Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«106 »
  • Locked thread
Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Idran posted:

I'm pretty sure they're reading "physical force or power" in the definition as physical (force or power).

The intent is (physical force) or power, Strudel Man. "Physical" is only meant to modify "force".
I don't really know how you come to that conclusion. If "physical" only modified "force," the entire first half would be pointless, as unqualified "power" is a far broader concept.

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

This is the example he gave:


That fits the WHO definition perfectly. What are you even arguing?
But yeah, the WHO definition works well with blackguy's specific example, since he was indeed referring to a threat of physical violence.

Mostly I just thought it was funny that he disputed the central status of physicality in violence with a definition that's clearly still about physical force.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




Strudel Man posted:

I don't really know how you come to that conclusion. If "physical" only modified "force," the entire first half would be pointless, as unqualified "power" is a far broader concept.


Wrong again.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publicatio...15_eng.pdf?ua=1

quote:

The inclusion of the word ‘‘power’’, in addition to the phrase ‘‘use of physical force’’, broadens the nature of a violent act and expands the conventional understanding of violence to include those acts that result from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation. The ‘‘use of power’’ also serves to include neglect or acts of omission, in addition to the more obvious violent acts of commission. Thus, ‘‘the use of physical force or power’’ should be understood to include neglect and all types of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, as well as suicide and other self-abusive acts.

This definition covers a broad range of outcomes – including psychological harm, deprivation and maldevelopment. This reflects a growing recognition among researchers and practitioners of the need to include violence that does not necessarily result in injury or death, but that nonetheless poses a substantial burden on individuals, families, communities and health care systems worldwide. Many forms of violence against women, children and the elderly, for instance, can result in physical, psychological and social problems that do not necessarily lead to injury, disability or death. These consequences can be immediate, as well as latent, and can last for years after the initial abuse. Defining outcomes solely in terms of injury or death thus limits the understanding of the full impact of violence on individuals, communities and society at large.

Entropic
Feb 21, 2007

patriarchy sucks


Just avoid anyone who actually self-identifies as "a Gamer". It's for the best.

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008



The WHO document you cite clearly states that they are stretching the meaning beyond conventional use. They are literally redefining something because they think that the listener or reader is too stupid to appropriately recognize the gravity of problems cause by non-physical conduct. They are misappropriating the word to manipulate people into what the writer feels would be an appropriate level of shock. Assuming that people will believe that psychological harm and the like is 'lesser' is patronizing.

The premise of using the word violence to mean an authority figure neglecting to take action which results in harm is stupid. The problem with going beyond convention is that people have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I would recommend to use specific terms to refer to specific conduct.


If for instance in a criminal case where a child died as a result of not being taken care of, nobody would say that the parents violently killed their child.

Torpor fucked around with this message at Sep 26, 2014 around 16:42

VideoTapir
Oct 18, 2005

He'll tire eventually.


Torpor posted:

Assuming that people will believe that psychological harm and the like is 'lesser' is patronizing.

If you're not one of the many people who do, yes it is.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

This is the Jam of the Year

Torpor posted:

The WHO document you cite clearly states that they are stretching the meaning beyond conventional use. They are literally redefining something because they think that the listener or reader is too stupid to appropriately recognize the gravity of problems cause by non-physical conduct. They are misappropriating the word to manipulate people into what the writer feels would be an appropriate level of shock. Assuming that people will believe that psychological harm and the like is 'lesser' is patronizing.

The premise of using the word violence to mean an authority figure neglecting to take action which results in harm is stupid. The problem with going beyond convention is that people have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I would recommend to use specific terms to refer to specific conduct.


If for instance in a criminal case where a child died as a result of not being taken care of, nobody would say that the parents violently killed their child.

This would be all well and good if that wasn't how statistics on violence was calculated. The reason that those other things are included is precisely because they can cause harm even if it isn't physical. Small things such as caretakers misusing grandma's money are considered abuse even if it isn't physical.

Opposing Farce
Apr 1, 2010

Ever since our drop-off service, I never read a book.
There's always something else around, plus I owe the library nineteen bucks.

Torpor posted:

Maybe I am not on the same page as you but in the US it is not socially acceptable to do violence against women. Widespread? Quite. If you mean that normalization means people do it a lot then yes you are right.

