Where are you on the Political Compass? page 2
borealis
2nd August 2015, 01:09 AM
Please ruin the interlude.
Maybe that right there is one of the differences. I don't want to.
Maybe that right there is one of the differences. I don't want to.
Jerome
2nd August 2015, 01:21 AM
Actually a flat tax is a better idea IMO.
That wasn't an option on the quiz. The effect of your tax is not equal. $10 is a lot of money to someone earning $100, but $1k means much less to someone earning $10k.
Regarding your view, why should any wage earner pay any tax until after they have fed, housed and clothed themselves? Why should the wage earner be taxed on medical care?
How about no tax on the working class. Only a tax on excess.
That wasn't an option on the quiz. The effect of your tax is not equal. $10 is a lot of money to someone earning $100, but $1k means much less to someone earning $10k.
Regarding your view, why should any wage earner pay any tax until after they have fed, housed and clothed themselves? Why should the wage earner be taxed on medical care?
How about no tax on the working class. Only a tax on excess.
Jerome
2nd August 2015, 01:24 AM
The question presumes some higher entity controlling these economic stats.
The question assumes that inflation can be controlled or that unemployment can be controlled. The assumption may be wrong. Be it as it may, there are no other assumptions.
It is a political quiz, the presumption is inherent.
The question assumes that inflation can be controlled or that unemployment can be controlled. The assumption may be wrong. Be it as it may, there are no other assumptions.
It is a political quiz, the presumption is inherent.
Majiffy
2nd August 2015, 01:27 AM
Regarding your view, why should any wage earner pay any tax until after they have fed, housed and clothed themselves? Why should the wage earner be taxed on medical care?
Because they still benefit from a number of things those taxes afford.
Paved roads, public services, etc.
How about no tax on the working class. Only a tax on excess.
Because then only the rich would have anything, because only where the rich live would be taken care of.
It would actually make the wage gap worse.
Because they still benefit from a number of things those taxes afford.
Paved roads, public services, etc.
How about no tax on the working class. Only a tax on excess.
Because then only the rich would have anything, because only where the rich live would be taken care of.
It would actually make the wage gap worse.
Jerome
2nd August 2015, 02:04 AM
Because they still benefit from a number of things those taxes afford.
Paved roads, public services, etc.
So?
Those can all be built without taxing the wage earner.
Your logic is a homeless person should be taxed for the homeless shelter, that's just dumb.
Paved roads, public services, etc.
So?
Those can all be built without taxing the wage earner.
Your logic is a homeless person should be taxed for the homeless shelter, that's just dumb.
Majiffy
2nd August 2015, 02:05 AM
Those can all be built without taxing the wage earner.
:getonwithit:
:getonwithit:
Jerome
2nd August 2015, 02:08 AM
How about no tax on the working class. Only a tax on excess.
Because then only the rich would have anything, because only where the rich live would be taken care of.
It would actually make the wage gap worse.
Not taxing the worker will make the rich have everything is your position.
:shockcorn:
Please explain how taxing workers to give 'too big to fail' tax funded bailouts is anything but a transfer of wealth from the worker to the elite.
Because then only the rich would have anything, because only where the rich live would be taken care of.
It would actually make the wage gap worse.
Not taxing the worker will make the rich have everything is your position.
:shockcorn:
Please explain how taxing workers to give 'too big to fail' tax funded bailouts is anything but a transfer of wealth from the worker to the elite.
Majiffy
2nd August 2015, 02:22 AM
Not taxing the worker will make the rich have everything is your position.
:shockcorn:
Please explain how taxing workers to give 'too big to fail' tax funded bailouts is anything but a transfer of wealth from the worker to the elite.
You can't change the frame to put me in an untenable position.
What do you think happens when the only ones paying for services are the wealthy?
The wealthy are the only ones served.
Money and politics isn't going to change if you allow all the money and all the politics to get funneled into the pockets of just the wealthy. It'll get worse.
But I look forward to hearing you explain how public services such as libraries and road maintenance will just magically "get done" without taxpayer money.
:shockcorn:
Please explain how taxing workers to give 'too big to fail' tax funded bailouts is anything but a transfer of wealth from the worker to the elite.
You can't change the frame to put me in an untenable position.
What do you think happens when the only ones paying for services are the wealthy?
The wealthy are the only ones served.
Money and politics isn't going to change if you allow all the money and all the politics to get funneled into the pockets of just the wealthy. It'll get worse.
