround on r/the_donald from "DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING A SECRET PEDOPHILIA RING OUT OF A PIZZA PLACE" to "actually sometimes 15 year olds are ready to bear children" is just absolutely astonishing.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

If one of my friends started dating a sophomore in high school, we would no longer be friends.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Politics Containment Topic 9001: Introducing Democratic Candidate LeBron James
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

FFDragon posted...

if pct152 is 14 years old, roy moore sure will

Low blow and unfair to Roy Moore.

If pct152 was between the ages of 14 and 17 he would.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Justify allowing men to prey on 14 year old girls however you want, I do not think you'll be changing any one's mind on this. (directed at the Texas professor, not you Corrik)

And throwing MLK Jr. and Thomas Jefferson into the same category as Roy fucking Moore (who isn't even a man of the past considering he is a current US senator!) is extra gross.

Edit: Correct the school of origin
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/parkermolloy/status/936219843841445888

The Federalist with another hot take on dating children

"Child sexual predators are ok as long as those child sexual predators are republicans" - Alabama Republicans, 2017.

I knew Moore was going to win regardless of what came out about his, but jumping through all these hoops to pretend you still have a shred of decency is just disgusting. In every previous election, I had always voted for some Republicans at the state level because I thought this sort of balance was important.

Not doing that in the future! Straight party line vote from here on out.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/parkermolloy/status/936219843841445888

This is where we are at today on Roy Moore in outlets like The Federalist

If he wanted a big family, he HAD to date girls as young as 14 so they would have time to birth all those kids, and he HAD to be in his 30s at least to be able to support them! This was common!

This party is sick

I thought this had to be fake or taken out of context.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/alabamians-vote-roy-moore/

"oops"
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Lauer would, according to anonymous sources, ask women producers who theyd slept with, and engage his colleagues in a rousing game of Fuck, Marry, Killa thinly veiled-ruse for sharing which of his colleagues hed like to sleep with.

Yep, ok, that makes more sense then.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/29/matt-lauer-sexual-harassment-accusations-graphic-details-emerge

Variety reported Lauers behavior with women at NBC included luring a female employee into his office and exposing his penis to her, giving a sex toy as a gift and playing the game "f--k, marry or kill."

I feel like one of these things is not like the others.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Nelson_Mandela posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I miss the days when the president could be looked at as a model citizen (1789-2009) ;_;

I know this is bait, but what did Obama do to exclude him from that?

Nonstop apology tour that disgraced the legacy of America. And you have to assume his ideals reflected those of his wife ("I was never proud of my country until it elected my husband").

Even if you are going the blatant partisan hack route, I have no idea how you can keep Clinton on that list and exclude Obama when Obama is ten times the man Clinton is.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Just out of curiosity, MWC...

Trump started calling Warren "Pocahontas" months ago. Native American groups came out and released statements to him saying that using "Pocahontas" in the way he was using it was considered a racial slur to them and was offensive, and they asked him to stop.

Trump kept doing it, even so far as to do it at an event that was supposed to be honoring them.

Lopen says that even if Trump knew what he was doing was considered racist/offensive by the Native Americans, it doesn't make him racist to continue to use it.

Do you agree with Lopen's stance, or do you agree that plausible deniability goes out the window a bit once he became aware of what he was doing and who he was offending?

Whether I believe it is racist or not doesn't matter here.

It's an absolute asshole move either way. Someone brought up boy earlier. It would be the equivalent of me calling my best friend boy, and one day he tells me "Mike, I'm from
The Deep South, boy is a name they used to demean my grandfather and his family, that's racist to me, please don't say it speaking of me anymore". And then me five moths later calling him boy still....

HE thinks it's racist and that's all that matters.
So there is no reason for me to use it that way anymore even if it was a term of endearment when I attempted to use it.

This is a very reasonable post and basically my stance as well.

Dang whats with the MWC face turn recently?
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

ExThaNemesis posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I mean, I get the jist of your point, but your equivalency here requires the assumption that the Washington Post has the same or less journalistic integrity than the, uh, Rolling Stone which is like one tier below Buzzfeed.

They are the mainstream media and their reporting informs an amount of people that is nonzero.

I will say that once people started questioning the Rolling Stone story and it started to fall apart, The Washington Post was really quick to start eviscerating them.

That second point is why you shouldnt lump those two in together! One is an actual news organization with legitimate reporters (as project Veritas itself proved in their latest sting operation) and the other is nothing but hyper partisan opinion pieces and some interesting articles about musicians.

It would be like immediately discrediting something Fox News reported on Obamas because one time Info Wars reported that Obama was actually anti-Christ. It is important to distinguish between news sources with a partisan lean and sensationalistic yellow journalism written by deranged hacks. Otherwise we live in a world where we can only get news from our small pool of sources that agree with us and go about touting everything else as fake news.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

ExThaNemesis posted...

I don't know where anyone would get the idea that the MSM would fail to do due diligence on a rape accusation...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

I mean, I get the jist of your point, but your equivalency here requires the assumption that the Washington Post has the same or less journalistic integrity than the, uh, Rolling Stone which is like one tier below Buzzfeed.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

That someones name?

ALBERT EINSTEIN
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

You want the other one

This is just brick walls running into each other right now

This is way more interesting to read though!

I kind of feel like the two sides are debating two different things though.

Augh both sentences ending in the same word.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

That is hilarious but absolutely 100% has to be fake. No way would she use the photo of her getting busted for her campaign.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

And right on cue!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/must-see-video-james-okeefe-turns-tables-washington-post-reporter-failed-ambush/

In their world, James O'Keefe showed these WaPo BOZOS what's for by running inside and grabbing a microphone and then asking nonsensical questions. Some of the comments on the article include:

"Ha ha ha....He ran away like a little girl."

"It just keeps getting better!

#LiberalArmageddon

M A G A"

"All is far in love and war Libscum!
I dig it.
Run, rabbit, run...
Hahaha"
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LordoftheMorons posted...

goo.gl/n2CCcV (WaPo, link was too long)

Hahahahahahaha get fucked James O'Keefe

But this so-called off-the-record conversation was the essence of a scheme to deceive and embarrass us. The intent by Project Veritas clearly was to publicize the conversation if we fell for the trap. Because of our customary journalistic rigor, we werent fooled, and we cant honor an off-the-record agreement that was solicited in maliciously bad faith.

When you set up an undercover sting to try and smear your political opponent but wind up proving they rigorously pursue and source all the stories they publish instead.

Of course this won't matter to anyone still defending Moore!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LordoftheMorons posted...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361990-trump-calls-warren-pocahontas-at-event-honoring-native-american

Of course this was a thing that happened (standing in front of a portrait of Jackson to boot)

Wow.

It was a relatively nice speech leading up to that too. It's like something clicked in his brain like "oh wait I haven't said anything terrible in a couple of minutes, let me rectify that".
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

fedorafreak posted...

I'm a history major and I definitely understand what Kenri is talking about. It's mainly talking about situations where it's not so black and white. Though, I don't think that's really the case in this specific conversation.

Most people I know who are mixed race just self identify as mixed race. Some identify as black or white depending on the specifics of growing up, but to most people in most situations, I'd say black or white has almost everything to do simply with skin color.

Colloquially, at least. Academically could be something else entirely, I have no idea.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."