Social WR Lounge v 235: Arcane Rogue Trickster, but who likes Sickness?

[Sketch]

say what you will about modern day democrats but they’re not out there trying to make it hard for people to vote. As far as I know this doesn’t exist anywhere on the democrat side of the aisle.

They know exactly what they’re doing and it does cast the light of Jim Crow policies. They act shock when people call them racist.

Do you military press kid

 

[senri]

Let’s post our back muscles

@senri

Yes

 

[Sketch]

I played a lot of sports growing up. My aunt and uncle were the general managers of a huge indoor tennis facility in NJ. Private lessons, camps all that stuff.

It’s the hardest sport I played growing up and one of the best. What’s not to like about tennis?

Tennis was the hardest sport you played growing up

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

Do you military press kid

I’ve been doing standing dumbbell press lately.

 

[Trotsky]

Dude, your reaction to seeing a massively important bill that cuts child poverty in half was to screech about how the money will be wasted. Which, again, despite what @Trotsky says, applies equally to all forms of income.

I don't know if that's what he said - again, I'm not privy to your whole conversation - but that all forms of income can be wasted isn't really relevant to the issue that I took with your argument that it's immoral or unreasonable to limit the use of entitlements in ways that market income is not limited.

 

[Sketch]

I’ve been doing standing dumbbell press lately.

Respect. That's a whole different animal. What lb?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know if that's what he said - again, I'm not privy to your whole conversation - but that all forms of income can be wasted isn't really relevant to the issue that I took with your argument that it's immoral or unreasonable to limit the use of entitlements in ways that market income is not limited.

We're talking about cash here, not like WIC or SNAP. Telling people how they can spend cash from a monthly cash payment is no more justified or needed if the cash comes from a direct gov't payment than from another other source. It's certainly possible that some parents won't spend the money responsibly, but that also applies to money from wages, and that's never presented as an argument for reducing wages or for gov't examination of spending. It's fucking sick shit driven by hatred of the poor. I expect that from someone like Judo, but not from someone who also tries to pull off a leftier-than-thou persona.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

Tennis was the hardest sport you played growing up

Yes. It is takes a long time to even have a simple 3 to 4 shot rally with another player. Tennis is really hard nuanced sport to learn.

 

[Sketch]

It's fucked up as men we can't even talk about our PR's or weight numbers. I don't care what another guy is doing, we should all extend a helping hand to one another. The fact you lift at all is great. We should help each other.

 

[Sketch]

Yes. It is takes a long time to even have a simple 3 to 4 shot rally with another player. Tennis is really hard nuanced sport to learn.

Yeah I know, I admit that was a silly joke on my part. A lot of skill involved along with athleticism.

 

[Trotsky]

We're talking about cash here, not like WIC or SNAP. Telling people how they can spend cash from a monthly cash payment is no more justified or needed if the cash comes from a direct gov't payment than from another other source. It's certainly possible that some parents won't spend the money responsibly, but that also applies to money from wages, and that's never presented as an argument for reducing wages or for gov't examination of spending. It's fucking sick shit driven by hatred of the poor. I expect that from someone like Judo, but not from someone who also tries to pull off a leftier-than-thou persona.

The discussion would hinge on the democratic purpose of the cash distribution. If it's only designed as an income supplement or an economic stimulant then your point would stand. If you guys are talking about cash distributions to address childhood poverty, I have no issue with persons, err, taking issue with targeting where that money is to be spent. That's democracy. The primary counter considerations to that concern would be practical, i.e. how to administer that kind of oversight without diminishing benefits to an extent that does more harm than good to the purpose, not ideological.

 

[Gregolian]

It's fucked up as men we can't even talk about our PR's or weight numbers. I don't care what another guy is doing, we should all extend a helping hand to one another. The fact you lift at all is great. We should help each other.

135 bench

155 deadlift

155 squat

That’s with my 15kg or about 33-35lb bar. I hate knee and wrist injuries from letting me go further.

 

[Sketch]

135 bench

155 deadlift

155 squat

That’s with my 15kg or about 33-35lb bar. I hate knee and wrist injuries from letting me go further.

