If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Old_ones wrote:

Clarence wrote:

Old_ones wrote:
That's one poll you fucking imbecile. Look up the word average.

Morning Consult New 8/18 - 8/20 Clinton +6
Ipsos/Reuters 8/13 - 8/17 Clinton +5
UPI/CVoter 8/11 - 8/17 Clinton +4
Rasmussen 8/15 - 8/16 Clinton +2
YouGov/Economist 8/11 - 8/16 Clinton +6
Pew 8/9 - 8/16 Clinton +4
Normington, Petts & Associates 8/9 - 8/15 Clinton +10
Morning Consult 8/11 - 8/14 Clinton +7
NBC News/SurveyMonkey 8/8 - 8/14 Clinton +9
Zogby 8/12 - 8/13 Clinton +2

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... polls.html

He's not neck and neck with Hillary Clinton, you insufferable moron. He is down by 10 points in the polls nationally, and neck and neck with Hillary in Georgia.

I don't see the word 'average' in this sentence of yours, and his poll was for the entire US , not just Georgia. Not to mention its much more recent than some of these polls which go back to the 11th.

Do you have Trump Derangement Syndrome or are you related to Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Turns out I know how to read, and I don't consider breitbart.com to be the only trustworthy news source. I'm laughing at your attempt to debunk my post. Go to third grade. It'll help you.

Breitbart was reporting on a Los Angelos Times poll. It's not a Bretibart poll. And, as I said, its much more recent than some of the polls you quote.

As for the rest, my, my, I think someone is cranky because he soiled his diapers.

Next time you post on this subject, perhaps you should take a nice laxitive or some valium to make it easier on you. All that anger is bad for your heart!

free thoughtpolice wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

I actually agree with him to an extent.
I do believe that quite a large part of "the political system' (specifically the neocon think tanks and the politicians that listen to them and the companies /individuals that profit from this endless war crap) does want at least some limited military action against Russia. All the better to start a new Cold War. They may not want full scale World War 3 , and esp not one with nukes (they do value THEIR lives and property) but once you push a bear too much it's not guaranteed how he will react.

And of course I was predicting last year that if Trump was nominated some of the Republicans would either go Democrat or split off to push an alternate candidate or maybe even go Third Party. Fact is the Republican Establishment (largely lying RINO at that) doesn't like Trump any more than the Democratic party Establishment does.

I'm also with him in that watching these idiots and their largely lap dog neutered press panic and hate on Trump give me good feels and makes me want to vote for him all the more. Thank you Mr. Trump for revealing just what the current US 'political system' really is. A largely pre-purchased sham filled with a bunch of clowns most of whom couldn't run a circus, let alone a country.

Lastly, I'm with him in that I know that even if Trump tries (and his big ego just might make him try to solve the countries ills) its unlikely he'll be able to totally stave off a collapse of "The System", but he might be able to moderate things a bit.

The feces have been thrown! :hankey: Pit battle underway!

Guest_ce3d1b2f wrote:Are there any queers on this forum today?

Yes, I shaved my eyebrows off...got a problem with that?

No problem at all, Neo.

Why you (morons, plural) argue or care about national %s for Clinton and Trump is beyond me. What matters are votes in the electoral college. Other than a brief period a few weeks ago when they were even, Nate Silver et al. has had the odds of a Clinton victory at a consistent 3:1 pretty much all summer.

Did you call Clarence a moron?

It turns out he really does have small hands:
[youtube][/youtube]

Billie from Ockham wrote:Why you (morons, plural) argue or care about national %s for Clinton and Trump is beyond me. What matters are votes in the electoral college. Other than a brief period a few weeks ago when they were even, Nate Silver et al. has had the odds of a Clinton victory at a consistent 3:1 pretty much all summer.

What does 3:1 odds even mean in an election? How does one test that -- run the election multiple times?

Silver is a charlatan blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

Hillary will do for gender relations what Obama has done for race relations.