This is a little while back but I wanted to weigh in on a slightly different angle:

Violence against women is not "socially acceptable," but it is socially accepted. That is, as a society, we accept that violence against women is the natural state of things; that men beat and surprise sex and murder women and that this is, if not right, at least proper, at least something you expect and understand as How Things Work. "Woman cheats on man, man murders woman in response" is a familiar narrative and comfortable in its violence, because it fits the narrative of the world as we understand it: women are duplicitous and fickle, men are violent and jealous, and so that's just the outcome you expect. All the more so if the players involved are non-white and/or lower-class, because then we can map it to a whole other set of cultural narratives. So when a video game shows us a random husband beating his equally-generic wife or a nameless prostitute getting murdered (and then shows us these same things over and over again as random world events), or when a police procedural opens with a dramatic scene of a spurned lover attacking and killing the former object of his affections (and do note the word object), and when these things tell us that they are GRITTY and REALISTIC, there's a clear message being sent that says "this is the way the world works." And that's not to say that these things don't happen in real life, because they certainly do, or that every time a man hurts a woman in fiction it's socially harmful or irresponsible or whatever, because there are certainly ways to portray these things that are thoughtful and nuanced. But when the same tropes and the same stories keep getting played out in media over and over again, and when writers don't feel the need to put any thought or depth into the scenarios because we all know this story, the sheer pervasiveness of it turns into a dangerous little self-perpetuating message: "Gee, it sure is too bad women have to get murdered all the time, but that's just the way things are." But violence isn't just the way things are, it's actual tragedy that happens to actual human beings, and the violence isn't going to stop so long as we keep saying it's the way things are supposed to happen.

Maybe that explanation is a little confused; I'm not sure I'm communicating this idea very clearly.

Pixelboy
Sep 13, 2005

Now, I know what you're thinking...


Popular Thug Drink posted:

The only people who are interested in Gamergate are people who have massive unresolved problems with women or people who think shouting at the previous group via internet advances society.

... that explains why evilavatar.com keeps linking to Brietbart.

Toasticle
Jul 18, 2003

Hay guys, out this Rape

Selachian posted:

I've never been in (or near) a frat, so perhaps someone with more experience can tell me: just how full of poo poo is this guy about how frats today are scrupulously careful about alcohol use and police themselves responsibly?

I can't say anything about today's frats but while it pains me to say he does have some valid points. My frat used to throw some pretty wild parties, like borderline animal house level. There were fights (nothing overly serious, bruises, black eyes, one broken nose) lamp flying out a window, cops and campus security every other time. We didnt have a rule book or anything but we carded. Didnt care if you were already trashed because usually so was everyone else at that point. I had carding duty twice and we turned away or called a cab for anyone who was obviously one drink from alcohol poisoning male or female.

Of all the wild poo poo we did we only got poo poo form the university three times I was there:
-drunk chick went topless, possibly two I didn't see it.
-hired a stripper (no sex at all) for a birthday bash. Nothing illegal, hiring a stripper to a private party was legal, plus her bodyguard looked like he could snap someone in half with one arm.
-girl passed out so we put her in someone's room in bed. She never claimed anything happened but the accusation was since she was in someone's room somebody MUST have tried something.

His article came across borderline MRA but I have to say it is true the only times we got threatened with losing our charter was in cases of really drunk females (except the stripper) even when nothing ever happened (we were hardcore partiers not scumbags). Guys beating each up or waving their dicks around? Whatever boys being boys.

This was '88-'92

Toasticle fucked around with this message at Sep 29, 2014 around 00:23

Shbobdb
Dec 16, 2010

by Smythe


As long as we call them "females" it's OK.

Toasticle
Jul 18, 2003

Hay guys, out this Rape

Shbobdb posted:

As long as we call them "females" it's OK.

I'm not following.

We did end up with a not strictly enforced rule that no females(??) unless they were with someone else. It sucked both because obviously sausage fests aren't as fun but it felt like I was saying "sorry your not able to control yourself" but after the girl in the bed incident we just didnt want to be kicked off campus.

rkajdi
Sep 11, 2001

End the populist machination of democracy.
End the repression of the superior betters of society from criticism by worthless dregs via the tyrannous bullhorn known as the 'vote'.
Only the meritorious can rule!


This boot tastes soooooo good.