I salute you

 

[Trotsky]

@AgonyandIrony You'd be well served to read this article by a more successful comedian on how your debauchery and low ways are not the right path forward.

As anyone who’s read my abstinence column here could guess, my wedding is something that I’ve looked forward to for quite some time. After having tied the knot at the end of August, I can now say beyond all shadow of a doubt, that it was everything I’d hoped and prayed that it would be since childhood. (I’d also prayed to be bitten by a radioactive spider and develop sticky hands, but… I was an idiot.)

Let me preface this column by saying this: my wife (I have to get used to saying that) and I not only waited sexually in every way (no, we didn’t pull the Bill Clinton and technically avoid “sex” sex,) but we didn’t shack up as live-ins and most importantly, we courted each other in a way that was consistent with our publicly professed values.

We did it right.

[pullquote]

Feeling judged? I couldn’t care less. You know why? Because my wife and I were judged all throughout our relationship. People laughed, scoffed and poked fun at the young, celibate, naive Christian couple.

We’d certainly never make it to the wedding without schtupping, and if we did, our “wedding night would be awkward and terrible,” they said.

Turns out that people couldn’t have been more wrong. Looking back, I think that the women saying those things felt like the floozies they ultimately were, and the men, with their fickle manhood tied to their pathetic sexual conquests, felt threatened.

I think it’s important to write this column not to gloat (though I’ll be glad to), but to speak up for all of the young couples that have also done things the right way. When people do marriage right, they don’t complain so much, and so their voices are silenced by the rabble of promiscuous charlatans, peddling their pathetic world view as “progressive.”

Our wedding was perfect. Our wedding night was nothing short of amazing. I write this on a plane heading into a tropical paradise with the most beautiful woman to have walked the planet earth. I know everybody says that their bride was the “most beautiful in the world.” They’re wrong. I win.

I’d like to tell you a story of our morning after, however. One that transpired into one of the most glaring epiphanies I’d ever had.

As my wife (again, still not used to that) and I ate breakfast at a local inn, we discussed how excited we were to start the rest of our lives together, how scary it was that everything was now so different. At the same time, we overheard the table next to us discussing their very own wedding from the night prior. What a coincidence!

“The thing is, nothing’s really changed,” the bride said.

Puzzled, my wife asked, “Did you get married last night too? So did we!”

“Congratulations!” the other dame said. “Yeah we did, just last night.”

“Where’s the groom?” my wife innocently… scratch that, naively asked.

“Oh, he’s sleeping. There was no way he was coming out with me this morning!” She paused and smirked. “Let’s just say that he’s got a lingering headache from a really good time last night.”

My heart sank. Firstly, that poor schmuck's “good time” was simply getting snookered. Not enjoying the company of close family and long-lost friends with a clear head and clean conscience, not staring in awe at his beautiful new wife, wanting to soak in every glimmer of her eyes as she shot him heart-racing looks from across the dance floor, not taking all of the cheesy pictures as they cut the cake, not even carrying her across that suite threshold as they nervously anticipated their “nightcap.” He probably won’t remember any of it. Instead, he got smashed. He was “that guy”… at his own freaking wedding.

Then I realized something. Our wedding was truly a once in a lifetime event. It was a God’s-honest celebration of two completely separate lives now becoming one. Physically, emotionally, financially and spiritually, everything that made us who we were individually was becoming what bonded us together. Our family traveled from far and wide to celebrate the decision of two young people to truly commit themselves to each other, and selflessly give themselves to one another in a way that they never had before that very night.

The people next to us that morning? Well, theirs was just one big party. And the morning after? Just another hangover.

Our “weddings” were the same event in name only. They know it, and we know it.

Do yours the right way. If you’re young and wondering whether you should wait, whether you should just give in, become a live-in harlot/mimbo and do it the world’s way. If you’re wondering whether all of the mocking, the ridicule, the incredible difficulty of saving yourself for your spouse is worth it, let me tell you without a doubt that it is. Your wedding can be the most memorable day and night of your life… or just another party.