Billie from Ockham wrote:Why you (morons, plural) argue or care about national %s for Clinton and Trump is beyond me. What matters are votes in the electoral college. Other than a brief period a few weeks ago when they were even, Nate Silver et al. has had the odds of a Clinton victory at a consistent 3:1 pretty much all summer.

Right now the 538 polls only model has 85% chance of a Hillary win, and the Princeton election consortium has a 95% probability of a Hillary win. The New York times runs a similar model, which predicts that Hillary Clinton has an 86% chance of winning. Nate Silver has an article out about the national polls which notes that some of the recent national polls are closer, but that Trump hasn't gained any ground in swing state polling. They also note that the LA Times poll is an outlier. I could just say that, but it's more convincing to actually dig up recent national polls. At least it would be convincing if I were talking to people who understood the concept of uncertainty.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... ecast.html (NYTimes electoral college model)
http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/ (Princeton Election Consortium model)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... id=rrpromo (538 Models)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... olls-dont/ (Nate Silver recent polling analysis)

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Billie from Ockham wrote:Why you (morons, plural) argue or care about national %s for Clinton and Trump is beyond me. What matters are votes in the electoral college. Other than a brief period a few weeks ago when they were even, Nate Silver et al. has had the odds of a Clinton victory at a consistent 3:1 pretty much all summer.

What does 3:1 odds even mean in an election? How does one test that -- run the election multiple times?

The answer to the first question is that there's a 75% chance of Clinton winning. The answer to the second question is that ... it's a stupid question. Do you give the weather-man shit for giving %s that aren't 0 or 100?

The most important statistic is that the election is more than 2 months away. Things can change in a hurry. Russian spy Julian Assange leaks some emails at the right time... It doesn't matter whether it's true or not... and Putin has President Trump zombie at his command.

free thoughtpolice wrote:The most important statistic is that the election is more than 2 months away. Things can change in a hurry. Russian spy Julian Assange leaks some emails at the right time... It doesn't matter whether it's true or not... and Putin has President Trump zombie at his command.

I see your reasonable admonition and raise you something silly:

I was told that blacks from Africa like to have third terms as president, even when that's not allowed by the local constitution, so I see no reason to assume that there will be an election in the US in two months.

Vote Trump!

Billie from Ockham wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:The most important statistic is that the election is more than 2 months away. Things can change in a hurry. Russian spy Julian Assange leaks some emails at the right time... It doesn't matter whether it's true or not... and Putin has President Trump zombie at his command.

I see your reasonable admonition and raise you something silly:

I was told that blacks from Africa like to have third terms as president, even when that's not allowed by the local constitution, so I see no reason to assume that there will be an election in the US in two months.

I'm pretty sure I've heard some people talk about that. :o

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Billie from Ockham wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:The most important statistic is that the election is more than 2 months away. Things can change in a hurry. Russian spy Julian Assange leaks some emails at the right time... It doesn't matter whether it's true or not... and Putin has President Trump zombie at his command.

I see your reasonable admonition and raise you something silly:

I was told that blacks from Africa like to have third terms as president, even when that's not allowed by the local constitution, so I see no reason to assume that there will be an election in the US in two months.

I'm pretty sure I've heard some people talk about that. :o

During the heat of the first debate, Hillary'd catheter bag explodes killing both her and Trump.
Obama does the only rational thing and not only installs himself as Caliph for life, but identifies as chocolate gender fluid. And Kenya.

free thoughtpolice wrote:The feces have been thrown! :hankey: Pit battle underway!

Pit battle or another compelling reason to put "Mr Pervy" and "derp, I looks good in Crocs, harpy-deep" on ignore? Stay tuned!

free thoughtpolice wrote:Did you call Clarence a moron?

Why would he insult morons like that?

On the bright side, i suspect that a Clinton presidency will do for the Democrats what the GW Bush Presidency did for the Republicans.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Billie from Ockham wrote:Why you (morons, plural) argue or care about national %s for Clinton and Trump is beyond me. What matters are votes in the electoral college. Other than a brief period a few weeks ago when they were even, Nate Silver et al. has had the odds of a Clinton victory at a consistent 3:1 pretty much all summer.