Toasticle posted:

I'm not following.

The point is calling them females vs. women is a little dehumanizing.

botany
Apr 27, 2013

by Lowtax


Toasticle posted:

I can't say anything about today's frats but while it pains me to say he does have some valid points. My frat used to throw some pretty wild parties, like borderline animal house level. There were fights (nothing overly serious, bruises, black eyes, one broken nose) lamp flying out a window, cops and campus security every other time. We didnt have a rule book or anything but we carded. Didnt care if you were already trashed because usually so was everyone else at that point. I had carding duty twice and we turned away or called a cab for anyone who was obviously one drink from alcohol poisoning male or female.

Of all the wild poo poo we did we only got poo poo form the university three times I was there:
-drunk chick went topless, possibly two I didn't see it.
-hired a stripper (no sex at all) for a birthday bash. Nothing illegal, hiring a stripper to a private party was legal, plus her bodyguard looked like he could snap someone in half with one arm.
-girl passed out so we put her in someone's room in bed. She never claimed anything happened but the accusation was since she was in someone's room somebody MUST have tried something.

His article came across borderline MRA but I have to say it is true the only times we got threatened with losing our charter was in cases of really drunk females (except the stripper) even when nothing ever happened (we were hardcore partiers not scumbags). Guys beating each up or waving their dicks around? Whatever boys being boys.

This was '88-'92

So you're saying that drunk girls didn't actually do anything that would have threatened your precious charter, but instead the university policy cracked down on situation where sexual assaults on girls might occur, because of the myriad cases of sexual assault on drunk girls in the past? Yeah that's clearly the fault of drunk females.

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx


Fun Shoe

rkajdi posted:

The point is calling them females vs. women is a little dehumanizing.

He uses "males" right next to it.

rkajdi
Sep 11, 2001

End the populist machination of democracy.
End the repression of the superior betters of society from criticism by worthless dregs via the tyrannous bullhorn known as the 'vote'.
Only the meritorious can rule!


This boot tastes soooooo good.


SedanChair posted:

He uses "males" right next to it.

Equally poo poo, though it probably more means he served in the service than anything else.

Toasticle
Jul 18, 2003

Hay guys, out this Rape

Sorry I thought this was D&D not tumbler emo trigger word land. What kind of hosed up sensitivity do you have that chick and girl are ok but female is somehow derogatory or male. And yes, it's how I helped pay for college. So what's accepted so I don't hurt anyone's feelings? Men and women only? Can I still say dude?

botany posted:

So you're saying that drunk girls didn't actually do anything that would have threatened your precious charter, but instead the university policy cracked down on situation where sexual assaults on girls might occur, because of the myriad cases of sexual assault on drunk girls in the past? Yeah that's clearly the fault of drunk females.

No I said the presence of a drunk WOMAN despite never a complaint or accusation from anyone at our frat still resulted in not just our frat being essentially told the very presence of drunk WOMEN was enough to threaten us. We didnt make the decision, the U was essentially saying they can't get drunk around men so we had to tell them someone else has decided you're too helpless and fragile to be at a party so sorry you can't go. Yet we were the bad ones despite going out of our way to make sure nothing happened. Ok.

Toasticle fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2014 around 00:00

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich


Toasticle posted:

No I said the presence of a drunk WOMAN despite never a complaint or accusation from anyone at our frat still resulted in not just our frat being essentially told the very presence of drunk WOMEN was enough to threaten us. We didnt make the decision, the U was essentially saying they can't get drunk around men so we had to tell them someone else has decided you're too helpless and fragile to be at a party so sorry you can't go. Yet we were the bad ones despite going out of our way to make sure nothing happened. Ok.

You did participate in the hosting of an event commonly understood to center around binge drinking in (most likely) a University facility. It is reasonable for the University to scrutinize and place limits on your behavior.

kapparomeo
Apr 19, 2011

Some say his extreme-right links are clearly known, even in the fascist capitalist imperialist Murdochist press...

Perhaps PTD women should wear concealing clothing, something which gives no suggestion about their objectification-able features - like, say, a large cloth, or maybe a veil - so that men's base animalistic sexual instincts will not be triggered in their presence?

kapparomeo fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2014 around 01:14

INH5
Dec 17, 2012
Error: file not found.

