Page 92 of 96

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 03 Mar 2019, 12:52
by thoreau
It took me a while to figure out that he's a parody because mostly he retweets things that--by the low standards of SJW Twitter--are not particularly outrageous. So if you just look at his feed it all seems pretty earnest.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 03 Mar 2019, 20:21
by tr0g
nicole wrote:
03 Mar 2019, 12:30
yeah, as someone else just said, he's wayyyyy better than titania mcg

also i hate david burge but i actually did have a meltdown about this earlier

(i hate the tweet two tweets after that so much i almost had another one)
I laughed because that’s exactly what I do with the laser for material testing. One axis is power level, one is speed. I also found it hilarious that Edward Tufte blocked him over this.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 04 Mar 2019, 08:38
by dbcooper

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 04 Mar 2019, 10:38
by Kolohe
Is that real or a deep fake with some tells?

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 04 Mar 2019, 12:25
by Warren
I don't get it. Should I know who this guy is?

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 04 Mar 2019, 12:46
by Jasper
Laura Palmer's Theme was a nice touch.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 05 Mar 2019, 18:26
by Highway
Nothing could go wrong here...

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 05 Mar 2019, 18:27
by thoreau
In America, NSA Twitter account follows YOU!

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 05 Mar 2019, 18:29
by Kolohe
It's like that Men in Black acession test where if you actually take the test, you fail.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 06 Mar 2019, 05:01
by Mo
Kolohe wrote:It's like that Men in Black acession test where if you actually take the test, you fail.
What if you install your own spyware on their system with the connection?

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 09 Mar 2019, 06:31
by dbcooper

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 13 Mar 2019, 16:23
by Dangerman
dbcooper wrote:
09 Mar 2019, 06:31
Going in, I thought people would be more upset by her sash but no, I was wrong.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 14 Mar 2019, 22:55
by Pham Nuwen
Guys! Ken White is putting a beating on Avenatti over yonder. It's hilarious.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 14 Mar 2019, 23:51
by Ellie
What does @PopeHat's bio "I do the RICO" mean? (I don't Twitter and only follow Ken White through the PopeHat posts that David reads to me off his RSS feed.)

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 14 Mar 2019, 23:55
by Highway
Ellie, because everyone's always been asking him "But couldn't they use RICO to prosecute Those Guys?!?!?!" It's never RICO, but he always has to say why it's not RICO. It's like the equivalent of "It's not Lupus!" on House.

Avenatti is such a clown.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 08:31
by dhex
Avenatti is exceptionally Rico.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 10:22
by JasonL
A summary for those who don't twitter like me.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/14/ ... ybe-phone/

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 15:11
by Warren
JasonL wrote:
15 Mar 2019, 10:22
A summary for those who don't twitter like me.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/14/ ... ybe-phone/
THX
I don't do the twitters. Good yuks there.

Twitter!

Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 16:52
by Mo

“A. Harmony” wrote: Fun fact: I immediately answered “the Funk” before realizing this is a Brexit thread.
“Swiss neutrality” wrote: What the fuck does parliament actually want????????

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 18 Mar 2019, 23:45
by Taktix®
Devin Nunes is suing Twitter for the @DevinCow account... so naturally the @DevinCow account is amassing followers like Manafort collects charges...

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 20 Mar 2019, 14:57
by Jennifer
On the 16th anniversary of the Iraq War, Ari Fleischer posts a whiny Twitter thread explaining why the war boosters were wrong for the right reasons, whereas the war opponents were right for the wrong reasons, so even though shitloads of people died in that war it's unfair to, like, criticize those responsible or anything.


Re: Twitter!

Posted: 20 Mar 2019, 15:26
by Aresen
Jennifer wrote:
20 Mar 2019, 14:57
On the 16th anniversary of the Iraq War, Ari Fleischer posts a whiny Twitter thread explaining why the war boosters were wrong for the right reasons, whereas the war opponents were right for the wrong reasons, so even though shitloads of people died in that war it's unfair to, like, criticize those responsible or anything.

I am curious what those 'right reasons' were, if there were no WMD. I opposed the war, even though I did believe Saddam Hussein had WMD. So why go to war?

TBS, I tend to think that the Bush the Lesser administration's WMD allegations were a prime example of confirmation bias: They 'knew' Saddam Hussein had them, so they believed any information that supported their 'knowledge' and rejected any information that contradicted it.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 20 Mar 2019, 15:42
by Jennifer
Aresen wrote:
20 Mar 2019, 15:26
Jennifer wrote:
20 Mar 2019, 14:57
On the 16th anniversary of the Iraq War, Ari Fleischer posts a whiny Twitter thread explaining why the war boosters were wrong for the right reasons, whereas the war opponents were right for the wrong reasons, so even though shitloads of people died in that war it's unfair to, like, criticize those responsible or anything.

I am curious what those 'right reasons' were, if there were no WMD. I opposed the war, even though I did believe Saddam Hussein had WMD. So why go to war?
IIRC, it was a combination of "Saddam is a REALLY REALLY bad guy," "Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11 even though the religious fundamentalists who actually did the attack hated him," "If you're not with us you're with the terrorists," "what about the 'rape rooms', huh?" and "My daddy's Iraq War left Saddam in charge of the country; here's my chance to one-up him!" Also: "The only reason anybody could oppose this war is because they are hippie peaceniks who refuse to admit ANY war might be necessary! Don't look at those Iraq War opponents who nonetheless supported our going to Afghanistan after the Taliban, though, because those facts fuck up my narrative." Remember when Bush administration hacks actually used the phrase "reality-based community" as an INSULT against those of us who opposed that war? "Dang political opponents of mine, citing actual facts to explain why they think our idea is a super-bad one! We don't need any fucking reality here!"

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 20 Mar 2019, 16:48
by Aresen
The one argument for the Iraq war that I tended to agree with was Saddam's multiple genocides: Against the Kurds in the north, the Shias in the south and against the Marsh Arabs in the Euphrates delta. I am still troubled by the question of permitting genocide to go unopposed. Sanctions don't cut it.

Re: Twitter!

Posted: 21 Mar 2019, 12:46
by lunchstealer
Aresen wrote:
20 Mar 2019, 16:48
The one argument for the Iraq war that I tended to agree with was Saddam's multiple genocides: Against the Kurds in the north, the Shias in the south and against the Marsh Arabs in the Euphrates delta. I am still troubled by the question of permitting genocide to go unopposed. Sanctions don't cut it.
I agree that genocide could reasonably be a just casus belli under the right circumstances. I'm not sure what the right circumstances are. I'm pretty sure 'as a second land war in Asia' is not the right circumstances.