Valsuelm

I really don't like Ted Cruz, but his world looks more fun.

The world's most fabulous gay man and the U.S.'s toughest sheriff talk Trump and other things...

I'm offended on behalf of the Nazis that you continually lump them in with SJWs. This is disturbing and ill conceived. Where are the moderators? What's up with these weak forum rules?!!?! I need my safe space!!

They will? I hadn't heard he made that campaign promise.

#1 60 years ago this week:

Occasionally I check the 'Billboard #1 hits' from 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45... years ago when I'm in the mood to listen to some music and want to hear something I haven't heard in awhile. Sometimes I post what I find here. Today, as I often do, I started out with the 30 years ago date (as I generally like the mid 80s music). Somewhat coincidentally.... 30 years ago this week this song was the #1 song in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDTE4uPAAlM

Both excellent documentaries. The former I have linked on these forums before, and if I made a list of ten documentaries I think every human should see 'The Century of the Self' would be one of them. Curtis's work in general is really good, though I do think 'Century of the Self' is his best.

Good video. I posted this in another thread. It has related relevance here. I do wonder just how many have read Orwell or someone like him, let alone someone like Bernays, and realize just how steeped our modern culture and media are in doublespeak, and as a result doublethink and/or cognitive dissonance (though there is a degree of chicken and egg going on as the 'speak and 'think/cd tend to feed each other). And if they do realize it (by way of Orwell, Bernays, or some other), have they put any significant thought into it. The whys, the hows, especially. Methinks that on a society-wide scale, the answer sadly is not many, hence the relatively few very successful puppeteers pulling the strings of so many, and to the many's detriment ('Diversity is strength' is just one example). However on a hopeful note, I think a growing number do perceive the increasingly blatant danger of 'diversity' instinctively, if not consciously. Then again, if it's only ever instinctually perceived, that could ultimately portend disaster. It is certainly safe to say that for Joe/Jane SJW, Orwell and Bernays are beyond them. One can hope that at least for some of them, that will one day not be true. Perceive or not though, grave dangers not seen in some time in the western world are ahead for a large number folks no matter how you slice it at this point as a number of Rubicons have been crossed. Potentially on an unprecedentedly dark scale, as the 'diversity' we've got growing in Europe and North America is not peaceably tenable in the long run, no matter how many times 'lalalalalalalalala!' is lullabied.

Typical you.

If you say that, I guarantee you, I have a lot more experience and knowledge regarding 'special needs' children than you do. It's like saying you're an experienced mountain climber who is bothered by heights and the discussion of rappelling. Sure, you can still climb some mountains, but you're going to be missing quite a lot of them. Without going into great detail, I grew up with the 'special needs' kids and adults all around me (and to avoid the obvious incoming joke, no I wasn't one, quite the opposite). That said, it really shouldn't matter in regards to the argument at hand. I only say this as you're trying to pull some experience card in regards to something near everyone can experience and has experienced to some degree, though they may not realize it. It's like when you play the 'I'm a teacher' card to poopoo others observations about the school/education system, as if most people didn't spend at least ~12 years in a western public school system themselves, nor intimately knows others who did and do, nor knows some teachers on any kind of personal level, nor has taught anything themselves. I could go on. If you're truly disturbed, you've either got really thin skin or you're blind to what you see when you work with your 'special needs children', if they are even mentally retarded in any meaningful way, as it's been a growing habit in recent years of no small number of schools, parents, and psychologists/psychiatrists to label some otherwise normal kids as 'special needs'. This is done for a variety of reasons but almost invariably ends up ultimately causing the very thing that was never there to begin with (more often than not with the help of drugs). In other words, otherwise normal kids are getting seriously mentally (#@*ed up in a very real sense by incompetent and/or evil adults. That is somewhat another subject, however in some ways it may not be as it's very possible that the aforementioned in this thread whackaloons are a sad symptom of this phenomenon. Frankly, while I do think it's certainly a factor, possibly even a primary one, I do not think it's the only factor.

Sure, if you have no idea what the term means. *sigh* First: Online dictionaries often fail in so many ways. At the top of my list of complaints of what's not available on the internet but should be is a readily available unabridged quality English dictionary. Anon. Second: Do yourself a favor, and look up what 'retard' and 'mental' mean. Even the online dictionaries should suffice. Unless you yourself are mentally retarded, you should realize that.... Third: It is the correct term for whom I was applying it to. Edit: and Fourth: Given that you wrote this post, please be a bit more honest when you quote or paraphrase me, as I in fact did not say proclaim 'SJWs to be mentally retarded' (though I would say (yet I didn't) that it's safe to say that most if not all SJWs are either mentally retarded and/or insane). If you're more honest, logic and reason will better be your friend. Also, there was never any hyperbole in what I wrote (the only time I use hyperbole (which is quite rare) is for satirical or comedic effect, and I was not engaging in satire or comedy in the post you replied to). You just choose to pretend spades aren't spades, perhaps because some spades say or do things you like, or perhaps because you don't understand what a spade actually is, I don't know.

