Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted

I assume a lot of these posts are Russian Twitter bots. The question I have is why is Russia turning on him now? Just to sow chaos basically? Not getting what they want as fast as they want in Ukraine?

Posted
25 minutes ago, tokamak said:

I assume a lot of these posts are Russian Twitter bots. The question I have is why is Russia turning on him now? Just to sow chaos basically? Not getting what they want as fast as they want in Ukraine?

Division and chaos have always been their overarching goal with these ops.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

dumb question...CA, CO, etc. have weed even though it's illegal at the fed level, why couldn't states like TX and WI do the same with the hemp products? like... just keep making/selling, dare the feds to 'come and take it' like the full legal weed states do?

Edited by mchookem
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
dumb question...CA, CO, etc. have weed even though it's illegal at the fed level, why couldn't states like TX and WI do the same with the hemp products? like... just keep making/selling, dare the feds to 'come and take it' like the full legal weed states do?

This was the same question I had.
Posted

If Biden did that?  
If Obama did that?

If Crazy Earl of Crazy Earl’s Used Car Mart did that, there would be commentary, consequences, feedback.  
 

But the President of the United States of America did that.  Today.   Ho hum.  In the new times (dibs on the phrase, I’m working in the details), US “journalism” will be punished or demoted for such laziness.  That is the election pitch I want to hear.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
On 9/10/2025 at 7:28 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Reagan didn’t act like that, but Trump is very continuous with Reagan. 
Im not sure if you were one of the Reagan Republicans who believed in all that nonsense and are still trying to rationalize your support, but there’s a straight line between the two.
Reagan was just far more palatable and his administration was held much more in check by congress, which in those days was elected in mostly competitive districts by communities of interest.*
 

 

 

or “communities of interest,” as @Ag with kids likes to call real places and people with things in common, as opposed to preordained partisan outcomes. 

Sigh...You keep on bringing this up...

 

But, how are you going to define your "community of interest"?

Your household?

Your street?

Your neighborhood?

Your suburb area?

Your town/city?

Your metro area?

Your county?

Your regional area in the state?

Your state?

Your regional area in the country?

Your country?

Your continent?

 

ALL of those could be "communities of interest"

If you want to define it at one of the the lowest levels (which is what it appears you want to do), then we can't do that with 435 US Representatives (or for TX, 150 Reps and 31 Senators).  Because there are just too many "communities of interest" at those levels.

 

BTW, people don't cooperate politically with "communities of interest".  Most areas have people who care closely about lots of local issues, but disagree massively about wider issues.  How do you propose reconciling those differences?  BTW, by "most areas", I meant you could attach that definition to any one of those areas I listed above...even including the household...

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

Sigh...You keep on bringing this up...

 

But, how are you going to define your "community of interest"?

Your household?

Your street?

Your neighborhood?

Your suburb area?

Your town/city?

Your metro area?

Your county?

Your regional area in the state?

Your state?

Your regional area in the country?

Your country?

Your continent?

 

ALL of those could be "communities of interest"

If you want to define it at one of the the lowest levels (which is what it appears you want to do), then we can't do that with 435 US Representatives (or for TX, 150 Reps and 31 Senators).  Because there are just too many "communities of interest" at those levels.

 

BTW, people don't cooperate politically with "communities of interest".  Most areas have people who care closely about lots of local issues, but disagree massively about wider issues.  How do you propose reconciling those differences?  BTW, by "most areas", I meant you could attach that definition to any one of those areas I listed above...even including the household...

Denying that urban dwellers have more in common with urban dwellers than they do with rural dwellers is the sort of willful obtuseness that can also present n casting a vote for a serial liar, child sexual predator, criminal. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Sigh...You keep on bringing this up...

 

But, how are you going to define your "community of interest"?

Your household?

Your street?

Your neighborhood?

Your suburb area?

Your town/city?

Your metro area?

Your county?

Your regional area in the state?

Your state?

Your regional area in the country?

Your country?

Your continent?

 

ALL of those could be "communities of interest"

If you want to define it at one of the the lowest levels (which is what it appears you want to do), then we can't do that with 435 US Representatives (or for TX, 150 Reps and 31 Senators).  Because there are just too many "communities of interest" at those levels.

 

BTW, people don't cooperate politically with "communities of interest".  Most areas have people who care closely about lots of local issues, but disagree massively about wider issues.  How do you propose reconciling those differences?  BTW, by "most areas", I meant you could attach that definition to any one of those areas I listed above...even including the household...

Oh Jesus this is like the least slippery slope of all time.

No, I won’t define a well understood, widely used concept. Google is your friend. Here’s how this goes: I think representative democracy should involve competition to represent the real interests of actual people. You have indicated that parties represent “schools of thought” (or “wider interests”) and therefore people should be structured into prepackaged tranches to produce a partisan result that conforms to their party preferences as expressed across the widest political subdivision available, ie, the state. My view is that “wider issues” will remain in play but compact districts composed of actual places where people have things in common will also weigh those issues against local ones and produce a more nuanced and fulsome consideration of candidates, and that candidates will therefore represent their constituents. You contend those local considerations don’t matter or at best should be distinctly secondary. The parties agree, which is why we have nationalized basically all federal races. 
In other words want shitty government that disrespects your intelligence and robs you blind while offering you no choices that matter. I don’t.
 

That’s where we disagree. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TexArcher said:

POTUS has a very small dick.

 

Newsom should start saying this on social media. I don’t care if it’s juvenile. This is where we are and it will work. Hitler dick. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Newsom should start saying this on social media. I don’t care if it’s juvenile. This is where we are and it will work. Hitler dick. 

the-office-pam-beesly.gif

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 11/13/2025 at 6:30 PM, mchookem said:

i mean yeah, TX is fucked bc puritans are in charge...but it's still a question for many other states. what makes whatever this says different from the CSA? 

Pharma lobbyists?

Posted
9 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

If you want to define it at one of the the lowest levels (which is what it appears you want to do), then we can't do that with 435 US Representatives (or for TX, 150 Reps and 31 Senators).  Because there are just too many "communities of interest" at those levels.

 

You are so close to getting it

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 11/8/2025 at 1:06 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Well, first of all the idea of helping one's fellow man is not even remotely some sort of exclusively "Christian" value.  Beyond that, the American evangelical movement has perverted Christian values beyond recognition, so no I don't give a flying fuck how bad they are.  I do give a flying fuck about people starving.  Call me a libtard.

The problem with your line of thinking is that it is emotional.  You want to help because you have not walled off your humanity and empathy.  We all want to be like that.  Heck that is who we were to various degrees.  But I am edumacated enough to know that people's dissonance ends when their world around them devolves.  Their hungry bellies will make them long for the days of Bidenomics and Commiela Harris.   You already noticed the pattern in most of these Leopards posts. 

The only strategy that we (I am projecting here) see is for people to suffer until they can no longer deny it.  That the poor and middle class who have been exploited by the super wealthy and politically connected must unite to demand change.  

We are currently in a cold revolution.  Our way of life and government has been hijacked by fascist elements from our society.  We can comfortable go along with it, or we can act.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...