Sorry if I'm derailing, but I saw a few things earlier in the thread that I want to respond to.

ErIog posted:

Most people taking issue with Anita Sarkeesian probably wouldn't bat an eye at the assertion that Ellen and Will & Grace* helped create a positive association with gay people among the general US population. However they somehow take issue with the idea that negative associations can be reinforced. To use the gay example again, if you go back 50 years you can see depictions of gay people in media as being prurient, perverse, criminal, and deranged. It was an oft-used element in noir and detective stories.

Personally, I do take issue with the idea that those shows created a positive association with gay people, and that previous negative depictions of gay people in the media created negative associations with gay people. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think it's far more likely that positive depictions of gay people in the media came about as a result of greater positive views of gay people in the general US population, which were actually caused by decades of work by LGBT activists.

The latter just makes more sense to me. If someone is already homophobic, then they probably aren't going to watch Will and Grace in the first place, and even if they do they'll just think that the show is "whitewashing" what gay people are really like, and then they'll get offended and stop watching it. It was because of the changing cultural attitudes that shows like Will and Grace and Ellen were able to not only get made but find an audience and become successful. If those shows had been produced two decades before, they probably wouldn't have lasted a single season, if they even managed to make it on the air.

And for the record, if you go back 50 years, then you won't see any explicit depictions of gay people in the movies at all, because the Hays Code didn't allow any overt depictions of homosexuality. Movies did have "coded gay" characters, but even back then there were plenty of sympathetic examples, such as Plato in Rebel Without a Cause*. Yet people of that time somehow managed to develop negative attitudes towards gay people even though popular media had literally zero examples of openly gay characters being portrayed in a negative light. Which would seem to argue against the idea that "problematic" media is a cause, rather than a product of a racist/sexist/homophobic culture.

* Yes, Plato is depicted as psychologically unstable, but the movie shows reasons for that apart from his implied sexual orientation, and he's still sympathetic. I would consider that "progressive for the time."

ErIog posted:

It's impossible to ignore the impact of media on culture.

People often say this, but I rarely see any actual evidence being presented for it. Personally, I'm skeptical of the idea. There is clearly a correlation between societal attitudes and media content, but correlation does not prove causation. On the one hand, there are clear and observable causal mechanisms for societal attitudes to result in the production of certain kinds of media content, because people tend to buy entertainment media that fits their preexisting attitudes, and to a lesser degree creators are likely to put their own attitudes into their work. On the other hand, the idea that media imposes particular social values on the viewer relies on hypothetical psychological mechanisms that have not, to my knowledge, ever been solidly demonstrated by empirical evidence.

Especially since people are clearly capable of ignoring some aspects of the media they consume. For example, studies have found that people exposed to DARE programs are actually more likely to do drugs later in life than people who were not. And that's an example of kids at a supposedly impressionable age being presented with a very clear message of "drugs are bad and you should stay away from them" in a controlled environment. It was also accompanied by a big push to put the same kind of message into popular kids shows, among many other things.

But if you have any evidence I haven't seen, then by all means tell me about it.

INH5 fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2014 around 02:51

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005


Well, a Superman radio serial helped take down the KKK.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/2315...ed-ku-klux-klan

I dunno, maybe the show's impact is overstated.

botany
Apr 27, 2013

by Lowtax


Toasticle posted:

No I said the presence of a drunk WOMAN despite never a complaint or accusation from anyone at our frat still resulted in not just our frat being essentially told the very presence of drunk WOMEN was enough to threaten us. We didnt make the decision, the U was essentially saying they can't get drunk around men so we had to tell them someone else has decided you're too helpless and fragile to be at a party so sorry you can't go. Yet we were the bad ones despite going out of our way to make sure nothing happened. Ok.

You're missing the point. The university cracked down on this poo poo because fraternities have a long history of sexual assault on women. I'm glad you and your buddies were the shining counterexamples to that trend, but it is entirely reasonable for a university to not want to take that risk. And -- this is the important part -- none of that is the women's fault. It may not be you who were the cause of taht university policy, but it was certainly someone like you, just maybe with lower moral standards or less self-control.