What does 3:1 odds even mean in an election? How does one test that -- run the election multiple times?

Silver is a charlatan blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

If you'd actually like to know, I tracked down the article where he explains it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... del-works/

Its a couple years old, but he notes that they build their models in mostly the same way every year. The teal dear version is that they build models based on polling averages and a few "fundamentals" like the unemployment rate. Then they run a lot of simulations where random number generators are used to simulate systematic errors in national and state polling averages. The simulations give them a bell curve of simulated election outcomes, and they use that bell curve to calculate the probability of a given candidate winning.

VickyCaramel wrote:On the bright side, i suspect that a Clinton presidency will do for the Democrats what the GW Bush Presidency did for the Republicans.

I am not happy with this new avatar. Please PM me selfies of your tits.

Billie from Ockham wrote:

dogen wrote:No, that would be rounders, a sport played by girls.

And basketball becomes netball -- a sport played by girls.

Lacrosse is the same -- but it's also played by girls.

Billie from Ockham wrote:Funny that you didn't mention field hockey.

dogen wrote:Fair point -- but then again, the Irish variants on hockey make it more than manly enough.

But hurling is pretty close to American-style lacrosse, at least as played by males, so now you're giving up one of your own examples. tee hee

But Lacrosse is played in America with body armor. Whereas hurling isn't.

It's like Rubgy and the Rugby for Girls that is the NFL.

Guest_ce3d1b2f wrote:Are there any queers on this forum today?

Get them up against the wall.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Billie from Ockham wrote:Why you (morons, plural) argue or care about national %s for Clinton and Trump is beyond me. What matters are votes in the electoral college. Other than a brief period a few weeks ago when they were even, Nate Silver et al. has had the odds of a Clinton victory at a consistent 3:1 pretty much all summer.

What does 3:1 odds even mean in an election? How does one test that -- run the election multiple times?

Silver is a charlatan blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

Fuck off, frequentist scum.

7 Dangerous Anti-Feminist Groups You Should Know About.

New Atheists only make #3. Must try harder.

HunnyBunny wrote:While we're on the subject of men in dresses, or lately lycra running shorts, this lovely chap has a lot to say:

http://i1.wp.com/thetab.com/blogs.dir/9 ... C418&ssl=1

S/h/it is the LGBTIA+ Officer at Edinburgh University.

Just to be clear, that's EUSA's (i.e. the student union's ) LGBTIA+ officer. I don't think the University itself would associate with such a
:cdc:

HunnyBunny wrote: Good to see a University supporting the rights of women - as long as those women are men.

Good to see that EUSA is still the hopeless bunch of politically correct muppets that they were when I was there, but now with added SocJus lunacy... :twatson:

Pseudomonas

[youtube][/youtube]

Billie from Ockham wrote:

feathers wrote:

dogen wrote:Well, that's autogynephilia, innit?

Isn't that the sexual attraction to women in fast cars?

Yep. Problem is, most Americans immediately think of Danica Patrick or (maybe, if they're my age) Shirley Muldowney, but have never heard of Michèle Mouton.

The name 'Mouton' reminds me more of something else than racing.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5 ... utton+rack

DaveDodo007 wrote:

Shatterface wrote:

Sunder wrote:The funny thing about "fanny" is that while it does have a cleaner connotation in the States, it's also an old person term that virtually never gets used.

With the exception of referring to "fanny packs," which ironically are worn on the front.

The first time I saw the American usage was in an early Star Wars comic when this rabbit-looking guy told a woman to 'move her tailless fanny'. It took me a while to work that one out.

I remember when I was working in Tacoma in the nineties and I was introduced to a Mr Wanker, fun times. :lol:

Scots version is pretty tough too

Scots version is pretty tough too

Not sure what happe9there was quoting on ho key point - on phone though

Orbit blogger and poly SSA board member has been very, very quiet on #Carriergate.