Oops. Did I just make a “judgment?” You’re darn right I did.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/waiting-till-the-wedding-night-getting-married-the-right-way

Am I the last one to see this? I'm actually pretty surprised that a guy who has made his career off of being an immature, hate mongering jerk would also have this prudish religious conservative position.

Whether in terms of social commentary, comedy, or just stream of consciousness, this is one of the worst things I've ever read. Imagine having breakfast the morning after your wedding and still being bitter about other guys drinking and having lots of sex lol.

 

[RidenWitBiden]

I salute you

I'm 6'3, 210 lbs.

587 lb deadlift
393 lb bench
515 lb squat

Now let's hear your stats?

 

[Sketch]

I'm 6'3, 210 lbs.

587 lb deadlift
393 lb bench
515 lb squat

Now let's hear your stats?

What are your hands like for boxing though

 

[K1levelgrappler]

What are your hands like for boxing though

Smooth, creamy, delicate yet..masculine

 

[Trotsky]

@Jack V Savage and anyone else from California

I didn't realize Eric Swalwell, who I think most would agree is dim-witted and feckless, beat/replaced Pete Stark. Stark had a little venom to him...and not the fake opportunistic kind like Swalwell.

 

[Andy Capp]

@AgonyandIrony You'd be well served to read this article by a more successful comedian on how your debauchery and low ways are not the right path forward.

As anyone who’s read my abstinence column here could guess, my wedding is something that I’ve looked forward to for quite some time. After having tied the knot at the end of August, I can now say beyond all shadow of a doubt, that it was everything I’d hoped and prayed that it would be since childhood. (I’d also prayed to be bitten by a radioactive spider and develop sticky hands, but… I was an idiot.)

Let me preface this column by saying this: my wife (I have to get used to saying that) and I not only waited sexually in every way (no, we didn’t pull the Bill Clinton and technically avoid “sex” sex,) but we didn’t shack up as live-ins and most importantly, we courted each other in a way that was consistent with our publicly professed values.

We did it right.

[pullquote]

Feeling judged? I couldn’t care less. You know why? Because my wife and I were judged all throughout our relationship. People laughed, scoffed and poked fun at the young, celibate, naive Christian couple.

We’d certainly never make it to the wedding without schtupping, and if we did, our “wedding night would be awkward and terrible,” they said.

Turns out that people couldn’t have been more wrong. Looking back, I think that the women saying those things felt like the floozies they ultimately were, and the men, with their fickle manhood tied to their pathetic sexual conquests, felt threatened.

I think it’s important to write this column not to gloat (though I’ll be glad to), but to speak up for all of the young couples that have also done things the right way. When people do marriage right, they don’t complain so much, and so their voices are silenced by the rabble of promiscuous charlatans, peddling their pathetic world view as “progressive.”

Our wedding was perfect. Our wedding night was nothing short of amazing. I write this on a plane heading into a tropical paradise with the most beautiful woman to have walked the planet earth. I know everybody says that their bride was the “most beautiful in the world.” They’re wrong. I win.

I’d like to tell you a story of our morning after, however. One that transpired into one of the most glaring epiphanies I’d ever had.

As my wife (again, still not used to that) and I ate breakfast at a local inn, we discussed how excited we were to start the rest of our lives together, how scary it was that everything was now so different. At the same time, we overheard the table next to us discussing their very own wedding from the night prior. What a coincidence!

“The thing is, nothing’s really changed,” the bride said.

Puzzled, my wife asked, “Did you get married last night too? So did we!”

“Congratulations!” the other dame said. “Yeah we did, just last night.”

“Where’s the groom?” my wife innocently… scratch that, naively asked.

“Oh, he’s sleeping. There was no way he was coming out with me this morning!” She paused and smirked. “Let’s just say that he’s got a lingering headache from a really good time last night.”

