Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • tx 3 putt

    1257

  • TwiceHorn

    1090

  • Brisketexan

    1036

  • C-Man

    887

Posted
9 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

I can’t believe this ridiculous bullshit.  What the fuck.

He's only getting started with his pettiness. This will seem quaint before the 250th celebration next July.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

wtf is wrong with the kids. did the pandemic really give everyone autism? this might be the most concise and informative video ever, but i wouldn’t know, because i could only make it about 10 seconds before turning it off. seriously, who makes a video on this type of subject matter, a video that’s supposedly both informative and important, and decides that the best way to get their message across is to preach at their audience while clacking away at a mouse and staring at a computer screen while playing video games? i cannot believe that this is the generation that’s going to be tasked with fixing this shit.

 

Edited by Derka
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What's a few hundred thousand force sterilized or some light regime destablization and torture training, right?

Humanitarian efforts need to be totally divorced from regime change and other front operations. Sorry that when you mix those things and roll them up under the same umbrella it is going to be to the detriment of the valuable humanitarian efforts.

These are not particularly outlandish thoughts, and would have been widely accepted on this board prior to the Orange Man.

Here's a NYT opinion piece from 2014 striking the same chords: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/15/when-is-foreign-aid-meddling/secret-programs-hurt-foreign-aid-efforts

 

There is a world of difference between American foreign assistance programs that openly support democratic development, human rights and socioeconomic progress, and the type of clandestine operations aimed at regime change that United States Agency for International Development has been running under the guise of a “democracy” promotion program in Cuba. Those programs are not only counterproductive, they are an abject violation of Cuba’s sovereignty, undermine American interests in Cuba’s slow but steady political and economic transition, and endanger the legitimate missions of U.S.A.I.D. around the world.

U.S.A.I.D. was created in 1961 to help the United States win the “hearts and minds” of citizens in poor countries through civic action, economic aid and humanitarian assistance. As a cold war policy tool, the agency was, at times, used as a front for C.I.A. operations and operatives. Among the most infamous examples was the Office of Public Safety, a U.S.A.I.D. police training program in the Southern Cone that also trained torturers.

In the 21st century, U.S.A.I.D. has overcome its tainted legacy and undertaken humanitarian, political and economic work around the globe. It runs democracy promotion efforts from Afghanistan to Kenya — building political leadership capacity, electoral education and registration programs, and judicial reform projects — with little controversy. It is when U.S.A.I.D. undertakes “discreet” regime change operations that it runs into trouble. Indeed, its Office of Transition Initiatives now seems to be competing with, or at least complementing, the C.I.A. on hi-tech propaganda and destabilization programs in Cuba, if not elsewhere as well.

Regime-change programs have a negative impact on larger U.S. foreign policy interests as well as on the legitimacy of U.S.A.I.D.’s own core missions to advance global health and economic welfare. At a Senate hearing on U.S.A.I.D.’s budget last week, Senator Patrick Leahy told the agency's administrator, Rajiv Shah, that his oversight committee was receiving “lots of emails” from aid workers around the world asking this question: “How could they do this and put us in such danger?” The solution is simple: ban U.S.A.I.D. from conducting such covert operations in the name of advancing democracy.

Posted
1 hour ago, C-Man said:

For being so fucking fat, he is such a small, small man.

He is perpetually frozen as an emotionally and mentally stunted petulant toddler.  That's it.  That's the entire psychological analysis.  He's a shitty spoiled tantrum-having 4 year old.  Donny two-scoops.  He's one of the most pathetic creatures in human history.  And this fucked up country managed to elevate him to the most powerful position on the planet.  If you were to compile a list of all living Americans who are least suited for the office of President, he'd be very near the top, and I'm including that homeless dude who comes out from under the bridge after eating his own feces to yell at cars for stealing his pet dragon.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm including that homeless dude who comes out from under the bridge after eating his own feces to yell at cars for stealing his pet dragon.

I gave money to that guy, and now consider it a campaign contribution.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, miguelito said:

Those have the same tone and random capitalized words as you-know-who's posts.

Just wait until he claims that Lincoln and Washington both wished they could be as loved and successful as DJT.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Rubio has real divorced dad at a motel 6 energy

 

image.thumb.png.e3534d3c5554a399d99deefed6671c5f.png

Former FWST photog colleague posted this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/vanity-fair-portraits-white-house-b2885676.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawOwHBdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFGVmZrdDllQzZiekd4RlYzc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHj9ZDqJuWtZHqjZwE9ESAyYk5mpXfmj4k-cwTfRqwTOWhau3jrZY8qWw4t1K_aem_TvbikTCYX_W_uf0gCvPONQ

 

HED: Vanity Fair portraits of White House leaders hoped to cut through ‘political theater.’ Instead they drew snickers online

Money shot:

Quote

“I see my job doing that as a responsibility to portray what I encounter,” Anderson said of his portraiture.