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009





INH5 posted:



People often say this, but I rarely see any actual evidence being presented for it. Personally, I'm skeptical of the idea. There is clearly a correlation between societal attitudes and media content, but correlation does not prove causation. On the one hand, there are clear and observable causal mechanisms for societal attitudes to result in the production of certain kinds of media content, because people tend to buy entertainment media that fits their preexisting attitudes, and to a lesser degree creators are likely to put their own attitudes into their work. On the other hand, the idea that media imposes particular social values on the viewer relies on hypothetical psychological mechanisms that have not, to my knowledge, ever been solidly demonstrated by empirical evidence.

Especially since people are clearly capable of ignoring some aspects of the media they consume. For example, studies have found that people exposed to DARE programs are actually more likely to do drugs later in life than people who were not. And that's an example of kids at a supposedly impressionable age being presented with a very clear message of "drugs are bad and you should stay away from them" in a controlled environment. It was also accompanied by a big push to put the same kind of message into popular kids shows, among many other things.

But if you have any evidence I haven't seen, then by all means tell me about it.
How would you explain something like isolated rural towns having the same views on things they would not otherwise? Minorities they would never come across for example.

INH5
Dec 17, 2012
Error: file not found.

katlington posted:

How would you explain something like isolated rural towns having the same views on things they would not otherwise? Minorities they would never come across for example.

If they get those views from pop culture, then how did they get them in the days before radio was invented? By extension, how do modern isolated rural villages with no electricity, and by extension no television, internet, etc. get these sorts of views?

I'm not a sociologist, but I assume the answer is that no rural town, no matter how small, is truly isolated from broader society. Even back in the Middle Ages, you had church and state institutions, traders, regular travelers, people moving from place to place to find work, etc. Also, keep in mind that there's a difference between pop cultural entertainment media that people buy to amuse themselves and news media that people watch or listen to in order to know what's happening "out there." Though the latter has become increasingly like the former in recent times.

In any case, it's a readily observable fact that people living in small rural towns tend to have different tastes in pop culture than people living in big cosmopolitan cities. There's a reason that an entire genre of music is called "Country Music," just to name the most glaringly obvious example. There's also the very existence of the Christian movie industry.

I don't think the fact that these divides in pop cultural tastes tend to line up with divides over politics in general and "culture war" issues in particular is a coincidence, either.

Xombie
May 21, 2004

From the wastes of
the North he rides,
Crushing the earth
with every stride


House should OK milk that is unpasteurized

The Columbus Dispatch posted:

I urge our members of Congress to approve House Resolution 4307 and House Resolution 4038. HR 4307 would provide relief to local farmers, small producers and others who have been harassed and fined for distributing unpasteurized milk.

HR 4038 would prevent the federal government from interfering with trade of unpasteurized, natural milk or milk products between states where distribution or sale of such products is already legal. It’s a shame that consumers are prevented from having full access to these products and that farmers are forced to pasteurize a perfectly health-giving food.

Our freedoms are slowly being eroded away; please give us back this one.

JANIS JENKINS

Canal Winchester

FilthyImp
Sep 30, 2002
PELE X ODDJOB 4 LYFE


Ok, I laughed more than I should have at the :drudge:ARE FREEDOMS:drudge: part.

My grandfather used to get unpasteurized milk in Mexico. It tasted/smelled amazing. But the dairy he got that from was like 30 minutes away. Not sure we can ensure the same in cities and whatnot.


Plus, what the gently caress is with the Raw Milk movement? I've seen it in WholeFoodsy places. I've used it in making milk-based desserts, but who the gently caress would just drink it?

Crazy Larry
Apr 13, 2013



I'm not at all surprised that this has popped up in Ohio given the reaction to vendors at Farmers' Markets actually having to comply with food safety regulations.

quote:

Changes in the Ohio Food Safety Code requires ready-to-eat food to be kept temperature-regulated.... "Health is always a concern. But if you're growing good vegetables, the earth is not poisoned. It's good for you," said Poston.

Schmoe Cwead
Apr 19, 2007

LUCKY DUCK


"Pfft. Temperature-regulated shmeperature-shmegulated. If I want to eat a mushy half-rotten carrot than by gum it, it's MY RIGHT!"

Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somehwere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold




FilthyImp posted:

Plus, what the gently caress is with the Raw Milk movement? I've seen it in WholeFoodsy places. I've used it in making milk-based desserts, but who the gently caress would just drink it?