Until now. Sort of, if you read between the lines...

Abusers Don’t Abuse Everyone

[Content note: sexual harassment, assault, and abuse]

If you’ve hung around in poly communities* for a while, you’ve probably seen this dynamic:

A man (or, very occasionally, someone of another gender) gets accused of sexual harassment, assault, or abuse. Along with all the usual disparagement and skepticism towards the accuser, this man’s other partners come out of the woodwork to defend him, describing (sometimes in great detail) their relationship or sex life to “prove” that he’s a consent-aware and safe person. The fact that he did not harass/assault/abuse these individuals is used as evidence that he did not harass/assault/abuse anyone else, either.

:think:

Hit the submit button by mistake...


to continue, Miri says:

Just like abusers aren’t uniformly awful to the people they’re abusing–if they were, it’d be much easier to leave–they aren’t uniformly awful to everyone else. They’re often charming, beloved by their friends, and professionally successful. And yes, in a polyamorous context, that can even include other partners.

Victim blaming is dangerous not just because it harms survivors and keeps them from speaking out, but because it sends a powerful message to sexual predators that they can do what they do with impunity. Think, then, about what it says when someone gets accused of sexual violence and a chorus of their other partners shows up to claim that the accusations must be false because “Well I’ve been with him for years and he has never been anything other than respectful of my body and boundaries, and based on everything I know I just can’t see him doing something like this.” Think about what it says when we treat these arguments as in any way valid.

Gosh, I just can't imagine who she might be thinking about when writing this ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160822075 ... -everyone/

HunnyBunny wrote:Orbit blogger and poly SSA board member has been very, very quiet on #Carriergate.


Until now. Sort of, if you read between the lines...

Abusers Don’t Abuse Everyone

[Content note: sexual harassment, assault, and abuse]

If you’ve hung around in poly communities* for a while, you’ve probably seen this dynamic:

A man (or, very occasionally, someone of another gender) gets accused of sexual harassment, assault, or abuse. Along with all the usual disparagement and skepticism towards the accuser, this man’s other partners come out of the woodwork to defend him, describing (sometimes in great detail) their relationship or sex life to “prove” that he’s a consent-aware and safe person. The fact that he did not harass/assault/abuse these individuals is used as evidence that he did not harass/assault/abuse anyone else, either.

:think:

I don't recall Shermer / Radford co-opting their ex partners? The girl is confused.

Fucking passive aggressives.

Old_ones wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Billie from Ockham wrote:Why you (morons, plural) argue or care about national %s for Clinton and Trump is beyond me. What matters are votes in the electoral college. Other than a brief period a few weeks ago when they were even, Nate Silver et al. has had the odds of a Clinton victory at a consistent 3:1 pretty much all summer.

What does 3:1 odds even mean in an election? How does one test that -- run the election multiple times?

Silver is a charlatan blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

If you'd actually like to know, I tracked down the article where he explains it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... del-works/

Its a couple years old, but he notes that they build their models in mostly the same way every year. The teal dear version is that they build models based on polling averages and a few "fundamentals" like the unemployment rate. Then they run a lot of simulations where random number generators are used to simulate systematic errors in national and state polling averages. The simulations give them a bell curve of simulated election outcomes, and they use that bell curve to calculate the probability of a given candidate winning.

Looks like the "unskewed" people are back and didn't learn their lesson from last time. I can't see why anybody here would vote for him considering he is a climate change denier and anti-vaccine crank as well as a bad businessman.

Clarence wrote:I actually agree with him to an extent.
I do believe that quite a large part of "the political system' (specifically the neocon think tanks and the politicians that listen to them and the companies /individuals that profit from this endless war crap) does want at least some limited military action against Russia. All the better to start a new Cold War. They may not want full scale World War 3 , and esp not one with nukes (they do value THEIR lives and property) but once you push a bear too much it's not guaranteed how he will react.