He maintains that responsibility, even in awkward moments – such as when Stephen Miller approached him after their photoshoot to give him a gentle reminder about how he portrays his subjects.

“When we were finished, [Miller] came up to me and he said, ‘You know you have a lot of power in the discretion you use to be kind to someone in your photographs,’” Anderson recalled. “And I look at him and I said, ‘You know, you do too.’”

“I don’t know how much he related to that,” Anderson added.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I didn’t. That’s one of the shocking realities of brand loyalty. Loyalty is very durable and brand loyal people are, by and large, willing to put up with injury.  Isn’t that weird? And yet it plays out that way over and over, at individual and population level scales.

You can hurt them, over and over, and then the sun shines, and people forget. 

Not sure how I read your post twice before responding and still read insult as injury.

But I can’t agree.  I do not believe 100% of the parents of camp mystic will be sending their other children back there. I’d be willing to wager the percentage is well under 50/50. Brands can be injured, despite the backfire effect. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
39 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What's a few hundred thousand force sterilized or some light regime destablization and torture training, right?

Humanitarian efforts need to be totally divorced from regime change and other front operations. Sorry that when you mix those things and roll them up under the same umbrella it is going to be to the detriment of the valuable humanitarian efforts.

These are not particularly outlandish thoughts, and would have been widely accepted on this board prior to the Orange Man.

Here's a NYT opinion piece from 2014 striking the same chords: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/15/when-is-foreign-aid-meddling/secret-programs-hurt-foreign-aid-efforts

 

There is a world of difference between American foreign assistance programs that openly support democratic development, human rights and socioeconomic progress, and the type of clandestine operations aimed at regime change that United States Agency for International Development has been running under the guise of a “democracy” promotion program in Cuba. Those programs are not only counterproductive, they are an abject violation of Cuba’s sovereignty, undermine American interests in Cuba’s slow but steady political and economic transition, and endanger the legitimate missions of U.S.A.I.D. around the world.

U.S.A.I.D. was created in 1961 to help the United States win the “hearts and minds” of citizens in poor countries through civic action, economic aid and humanitarian assistance. As a cold war policy tool, the agency was, at times, used as a front for C.I.A. operations and operatives. Among the most infamous examples was the Office of Public Safety, a U.S.A.I.D. police training program in the Southern Cone that also trained torturers.

In the 21st century, U.S.A.I.D. has overcome its tainted legacy and undertaken humanitarian, political and economic work around the globe. It runs democracy promotion efforts from Afghanistan to Kenya — building political leadership capacity, electoral education and registration programs, and judicial reform projects — with little controversy. It is when U.S.A.I.D. undertakes “discreet” regime change operations that it runs into trouble. Indeed, its Office of Transition Initiatives now seems to be competing with, or at least complementing, the C.I.A. on hi-tech propaganda and destabilization programs in Cuba, if not elsewhere as well.

Regime-change programs have a negative impact on larger U.S. foreign policy interests as well as on the legitimacy of U.S.A.I.D.’s own core missions to advance global health and economic welfare. At a Senate hearing on U.S.A.I.D.’s budget last week, Senator Patrick Leahy told the agency's administrator, Rajiv Shah, that his oversight committee was receiving “lots of emails” from aid workers around the world asking this question: “How could they do this and put us in such danger?” The solution is simple: ban U.S.A.I.D. from conducting such covert operations in the name of advancing democracy.

Like 600k dead kids and millions of starving and suffering people around the world, I ain’t reading all that. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What's a few hundred thousand force sterilized or some light regime destablization and torture training, right?

Humanitarian efforts need to be totally divorced from regime change and other front operations. Sorry that when you mix those things and roll them up under the same umbrella it is going to be to the detriment of the valuable humanitarian efforts.

These are not particularly outlandish thoughts, and would have been widely accepted on this board prior to the Orange Man.

Here's a NYT opinion piece from 2014 striking the same chords: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/15/when-is-foreign-aid-meddling/secret-programs-hurt-foreign-aid-efforts

 

There is a world of difference between American foreign assistance programs that openly support democratic development, human rights and socioeconomic progress, and the type of clandestine operations aimed at regime change that United States Agency for International Development has been running under the guise of a “democracy” promotion program in Cuba. Those programs are not only counterproductive, they are an abject violation of Cuba’s sovereignty, undermine American interests in Cuba’s slow but steady political and economic transition, and endanger the legitimate missions of U.S.A.I.D. around the world.