Libertarians have a tree branch up their rear end about drinking it. Which really is fine by me if libertarians want to suffer food borne illness because of their stupid beliefs.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

Trophy-ko says:
~death to capitalism~

Hilalry is 45


Pretty much the only reason unpasteurized milk was banned from sale was that farmers kept trying to falsify the pasteurization status of their milk to save a few bucks, if I remember right, and the near-blanket bans on selling raw milk outside the farm gave authorities much greater ability to prosecute.

This is honestly still something there's significant reasons to keep watch for.

Shbobdb
Dec 16, 2010

by Smythe


I love raw milk because it is delicious and great for making cheeses. However, it is also dangerous. Given the state of agribusiness in America, I do not trust regulations to actually protect me, so I prefer an outright ban. If I really want raw milk, I can find some farmers willing to work out a deal and get it directly from the farm (or have them illegally deliver it to me, which is what I did when I lived in Indiana). The trick is that because it is illegal, you have to be careful on both sides. There is still the threat of law to keep them in line, since they shouldn't be selling it away, so the only people doing it are heavily enriched for people who know how to do it safely. Then it is just the game of "spot the unreliable shyter who doesn't know what he is doing."

The current illegal status of raw milk is a great thing for people who like raw milk. It is a bad thing for lazy, ignorant people. The system works.

botany
Apr 27, 2013

by Lowtax


When I was a wee little lad my mom used to send me and my brother to the neighbouring farm with a tin milk bucket to get fresh milk like we were living in some Norman Rockwell painting rather than 90s Germany. That poo poo was disgusting and we complained until we got pasteurized milk.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich


Shbobdb posted:

The current illegal status of raw milk is a great thing for people who like raw milk. It is a bad thing for lazy, ignorant people. The system works.

This is almost exactly how marijuana works (for white people).

The people who complain about raw milk are just looking for reasons to whine, but being artisinal white hipsters they can't find much of a real complaint. It's easy enough to get raw milk if you really care, and we have good reasons for not permitting people to sell raw dairy in stores. If you really want to get raw milk it's not difficult.

DaveWoo
Aug 14, 2004



Fun Shoe

POLITICO Article: If Obama Gets Assassinated, It'll Be His Own drat Fault

quote:

Despite the obvious danger to himself and his own family, President Obama refuses to replace Pierson. The truth is that no internal reviews or congressional hearings will change the Secret Service’s broken management culture. It needs better leadership. As in any organization, only a CEO who comes from the outside can make the necessary changes. That’s a major reason why Robert S. Mueller III, a veteran prosecutor and former Justice Department official who became director of the FBI, was able to change the direction and culture of the bureau after 9/11, orienting it toward preventing future attacks.

Agents tell me it’s a miracle an assassination has not already occurred. Sadly, given Obama’s colossal lack of management judgment, that calamity may be the only catalyst that will reform the Secret Service.

Forceholy
Nov 10, 2007

My Voice Just Echoes Off These Walls



Looks like someone's getting a visit from the secret service.

Badger of Basra
Jul 25, 2007




This is some of the most shameless rear end-covering disguised as journalism I've ever seen.

Selachian
Oct 9, 2012



If you want stupid Secret Service op-eds, try this from the WaPo. The author thinks that we should turn over guarding the President to the military, and suggests that they should be put under the command of Allen loving West. If I was more cynical I'd suspect him of wanting to engineer a Praetorian Guard scenario...

Selachian fucked around with this message at Oct 3, 2014 around 01:50

Berke Negri
Feb 15, 2012

Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao




Praetorian West sighed as he drew his gladius.

DutchDupe
Dec 25, 2013

How does the kitty cat go?

...meow?

Very gooood.


Of the people who would kill Obama if given the opportunity, Allen West is at least in the top 20. This is a great idea.

Sodomy Hussein
Oct 9, 2005

The right reading for this is the one I'm giving.

Given the stunning incompetence of the Secret Service detail at the White House, people have already suggested a plot to kill Obama via "incompetence." There are also many calls to turn the White House lawn into a killzone, including from congressmen, which is quite amazing.

Sodomy Hussein fucked around with this message at Oct 2, 2014 around 05:50

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009





I assumed Obama (or any other Democratic president) keeps SS at arms length so when they're compelled to testify after his term, nothing of any import comes out.

  • Locked thread
«106 »