I don't think that anyone wants direct military action against Russia. It's simply too unproductive. What's happening is that Russia and the US are struggling for the control of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, carrying on the "Great Game" of old between the British and Russian Empire. Nobody on either side wants an open war, they want to control strategic points for the control of oil and other resources (which may mean supporting local conflicts, of course).

After the end of the Cold War Russia was in shambles due to the fall of Communism and the instability under Eltsin, and many in the US saw it as a opportunity to isolate it by supporting local independence movements. The Baltic states and the Caucasus states in particular had a long history of chafing against Russian supremacy within the Soviet Union (when Stalin deported to Siberia anyone who objected to Soviet control, and many who didn't but looked like they could) , and they sought US help to keep Russia in check.

The US was all too happy to help them get independence, break away from Russia and join NATO. In some cases (especially in the Baltic states) independence meant economic success.

As you would expect there's no love lost between most of the ex Soviet republics and the Russian Motherland, with the exception of Belarus and (until the Euromaidan movement) the Ukraine.

What happened after the political rise of Putin is that Russia got more or less stable and he got rid of anyone who he saw as a threat to his power, including many who had profited of the chaos to become filthy rich. Many Russians cheered at the fall of the profiteers and Putin efficiently managed to portray himself as the rightful leader who was going to fight corruption and Make Russia Great Again (while making deals with the heads of the Chechen mob and happily ordering journalists critical of him to be killed, but that's another story).

He resumed the Great Game and supported and financed counter-independence and/or pan-Russian movements (Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc).

He also heavily promoted pro-Russian propaganda and skillfully used the Orthodox Church as one of his propaganda tools. He acquired some friends in the West among the religious conservatives, the neo-Nazis, the Euro-skeptic movements (which he preferred and heavily financed) and anyone who had a political view hostile to the US. That's also part of the Game.

It's hard to see them in the US but in Europe there are plenty of Putin lackeys and shills. I'm always amused by the fact that so many people think that the US are "provoking" Russia when in reality it's a clash between two empires and many in Eastern Europe prefer the far away friend to the close neighbor (for understandable historical and political reasons). Interestingly far less people think that by supporting South Korea or Japan or the existence of Taiwan the US are "provoking" China and that we'll soon have an open war with China because the Evil US want it so much.

The Great Game continued when the US (along with many European countries, especially Germany) saw an opportunity to bring the Ukraine closer to the EU and the "West" and financed and supported the Euromaidan (Euro-square) movement, which successfully deposed the pro-Russian president and started talks to join with.

Putin saw this as a threat to Russia joint control over Crimea (mostly ethnically Russian and where the Russian navy has most of its bases in the Black Sea) and to his ambitions of building a pipeline in the Donbass area(mostly ethnically Russian) so he more-or-less openly sent the Russian army to occupy Crimea (which was relatively easy) and to fight in the Donbass. Oh, sure, the Kremlin propaganda line was that it was "local freedom fighters" but in most cases those "local freedom fighters" are Russian military who simply took their dog-tags off.

I'm not saying that what the US are doing is necessarily "right" and what Russia is doing is necessarily "wrong". I'm saying that it's the nature of international politics, and everybody plays that game without necessarily going to war with each other over it. I don't see the Americans as doing anything different from, or morally worse than, what the British Empire did in its times. Putin is also carrying on the policies of the Russian empire, and he's created a cult of himself as the informal "new Czar". He reached a stalemate of sorts in the Ukraine while the fights continue.

The biggest victory for Putin, however, has been Syria. The US supported the overthrowing of Assad, but the situation degenerated so much (I'm over-simplifying things here) that they paved the way to the creation of the Islamic State. Putin skillfully exposed the ties between the US and some "freedom fighters" who were actually ex Al-Qaeda and other Sunni Muslim supremacist groups and their indirect ties with the Islamic State (through Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations).