U.S.A.I.D. was created in 1961 to help the United States win the “hearts and minds” of citizens in poor countries through civic action, economic aid and humanitarian assistance. As a cold war policy tool, the agency was, at times, used as a front for C.I.A. operations and operatives. Among the most infamous examples was the Office of Public Safety, a U.S.A.I.D. police training program in the Southern Cone that also trained torturers.

In the 21st century, U.S.A.I.D. has overcome its tainted legacy and undertaken humanitarian, political and economic work around the globe. It runs democracy promotion efforts from Afghanistan to Kenya — building political leadership capacity, electoral education and registration programs, and judicial reform projects — with little controversy. It is when U.S.A.I.D. undertakes “discreet” regime change operations that it runs into trouble. Indeed, its Office of Transition Initiatives now seems to be competing with, or at least complementing, the C.I.A. on hi-tech propaganda and destabilization programs in Cuba, if not elsewhere as well.

Regime-change programs have a negative impact on larger U.S. foreign policy interests as well as on the legitimacy of U.S.A.I.D.’s own core missions to advance global health and economic welfare. At a Senate hearing on U.S.A.I.D.’s budget last week, Senator Patrick Leahy told the agency's administrator, Rajiv Shah, that his oversight committee was receiving “lots of emails” from aid workers around the world asking this question: “How could they do this and put us in such danger?” The solution is simple: ban U.S.A.I.D. from conducting such covert operations in the name of advancing democracy.

You’re anti forced sterilization? You know one might argue letting 600k die in one of the most long and painful ways possible is a form of sterilization. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Like 600k dead kids and millions of starving and suffering people around the world, I ain’t reading all that. 

Equivalent of just putting your fingers in your ears. Look the modeling results that you are citing are extremely sensitive to the parameters and model specifications used. I understand that the results fit your prefered political narrative, so you are going to run with them, and are going to ignore other arguments. That's fine. But you are really not going to impress me with an argument that is basically oriented to calling the morality of people with a different political perspective on the historical and recent role of USAID as an entity in to question. Let me know if you need me to link you to some charities in Bangladesh you can include in your end of the year giving. 

Posted
3 hours ago, C-Man said:

Chef's kiss on the Vanity Fair article:

IMG_5528.thumb.jpeg.eebb95420beeb7aa79a3b0c855d7b24d.jpeg

You're overlooking the fact that one of Trump's friends was paid to "decorate" and was paid 7 figures to pick that out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Like 600k dead kids and millions of starving and suffering people around the world, I ain’t reading all that. 

You've chosen to ignore content by Anastasis. Options

Also on the short ignore list. Life is too short for his bullshit 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

You've chosen to ignore content by Anastasis. Options

Also on the short ignore list. Life is too short for his bullshit 

Frankly, life is too short to be posting on a discussion board format where actual discussion has been overtaken largely by regurgitation of other social media feeds. Shakes fists at clouds. I am not optimistic, but maybe after Trump this shit can kinda reset and we can all age out to retirement and arguing with each other in this little outdated media format.  

Posted
16 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

You're overlooking the fact that one of Trump's friends was paid to "decorate" and was paid 7 figures to pick that out.

melanie.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Frankly, life is too short to be posting on a discussion board format where actual discussion has been overtaken largely by regurgitation of other social media feeds. Shakes fists at clouds. I am not optimistic, but maybe after Trump this shit can kinda reset and we can all age out to retirement and arguing with each other in this little outdated media format.  

Way to take a stand.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

Way to take a stand.

I've been making a good faith effort to procure second hand "stop war now" and "in this house we believe in science" signs for a while now, but they seem to be buried under deep layers of dust in garages. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted

Great interview with the photog for the VF piece.

https://archive.ph/ZhRop
 

Quote

Were there moments that you missed? Anything that happened that’s on the cutting room floor?

I don’t think there’s anything I missed that I wish I’d gotten. I’ll give you a little anecdote: Stephen Miller was perhaps the most concerned about the portrait session. He asked me, “Should I smile or not smile?” and I said, “How would you want to be portrayed?” We agreed that we would do a bit of both. And then when we were finished, he comes up to me toshake my hand and say goodbye. And he says to me, “You know, you have a lot of power in the discretion you use to be kind to people.” And I looked at him and I said, “You know, you do, too.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...