My money is on that conversation happening in book six, given where certain characters are heading and the direction the plot has gone. 'Winds of Winter' is looking to actually be out later this year or at the latest next. Book seven however, I'm guessing we will never see, as I frankly expect GRRM to croak before he finishes it at the rate he writes, and he's already said he's against anyone else writing anything in his world, so that precludes anyone else finishing it for him, a la Sanderson finished for Jordan.

That was my initial thinking as well. 'Wait, this perennial tabloid coverboy, and 'reality TV' talk show host has all these evil/moron folks up in arms? Really?!?!?' 'AND he's coming out against the sacred evil cow 'free trade' and 'illegal immigration' in at least a lipserviced meaningful way?' Then I spent some time listening to him beyond the soundbites and out of context 'news' 'quotes', and discovered he's not all that bad (which I've found is the story of almost everyone ever demonized by the mainstream media). That, plus the fact that he does piss off evil/moron group A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L...... has me closer than ever at this point to downright saying 'woohoo Trump!', and I'm at least as anti big government as you are. I'm still waiting for the VP announcement before I commit 100%, which is aways away still, but Mickey Mouse just might not have my write in vote this go around after all. Lately I've been pinching myself, but I can't shake the idea that: Well poop, worst case scenario with Trump is he lies about everything to get elected and we're going to have more of the same evil poop and continue accelerating down the path of self destruction to ultimate disintegration we've been on for decades. Something that is 100% guaranteed with all of the other candidates, save maybe Bernie to a small degree. But at least even in the evil lying Trump scenario there's a serious promise of amusing antics aplenty, so our ride to hell will at least be more entertaining than it has been. And then the big ugly fact that if Trump does turn out to be a lying **** like the rest of them and breaks all his promises to the millions of already seriously disillusioned in the government (and that have just about truly had enough of it) who voted for him , those millions are going to be that much closer to affecting some real change hardcore and outside the ballot box style. So, I'm thinking a vote for Trump just may be a win win on a couple of different levels (with the Trump is actually a good guy scenario much preferred of course).

At this point I'm more than half way expecting it to actually be Hulk Hogan. Or for Trump to hold a reality TV special to find his VP. It's about the only thing this campaign has missed so far. I would support Hulk Hogan as VP of the U.S., if only to see and hear him threaten the baddies of the world with Hulkamaniacs running wild on them. He's even already got an awesome campaign song:

New York Times delegate calculator shows virtual guarantee that Trump will get the required 1,237 needed to clinch the nomination. Washington Post joins others in penning article about how the RNC has come to terms that Trump will be their man In short, no brokered convention. The big question now, that likely won't be answered for some time yet is: Who is Trump's pick for VP. On the Democratic front, the Times also shows Hillary as virtually guaranteed, which she has been for months, but only because of the 'super-delegates'. The big questions there are, will Bernie bend over for her, or will he actually make some real noise about the corruption? And, will he run independent? My guess is no on both counts, but I hope otherwise.

Winston Churchill. Pathological colonialist to the extent he'd likely be regarded as an outright white supremacist these days and at very best a White Man's Burden paternalist, advocated gassing Iraqi Marsh Arabs, starved millions of Bengalis, would have fought against India's independence tooth and nail if he hadn't been voted out of power, celebrated the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour and let Coventry be bombed. Overall, a genuinely crappy person leavened by some pithy comments and being the right man for the right job at the right time for his country. Even then (and much like Hitler and Stalin) most of his direct contributions to the conduct of war were disastrous- sending troops to Greece, Dieppe, in WW2; Gallipoli in WW1. The only debatable bit is whether he was 'evil' instead of just not a nice guy. Your words for Churchill are much kinder than mine will ever be. He was definitely evil. Very probably the most evil leader of them all during his era, though he's got some great competition. In terms of evil deeds though, of his contemporaries only Stalin compares, however Stalin wasn't the leader who was the prime instigator of the most destructive single conflict recorded history has known. That said, Churchill didn't lead alone, and he had folks behind him. But he certainly was one sick and evil lying MFer in his own right. Almost all of the good he's ever said to have done is predicated of myth and lies, and almost all the evil he's ever done is whitewashed or ignored in pop history. That he's considered a hero by so many is a testament to how well oiled the propaganda machine so many are tuned into is, how truly nescient and/or ignorant so many are, as well possibly the best example there is of 'the winners write the history books'.