My heart sank. Firstly, that poor schmuck's “good time” was simply getting snookered. Not enjoying the company of close family and long-lost friends with a clear head and clean conscience, not staring in awe at his beautiful new wife, wanting to soak in every glimmer of her eyes as she shot him heart-racing looks from across the dance floor, not taking all of the cheesy pictures as they cut the cake, not even carrying her across that suite threshold as they nervously anticipated their “nightcap.” He probably won’t remember any of it. Instead, he got smashed. He was “that guy”… at his own freaking wedding.

Then I realized something. Our wedding was truly a once in a lifetime event. It was a God’s-honest celebration of two completely separate lives now becoming one. Physically, emotionally, financially and spiritually, everything that made us who we were individually was becoming what bonded us together. Our family traveled from far and wide to celebrate the decision of two young people to truly commit themselves to each other, and selflessly give themselves to one another in a way that they never had before that very night.

The people next to us that morning? Well, theirs was just one big party. And the morning after? Just another hangover.

Our “weddings” were the same event in name only. They know it, and we know it.

Do yours the right way. If you’re young and wondering whether you should wait, whether you should just give in, become a live-in harlot/mimbo and do it the world’s way. If you’re wondering whether all of the mocking, the ridicule, the incredible difficulty of saving yourself for your spouse is worth it, let me tell you without a doubt that it is. Your wedding can be the most memorable day and night of your life… or just another party.

Oops. Did I just make a “judgment?” You’re darn right I did.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/waiting-till-the-wedding-night-getting-married-the-right-way

Am I the last one to see this? I'm actually pretty surprised that a guy who has made his career off of being an immature, hate mongering jerk would also have this prudish religious conservative position.

Whether in terms of social commentary, comedy, or just stream of consciousness, this is one of the worst things I've ever read. Imagine having breakfast the morning after your wedding and still being bitter about other guys drinking and having lots of sex lol.

Who is that judgmental arrogant cunt? He needs to get fucked in the arse by his high horse.

 

[kpt018]

This was posted in Polish's Voting Rights Act thread.

This is an article by "The Editors" of National Review, which conservatives have still clung to as an example of legitimate conservative intellectualism.

H.R. 1 Is a Partisan Assault on American Democracy

Wednesday night, the House passed H.R. 1, the “For the People Act.” It passed by ten votes, with every Republican voting against it, as well as Mississippi Democrat Bennie Thompson, who fears that the bill will abolish majority-black districts like his in the Deep South. Thompson deserves credit for reading past the title of the bill, which its cheerleaders in the media seem not to have done.

As to that title, H.R. 1 says that it is “For the People,” but tellingly, not by the people, or of the people. Quite the contrary.

It would be an understatement to describe H.R. 1 as a radical assault on American democracy, federalism, and free speech. It is actually several radical left-wing wish lists stuffed into a single 791-page sausage casing. It would override hundreds of state laws governing the orderly conduct of elections, federalize control of voting and elections to a degree without precedent in American history, end two centuries of state power to draw congressional districts, turn the Federal Elections Commission into a partisan weapon, and massively burden political speech against the government while offering government handouts to congressional campaigns and campus activists. Merely to describe the bill is to damn it, and describing it is a Herculean task in itself.

States have long experience running elections, and different states have taken different approaches suited to their own locales and populations. The federal government traditionally intervened only to prevent serious abuses of voting rights. H.R. 1 would upend that balance for no good reason, wrecking carefully refined state regimes for securing the vote. It also throws out much of the work of federal election laws passed with extensive bipartisan support in 1993 and 2002.

H.R. 1 bars states from checking with other states for duplicate registrations within six months of an election. It bars removing former voters from the rolls for failure to vote or to respond to mailings. Outside election observers are an important check on the system; H.R. 1 bars anyone but an election official from challenging a voter’s eligibility to vote on Election Day — thus insulating Democrat-run precincts from scrutiny.

State voter-ID laws are banned, replaced simply by a sworn voter statement. The dramatic expansion of mail-in voting during the COVID pandemic is enshrined permanently in federal law. States are banned from the most elementary security methods for mail-in ballots: They must provide a ballot to everyone without asking for identification and may not require notarization or a witness to signatures. States are compelled to permit ballot harvesting so long as the harvesters are not paid per ballot. Curbside voting, ballot drop boxes, and 15 days of early voting are mandated nationwide, and the bill micromanages the location and hours of polling stations, early voting locations, and drop boxes.

