• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

War Room Lounge v81: An Overwhelming Surplus of Diggity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did we have this one already?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-...tegy-with-two-new-hires-11573068363?mod=rsswn

Context:

The office of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in September 2013 that it was considering joining a New York lawsuit against Trump University. Four days later, the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to "And Justice for All", a 527 group supporting Bondi's re-election campaign. Following this, Bondi declined to join New York. According to a Bondi spokesman, Bondi had personally solicited the donation from Trump several weeks before her office announced it was considering joining the lawsuit. In March 2016, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the IRS about the potentially illegal donation. In September 2016, it was reported that the donation violated laws against political contributions from nonprofit organizations, and that Donald Trump had reimbursed the foundation from his own money and paid the IRS a $2,500 excise tax as a penalty.[90] Trump denied the donation was connected to the Trump University lawsuit, saying it was for Bondi's performance as Attorney General.
 
JDragon said:
Did we have this one already?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-...tegy-with-two-new-hires-11573068363?mod=rsswn

Context:

The office of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in September 2013 that it was considering joining a New York lawsuit against Trump University. Four days later, the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to "And Justice for All", a 527 group supporting Bondi's re-election campaign. Following this, Bondi declined to join New York. According to a Bondi spokesman, Bondi had personally solicited the donation from Trump several weeks before her office announced it was considering joining the lawsuit. In March 2016, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the IRS about the potentially illegal donation. In September 2016, it was reported that the donation violated laws against political contributions from nonprofit organizations, and that Donald Trump had reimbursed the foundation from his own money and paid the IRS a $2,500 excise tax as a penalty.[90] Trump denied the donation was connected to the Trump University lawsuit, saying it was for Bondi's performance as Attorney General.
Click to expand...

its new.

we've just kind of got too many bootlickers to do anything about it.
 
superpunch said:
But liberal courts have found that they are living, breathing things for a long time. Why can't conservative courts also use the living, breathing concept now? Why can only liberals do that?
Click to expand...
Two wrongs don't make a right.

The important division is between judges who attempt to practice originalism (see: Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch) and those who twist the law to get a desired outcome (see: Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy). Only one major party has been nominating SCOTUS justices who fit the former description.
 
Tycho Brah said:



Noaaaaaaaah!
Click to expand...


Mehhh. Kind of silly imo since: (a) we're definitely fucking not trained to hate consumerism, (b) criticism of consumerism has very little to do with individuality, (c) choices in consumption are very heavily constrained and directed by mass mediums, making very few of the choices in the marketplace individualistic, and (d) the superficial individualism of consumption is already deeply embedded into consumer culture, as one's possessions are seen as an extension of a person's social status and something to distinguish them from antagonistic neighbors, etc.

Tycho Brah said:
@Trotsky we need an official list of classiest fonts asap.
Click to expand...

Apparently, Book Antiqua is #1.
 
Tycho Brah said:
^ could not have said it better.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the people criticizing his tweet didn't do a very good job (it's hard given the character limits, I'm sure). And unfortunately unfortunately Smith did an even worse job defending himself.

@Jack V Savage Come get yo boy
 
Trotsky said:
Unfortunately, the people criticizing his tweet didn't do a very good job (it's hard given the character limits, I'm sure). And unfortunately unfortunately Smith did an even worse job defending himself.

@Jack V Savage Come get yo boy
Click to expand...

This was a good response:



Which Smith agreed with.

I don't know. Is the objection to the idea that we're taught to hate consumerism? Seems to me that we get mixed messages on that, but the more explicit (and less-powerful) one is anti-consumerism.
 
To be clear (since my post got deleted), I was saying that it would have been nice to see Greenwald get a light punch in that exchange, as he is the most annoyingly self-righteous man alive. I don't advocate violence in general, but it was an old man who clearly posed no serious threat to Greenwald's health.
 
Jack V Savage said:
To be clear (since my post got deleted), I was saying that it would have been nice to see Greenwald get a light punch in that exchange, as he is the most annoyingly self-righteous man alive. I don't advocate violence in general, but it was an old man who clearly posed no serious threat to Greenwald's health.
Click to expand...
This is evil. The opposite of good.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I don't know. Is the objection to the idea that we're taught to hate consumerism? Seems to me that we get mixed messages on that, but the more explicit (and less-powerful) one is anti-consumerism.
Click to expand...

Well, that's one of the objections, yes. The other objections are to his descriptions of mass-directed consumption as individualistic (after all, you consume what the market demands be produced, and the consumption of what the market demands be produced is then dictated through advertising, etc.) and that the message isn't already embedded in consumerist propaganda.

Moreover, what aspect of consumption makes it individualistic? Is it strictly the variety of goods consumed? In a scarce society, does the fragmentation of supply of goods necessarily breed more individualism in consumption; that is, does a relatively inefficient market economy breed more individualism than a relatively efficient command economy?

Overall, I think his post was one that he probably didn't think about very deeply before posting and then became defensive about it when it was criticized.
 
Has anyone been following the Walt Harris step-daughter missing person's case? It's a lesson in how fucked up our criminal justice situation is.

After over a week, police finally find a person of interest in the case and bring him in for questioning. The guy is also a current suspect in a different kidnapping, and has prior conviction for 2 counts of attempted murder, has a charge awaiting trial of attempted murder from earlier this year. Multiple kidnapping charges, and multiple robberies. AND JUDGE GAVE THIS GUY BAIL AGAIN! He's been out on the streets all this time, and was again let free.

Here's a screen shot of his rap sheet; with a missing girl tied to him. And he was granted bail. Unbelievable.

 
Trotsky said:
Well, that's one of the objections, yes. The other objections are to his descriptions of mass-directed consumption as individualistic (after all, you consume what the market demands be produced, and the consumption of what the market demands be produced is then dictated through advertising, etc.) and that the message isn't already embedded in consumerist propaganda.

Moreover, what aspect of consumption makes it individualistic? Is it strictly the variety of goods consumed? In a scarce society, does the fragmentation of supply of goods necessarily breed more individualism in consumption; that is, does a relatively inefficient market economy breed more individualism than a relatively efficient command economy?

Overall, I think his post was one that he probably didn't think about very deeply before posting and then became defensive about it when it was criticized.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I agree with the first part of this last sentence, though I'm not seeing defensiveness. I don't know. The tweet itself and the ensuing discussion don't bother me, though I don't really have anything to say about it either. Something to think about, I guess.
 
I think I lost the ability to cringe. Is this depression?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,271,115
Messages
57,702,112
Members
175,810
Latest member
lawfulgood

Share this page

Back
Top