The US have lost a lot of international prestige and support over the Syria war, and Putin has scored a big propaganda victory by portraying himself as the paladin of law and order and as the most efficient actor in the fight against the Islamic State.

Now the US are in a position of weakness. I don't think that anyone, not even neocon think-tanks, can imagine that they'll have an easy job at dealing with Russia in the near future, or wants to start military operations. The most efficient strategy right now, after a stalemate in the Ukraine and a huge propaganda blow in Syria is to lick their wounds and go back to square one. You don't start wars from a position of weakness, it's just asking for another defeat.

And Putin doesn't want to go to war with the US. He has got more or less what he wanted in the Ukraine, the EU is weak and unpopular, which pleases him and gives him more room to infiltrate Eastern Europe and he's busy in Syria.

I think that the most likely scenario is an Assad-Iran-Russian victory in Syria, the elimination of the Islamic State (good news), Assad coming back to power (a necessary evil I'm afraid) and Saudi Arabia reacting in some way, probably by killing more Shia Muslims in Yemen (bad news).

The US will back Saudi Arabia against Iran (bad) and they'll carry on with their Great Game against Russia (good for some Eastern Europe countries). I really don't think that they'll just start a war with Russia out of nowhere, and I don't think that Putin wants to go to war now that he's winning the propaganda war and has business to deal with in Syria.

Sure, the ideal choice would be to come to a reasonable compromise with Russia and Iran and to ditch the Saudis, which is possible, but it takes two to tango, and Putin needs to keep his ambitions in check and not over-reach if he wants to open diplomatic channels with the US. Hillary Clinton is unlikely to ditch the Saudis, but she's not likely to simply go to war with Russia (over what?).

What's far more likely is four more years of business as usual.

Brive1987 wrote: I don't recall Shermer / Radford co-opting their ex partners? The girl is confused.

Fucking passive aggressives.

There is only one known atheist that has a blog post dedicated to what a fantastic and considerate shag he is. As far as I am aware. I assume that most people are not narcissistic, lying cunt,s with average causcasian dicks that they can't keep zipped up for longer than 5 minutes, and therefore don't need such things.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160822081 ... rd-carrier

Phew. I thought for a moment I hadn't set my self ode to private.

http://i.imgur.com/dwW6OqQ.jpg

:lol:

Tigzy wrote: From Wiki:

Despite its name, the World Series remains solely the championship of the major-league baseball teams in the United States and Canada, although MLB, its players, and North American media sometimes informally refer to World Series winners as "world champions of baseball".

I think it's sillier and snobbier to call a decidedly regional contest a 'world series'.

John Cleese once had a remark something along the lines of "When we [Europeans] hold a world championship, we actually invite the rest of the world."

some guy wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:For those interested here is the 800 women's final in full.

Both races.

The linked video is an earlier race in Monaco, not the Olympic finals.

Bugger, you're right. On review number 4 does look a bit .... different. Oh. And then there's the damn video title.

Thanks.

Has anyone got the real deal? I feel primary source material is a fundamental start point here.

Kirbmarc wrote:

Clarence wrote:I actually agree with him to an extent.
I do believe that quite a large part of "the political system' (specifically the neocon think tanks and the politicians that listen to them and the companies /individuals that profit from this endless war crap) does want at least some limited military action against Russia. All the better to start a new Cold War. They may not want full scale World War 3 , and esp not one with nukes (they do value THEIR lives and property) but once you push a bear too much it's not guaranteed how he will react.

I don't think that anyone wants direct military action against Russia. It's simply too unproductive.

This was all I needed to know.

But thank you.

HunnyBunny wrote:While we're on the subject of men in dresses, or lately lycra running shorts, this lovely chap has a lot to say:

http://i1.wp.com/thetab.com/blogs.dir/9 ... C418&ssl=1

S/h/it is the LGBTIA+ Officer at Edinburgh University.

ACAB = Assigned Cunt At Birth? Figures.

Brive1987 wrote:

some guy wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:For those interested here is the 800 women's final in full.