States are compelled to accept voter registrations from 16-year-olds, although they still cannot vote before turning 18 (an amendment to mandate that, too, was defeated). Democrats and their political allies, who rely on the youth vote, traditionally expend extensive resources registering young people. The bill shifts the job of signing up young voters to the federal government, which will pay to teach twelfth graders how to register, create a “Campus Vote Coordinator” position on college campuses, and award grants to colleges for “demonstrated excellence in registering students to vote.” This is measured in part by whether campuses provide rides to get students to the polls and whether they encourage both students and the communities around the campus to get “mobilized to vote.”

Restrictions on felon voting in federal elections in many states are overridden. This exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority over the conduct of elections by directly regulating who may vote, rather than how. In fact, the 14th Amendment expressly permits felons to be disenfranchised — as the Supreme Court held in 1974. State elections officials would be effectively banned from running for federal office by recusal requirements.



Not content to remake the American voting system, H.R. 1 takes the drawing of congressional districts out of the hands of elected state legislatures — who have done the job since the Founding — and turns them over to “independent” commissions, while banning mid-decade readjustments of district lines. It also counts inmates as residents of their last address (even if serving a life sentence), a provision aimed at reducing the representation of rural areas where prisons are located.

These are just the warm-ups. H.R. 1’s crackdowns on political speech are at least as extensive and biased as its changes to election law, and some of the provisions on coordination and foreign-related activity are so complex that even election-law experts warn that their impact is impossible to determine. For example, one provision could be read to bar corporations from political activity if they have even a single foreign shareholder. The new anti-speech laws would generate years of litigation, and many of them would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court.

New disclosure rules would treat huge amounts of speech and advertising on matters of public concern as if they were campaign contributions, including any advertisement urging viewers to contact elected officials to support or oppose a program, policy, or law. This would require donors to, say, the AARP to be identified as supporters of any candidate if the AARP demands that the candidate keep a promise to protect Social Security. The cumulative effect is to further burden citizen rights to petition and further insulate the government from criticism.

501(c)(4) nonprofits would be required to disclose their donors, another potentially unconstitutional burden on the freedom to speak and associate. New limits on corporate political activity are extensive, and similar restrictions are not placed on unions. Previous rules in place to enable free speech on the Internet and prevent political bias in IRS audits are repealed.

What would an omnibus bill be without handouts to unworthy causes, starting with the people who wrote the bill? H.R. 1 includes extensive public-funding giveaways to candidates, including a six-to-one public match for some donations to congressional and presidential campaigns. It also establishes a pilot program that gives voters $25 apiece to make government-funded donations to campaigns.

The labyrinth of new speech rules would be administered by the FEC, and so H.R. 1 eliminates the commission’s longstanding bipartisan structure and makes it more directly accountable to the president. We are sympathetic to efforts to make executive agencies more politically accountable, but the newly partisan structure of the FEC that would be created by H.R. 1 only illustrates why it should not wield such vast powers over elections.

There are reasonable issues to be taken with the current system of voting and elections, and constructive steps Congress could take. But not since the Alien and Sedition Acts has one political party in Congress sought to bend the power of the federal government, on partisan lines, toward crushing political opposition to this extent. H.R. 1 is not merely a bad idea; it is a scandal.


@Jack V Savage @kpt018 @PolishHeadlock2 This is such a shameless, odious, flagrantly dishonest piece - particularly with the pearl clutching about federal overreach, partisanship, and the lack of need to address election administration - that I don't know where to start. As something of a First Amendment scholar myself, the whining about how 501c4's might have to disclose their donors being a burden on free speech is what really gets me. They're saying money is speech....but its distribution as speech needs to be opaque and the identity of the speaker withheld.

The money = free speech arguments always reeked of bad faith to me and you nailed why.

I run into national review pieces in my yahoo news feed and they’re always trash.