TylerDurden

I'll take your deflection and projection to mean that you know your position is untenable.

I'm wrong about selective outrage? I'm sure Ross has a nice AI list he can post that shows all the grievances conservatives have about whatever they're supposed to be upset about this week, but that doesn't mean selective outrage is a one-way street. To argue otherwise might be the most intellectually dishonest position anyone has ever tried to take on this board - and that's saying something. https://archive.ph/fsOoa - Not that I expect anything to satisfy your standard of proof, but I sidestepped the paywall for you. Even hyper-partisan Ted Cruz knows what it is. Maybe you prefer Fox News, who classified it as a threat: https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-levels-threat-against-abc-disney-after-kimmel-suggested-charlie-kirk-assassin-maga Feel free to use the Google machine for countless other reports.

Acting as if selective outrage is a partisan issue is laughable. Did you forget Bud Light, Coca-Cola, Cracker Barrel, Taylor Swift, Megyn Kelly, or anything related to a rainbow? Or do you just ignore that because it's from people you like and agree with? Kimmel didn't get fired for anything he said about Kirk - watch the monologue, he doesn't really say anything about him, but rather he makes fun of Trump's reaction to questions about it. But just like you, I don't care if Kimmel got fired/suspended, whatever they're call it. I do have an issue with the administration using the FCC to threaten networks for a comedian making fun of the President. That is not the same as Roseanne being an overt racist on social media and a network canceling her show.

Roseanne made a post on social media saying a black woman was the offspring of planet of the apes and the Muslim brotherhood.

You most certainly are.

There really isn't any need to compare Helen with any of her male counterparts.

This speaks to how competitive the spots will be if we're writing off Mendez three years out.

The real question is what ages you faster: Hookers or blow?

World-level wrestling is hard.

How do we feel about Team USA’s performance so far? Spencer: 1-1 (eliminated) - Disappointing. Jax: 3-2 (5th) - This feels really good, especially when you consider that he (arguably) should have been a medalist. Real: 1-1 (still hope for a bronze) - About what I expected. Duke: 1-1 (11th) - Can't be mad about this effort. Carr: 3-1 (going for bronze vs Sidakov) - About what I expected, but in retrospect it feels like he could have been a finalist. Haines: In the finals - Better than I expected. Zahid: Champ - Not a surprising result, but his dominance was at least slightly more that I expected. Hidlay: In the finals - Feels about right. Snyder: In the finals - Snyder just medals in world/Olympic events. Hopefully he can get another gold. Wyatt: 0-1 (17th) - Not that surprised, but slightly disappointing.

The video I saw had the takedown about 15 seconds in. I don't think there was much striking beforehand.

It really is ok to say that you liked the way Obama handed immigration. He's been the best Republican president in a long, long time.

Trump also undercut a bipartisan immigration bill that would have provided more appropriate resources to work through the years-long backlogs of immigration cases so he could play political games with people. For all of his tough talk and his supporters eating it up, Obama's deportation rate was higher and more targeted to people with actual criminal records. I really don't understand why Trump supporters didn't love Obama. He did all the stuff Trump talks about. Must have been the tan suit. Bill Clinton literally signed a law that expanded the crimes that were grounds for deportation and saw a 4x increase in deportations during his last term after the legislation was passed. Hell, that legislation got the ball rolling on deportations.

That's a red herring. Why would anyone support of the deployment of the United States military into the streets of its cities so it can act as a police force? It's amazing to me how many people support and cheer on the erosion of their rights.

There's no room for sensible takes on this forum. You're supposed to ignore evidence or make up your own to support whatever your favorite media outlet tells you to support.

By definition, hyperbolic statements aren't true or meant to be taken as such. My guess is this thread will be full of a million examples of things that aren't hyperbole being presented as hyperbole.

It's simply FBI data dating back 34 years. This stuff isn't hard to find.

It's been on a downward trajectory since 1991.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trumps-washington-dc-national-guard-plan-ignores-fbi-crime-data-rcna224290 https://www.factcheck.org/2025/08/trump-distorts-violent-crime-statistics-in-ordering-takeover-and-troops-to-d-c/ DC's violent crime rate in 2024 was the lowest it's been for more than 30 years, per the US attorney's office and lowest since 1966 per the FBI reporting.

It sounds like the real lesson here, aside from not driving with expired tags whilst you have a combo of drugs/guns in your car, is that talking to the police without your attorney present is almost always a bad idea.

Greco

I don't know if you guys are tracking this, but you're arguing about the smoke screen. Late last night/early this morning, the House passed a bill that has Rand Paul sounding like the only sane person in the party. Some people wanted to fight with me on another thread about how this was going to go and while this still has to work through the Senate, it sure looks like the Republican super-majority is going to move forward with this fiscally irresponsible bill. Video:

Dake/Starocci is going to be decided by the order of passivity calls.

This is a specious question, but aside from that leveraging debt has been a hallmark of US economic expansion and innovation. What you consider to be good investment, others may not and you'd also have to decide what items are the "extra" over and above revenues. That essentially is what politics is - an big debate about how to allocate resources. That's how you'd decide what is "good" or "bad" debt. My thoughts on what the federal government should invest in over and above annual revenues probably differs from yours, but I do not think that the US government should have zero debt. That's a fallacy of composition. Government investment in infrastructure and research, for instance, is hugely beneficial to our economy - eliminating that is cutting off your nose to spite your face. On a very superficial level, I'm not in favor of policies that create funding gaps the didn't previously exist for things that don't move the economic needle for average folks. If your aim is to reduce revenue, that's fine but offering plans that do not have a corresponding reduction in spending is bad policy for deficit and debt management. The reverse is also true.

Ignoring the full COVID year, which is valid, the annualized amount for the first three months is the second largest ever, right behind the 08-09 auto bailout that spanned Bush/Obama, which one could reasonably be argued deserved to be singled out, but wasn't. So there definitely aren't numerous others. So, at worst, I looked a the bright red line, saw the number, misspoke and it's the second highest. While some may disagree that the annualized amount is correct - I know you do - I don't think it's far fetched when you consider the negative revenue impacts of the Trump tax cuts and increases in spending. At the very least, the same data set isn't trying to game the system with some partisan agenda as some have implied (not you). But whether it's the largest or second largest, no one can debate the trend lines.