Both races.

The linked video is an earlier race in Monaco, not the Olympic finals.

Bugger, you're right. On review number 4 does look a bit .... different. Oh. And then there's the damn video title.

Thanks.

Has anyone got the real deal? I feel primary source material is a fundamental start point here.

Accept this offering for I have sinned.

http://i.imgur.com/6EPWhDo.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/K5zWYoY.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/smmMK3b.jpg

Sunder wrote:The funny thing about "fanny" is that while it does have a cleaner connotation in the States, it's also an old person term that virtually never gets used.

With the exception of referring to "fanny packs," which ironically are worn on the front.

http://img.wennermedia.com/480-width/14 ... k-zoom.jpg

Fanny packs are a wrestling trope at this point.

Old_ones wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:I'm surprised that racist psychopath Shanley still has a following, apart from those who want the lulz.

Anyway, I'm sure some the Pit Crew have noticed that the alt-right types, and the Infowars types have really gone berserk at the idea that Hillary Clinton has serious health problems, and their latest theory is that she has a catheter and bag strapped to her leg. I'm thinking the polls are so bad for Trump, that are willing to go along with this.

So it is OK when the Dems do it:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/0 ... rss_latest

He is back neck and neck with crooked hillary and after the debates (if killary isn't still comatose) Trump will win by a landslide.

He's not neck and neck with Hillary Clinton, you insufferable moron. He is down by 10 points in the polls nationally, and neck and neck with Hillary in Georgia.

Barely. In some of the local polls he is losing and all of them show he dropping. He is so bad for the republicans that he is putting Georgia into play.

Try this, it may be content blocked outside the UK though, I can't embed it here though so you'll have to click the link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36691465

Billie from Ockham wrote: Do you give the weather-man shit for giving %s that aren't 0 or 100?

I do but that's because I personally know a couple. One guy who is actually on tv and a couple people that work at the National Weather Service.

North Alabama has a lot of tornados and thus weather is really important and people almost kinda pay attention to it. For example the local stations way to pimp their news cast is all about how good their weather predicitons are. In Atlanta no one cares.

HunnyBunny wrote:Orbit blogger and poly SSA board member has been very, very quiet on #Carriergate.


Until now. Sort of, if you read between the lines...

Abusers Don’t Abuse Everyone

[Content note: sexual harassment, assault, and abuse]

If you’ve hung around in poly communities* for a while, you’ve probably seen this dynamic:

A man (or, very occasionally, someone of another gender) gets accused of sexual harassment, assault, or abuse. Along with all the usual disparagement and skepticism towards the accuser, this man’s other partners come out of the woodwork to defend him, describing (sometimes in great detail) their relationship or sex life to “prove” that he’s a consent-aware and safe person. The fact that he did not harass/assault/abuse these individuals is used as evidence that he did not harass/assault/abuse anyone else, either.

:think:

A man (or, very occasionally, someone of another gender)

Lol fuck what is wrong with saying a person if you just have to pretend there are a hundred genders?

feathers wrote:

Tigzy wrote: From Wiki:

Despite its name, the World Series remains solely the championship of the major-league baseball teams in the United States and Canada, although MLB, its players, and North American media sometimes informally refer to World Series winners as "world champions of baseball".

I think it's sillier and snobbier to call a decidedly regional contest a 'world series'.

John Cleese once had a remark something along the lines of "When we [Europeans] hold a world championship, we actually invite the rest of the world."

We let Canada play. What do you people want blood?

comhcinc wrote: Barely. In some of the local polls he is losing and all of them show he dropping. He is so bad for the republicans that he is putting Georgia into play.

If Trump is putting Georgia into play then he has little to no chances of winning the general election. It's better to prepare to a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Hopefully the reveal of the content of her email will put a check on her pro-Saudi and pro-intervention foreign policy, since she'll be more scrutinized over it. Also I think that after Iraq foreign interventions are incredibly unpopular, especially among the Democratic voters. If she pushes the neocon agenda too far she can jeopardize the chances of her re-election and even lose control of the Congress.