All highly debatable but...Genghis Khan, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Pope Julius II, Pope Alexander VI, and George Steinbrenner. Not very debatable at all if one is sufficiently knowledgable. Insofar who is the most evil on that list you can certainly remove Jackson, and probably Steinbrenner too. The Popes were colorful characters for certain, possibly were very evil, but given that evil is in the hearts of men it's not always knowable just how evil one is. If one is to judge by the actions of person, Temujin most certainly claims the throne of most evil deeds. Stalin follows him up, yet competes with Mao and I'd say Churchill for most evil SOB 'leader' of the modern era. No one in recorded history compares to Temujin on the level of destruction and murder that not only he directly lead, but that followed for some generations in his wake. For Genghis Khan and Stalin there absolutely was not more good than harm. In fact, there's relatively very little good that either did for the world, other than for themselves and a relative few around them. Pope Julius II for the most part has a legacy of good, as does Jackson. Pope Alexander VI has a mixed legacy, but the cons aren't even remotely on the same page as those of Temujin or Stalin. That response to some low brow aside, to answer Guard Dog's question, no. I cannot think of a single leader from the ancient times to the modern that I'd say was definitely evil who in the end did more good than harm. Not even one that broke close to 50/50. If there was one, the good they did was die and early death before they gained infamy.

I somewhat agree. I certainly find it disconcerting. There are definitely far many more militant whackaloons running around college campuses these days than 10+ years ago. The absolute stupidity displayed by the many hostile hecklers in the audience, as well as displayed by some of those asking questions (but didn't really) near the end is a testament to the sad fact that the standards for being admitted into college are way way way way too low. It's also a testament to just how socially inept so many of the current younger generation are. On the bright side, I do know plenty of people that age who are not that mentally retarded. And yes, mentally retarded is the correct term. Also, as a society I think we've finally reached a point where most are sick of this crap.

Obama administration plans to build taller wall around the White House. SJWs, communists, globalists, multi-culturalists, environmentalists, Mexicans, et al, do not freak out.

Trump on target to garner the most votes in Republican Primary history, even amidst what's arguably the most contested Republican primary in a generation or more.

The entirety of 'late night' TV, SNL, shows such as the 'Daily Show' and 'Last Week Tonight', as well as one hell of a lot of comedic acts are predicated on making ridiculous out of the ridiculous. Do you find them a circle jerk of stupidity as well? Do you find the plethora of ridiculous posts you ever make about the ridiculous a circle jerk of stupidity? When you often make ridiculous posts about things that aren't ridiculous is that just stupidity? Do you like to circle jerk? Isn't logic fun?

This is the full video of the talk that occurred at UMass where #TrigglyPuff was triggered. You can hear her whacking out before the 5 minute mark even. And the best part is, is that she's freaking out while a feminist is speaking.

Warning #1: If you are a SJW, you will probably be highly offended by the following video. If you aren't, you just may find it hilarious. I did. Warning #2: Some SJWs have potty mouths in the video. Specifically, the F bomb is dropped a few times. So maybe NSFW. Best quote in the comments: "GOOD NEWS: #TrigglyPuff is trending on Twitter. BAD NEWS: I promised to do gay porn with Milo if #TrigglyPuff trended on Twitter." And BTW: Milo Yiannopoulos is awesome. He's like God's answer to SJWs and feminists.

Was she supposed to look different? I mean, I didn't imagine her skin would suddenly look 20 years younger because of additional protection of the DNA. I thought the idea was just to protect the DNA from random damage/mutations. I don't think so. I was just responding to someone who seemed to think she did. Many humans cells last a lot longer than 6 months. I personally forget how long your average skin cell lasts (anyone know?), but I'm pretty sure it's at least 3 months. The woman already looked pretty good (with makeup at least) for 45 years old before the treatment. However the whole make up thing can really throw the appearance of age off bigtime, especially on camera. It never ceases to astound me how so many men fall for make up, many to the point of not even realizing it's there. But they do fall for it, so I can see why many women use it. If the telomere theory is even right (I think the whole theory part in regards to this (and many other things) is lost on many), and one can 'freeze' them at a given length, a question then is: will one actually get younger or will one just stay the same biological age? I would think the latter, but one never knows for sure until it's tried. And again, there very well may be a lot more to aging than telomeres.