Kirbmarc wrote: ...

After the end of the Cold War Russia was in shambles due to the fall of Communism and the instability under Eltsin...

Eltsin?

I thought it was Yeltsin.

Are you gaslighting?

comhcinc wrote:

A man (or, very occasionally, someone of another gender)

Lol fuck what is wrong with saying a person if you just have to pretend there are a hundred genders?

Men are Evil Rapists because Rape Culture (if they're white that goes double). If you say person you give the idea that women might be abusers, too, when it only happens "very occasionally".

Kirbmarc wrote:

comhcinc wrote:

A man (or, very occasionally, someone of another gender)

Lol fuck what is wrong with saying a person if you just have to pretend there are a hundred genders?

Men are Evil Rapists because Rape Culture (if they're white that goes double). If you say person you give the idea that women might be abusers, too, when it only happens "very occasionally".

You are a total shit lord for not including all the other genders in your statement.

Oglebart wrote:Try this, it may be content blocked outside the UK though, I can't embed it here though so you'll have to click the link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36691465

Thank you. I had to turn myself into a virtual UKer - but I will be fine after a shower.

That third placer is a scary ...... fucker (nb non gendered insult). Here xir is mowing down the also rans.

http://i.imgur.com/Qwcb4Ce.jpg

Watching the race, it's pretty bloody tragic.

http://i.imgur.com/2z5VRlZ.jpg

Kirbmarc wrote:

comhcinc wrote: Barely. In some of the local polls he is losing and all of them show he dropping. He is so bad for the republicans that he is putting Georgia into play.

If Trump is putting Georgia into play then he has little to no chances of winning the general election. It's better to prepare to a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Hopefully the reveal of the content of her email will put a check on her pro-Saudi and pro-intervention foreign policy, since she'll be more scrutinized over it. Also I think that after Iraq foreign interventions are incredibly unpopular, especially among the Democratic voters. If she pushes the neocon agenda too far she can jeopardize the chances of her re-election and even lose control of the Congress.

Why would Clinton change the way she has been doing things for the last 30 years? Nothing bad has come of it.

I mean she is so easy to paint as power hungry insider that is willing to do anything to be president that only a retard man child with a twitter account could lose to her.

MarcusAu wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote: ...

After the end of the Cold War Russia was in shambles due to the fall of Communism and the instability under Eltsin...

Eltsin?

I thought it was Yeltsin.

Are you gaslighting?

:lol:

It's Бори́с Никола́евич Е́льцин. The English transliteration of his name is Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin. The Italian one is Boris Nikolaievich Eltsin. I messed them up.

Linguistically speaking it depends whether you accept the Moscow or the Sverdlovsk pronunciation of his name: it's closer to Yeltsin in Moscow and to Eltsin in Sverdlovsk (where he was born, and how he pronounced it).

Anyway the true transliteration of his name is Blunderer Ineffectual Vodka. :lol:

comhcinc wrote:

Sunder wrote:The funny thing about "fanny" is that while it does have a cleaner connotation in the States, it's also an old person term that virtually never gets used.

With the exception of referring to "fanny packs," which ironically are worn on the front.

http://img.wennermedia.com/480-width/14 ... k-zoom.jpg

Fanny packs are a wrestling trope at this point.

She is beautiful.

Brive1987 wrote:

comhcinc wrote:

Sunder wrote:The funny thing about "fanny" is that while it does have a cleaner connotation in the States, it's also an old person term that virtually never gets used.

With the exception of referring to "fanny packs," which ironically are worn on the front.

http://img.wennermedia.com/480-width/14 ... k-zoom.jpg

Fanny packs are a wrestling trope at this point.

She is beautiful.

I think she has a good chance at getting some olympic gold if she wants it. Oddly enough I actually believe she isn't doping.

http://cdn29.elitedaily.com/content/upl ... 00x300.jpg