But I look forward to hearing you explain how public services such as libraries and road maintenance will just magically "get done" without taxpayer money.
MSG
2nd August 2015, 02:41 AM
Majiffy
Jerome
2nd August 2015, 02:41 AM
What do you think happens when the only ones paying for services are the wealthy?
The wealthy are the only ones served.
Not when the power structure is local.
Please explain why the national government needs to doll out roads? You do know that idea was perfected by the nazis. No shit, look it up. That is the shit you get when you have the national government doing stuff for you at your expense and their benefit.
Multinational corporations love being able to tell national government where to put roads for their benefit.
The wealthy are the only ones served.
Not when the power structure is local.
Please explain why the national government needs to doll out roads? You do know that idea was perfected by the nazis. No shit, look it up. That is the shit you get when you have the national government doing stuff for you at your expense and their benefit.
Multinational corporations love being able to tell national government where to put roads for their benefit.
Majiffy
2nd August 2015, 02:43 AM
MSG
Jerome
2nd August 2015, 02:43 AM
But I look forward to hearing you explain how public services such as libraries and road maintenance will just magically "get done" without taxpayer money.
That is all pretty much funded though local property tax as it is.
:getonwithit:
That is all pretty much funded though local property tax as it is.
:getonwithit:
Majiffy
2nd August 2015, 02:45 AM
What do you think happens when the only ones paying for services are the wealthy?
The wealthy are the only ones served.
Not when the power structure is local.
What fantasy land do you live in.
Please explain why the national government needs to doll out roads? You do know that idea was perfected by the nazis. No shit, look it up. That is the shit you get when you have the national government doing stuff for you at your expense and their benefit.
Ah, playing the Nazi card. Brilliant.
:fap: Let me know when you have a real argument.
Multinational corporations love being able to tell national government where to put roads for their benefit.
And that kind of shit is only going to increase when all the money going to the government is from the wealthy.
The wealthy are the only ones served.
Not when the power structure is local.
What fantasy land do you live in.
Please explain why the national government needs to doll out roads? You do know that idea was perfected by the nazis. No shit, look it up. That is the shit you get when you have the national government doing stuff for you at your expense and their benefit.
Ah, playing the Nazi card. Brilliant.
:fap: Let me know when you have a real argument.
Multinational corporations love being able to tell national government where to put roads for their benefit.
And that kind of shit is only going to increase when all the money going to the government is from the wealthy.
Majiffy
2nd August 2015, 02:46 AM
But I look forward to hearing you explain how public services such as libraries and road maintenance will just magically "get done" without taxpayer money.
That is all pretty much funded though local property tax as it is.
:getonwithit:
Yes
And if you stop taxing the middle class...
:gun:
:clippy:
That is all pretty much funded though local property tax as it is.
:getonwithit:
Yes
And if you stop taxing the middle class...
:gun:
:clippy:
nostrum
2nd August 2015, 03:55 AM
*paging Ayn Rand...paging Ayn Rand*
Hermit
2nd August 2015, 04:15 AM
The question presumes some higher entity controlling these economic stats.
The question assumes that inflation can be controlled or that unemployment can be controlled. The assumption may be wrong. Be it as it may, there are no other assumptions.
It is a political quiz, the presumption is inherent.
Of course it's a political quiz. Is says so right in the title, but there is no inherent presumption of a higher identity. I simply assume what is necessary to answer the question, and no more. The assumption is that either unemployment can be controlled, or inflation. People make that choice when they vote for political candidates. Leaders like Thatcher, Merkel and Abbott went to the polls with clearly expressed programs to cut government spending, and those programs differ distinctly from those of rival politicians advocating continuous deficit spending. The former lead to reducing inflation, the latter to reducing unemployment. See, mum, no higher identities.
The question assumes that inflation can be controlled or that unemployment can be controlled. The assumption may be wrong. Be it as it may, there are no other assumptions.
It is a political quiz, the presumption is inherent.
Of course it's a political quiz. Is says so right in the title, but there is no inherent presumption of a higher identity. I simply assume what is necessary to answer the question, and no more. The assumption is that either unemployment can be controlled, or inflation. People make that choice when they vote for political candidates. Leaders like Thatcher, Merkel and Abbott went to the polls with clearly expressed programs to cut government spending, and those programs differ distinctly from those of rival politicians advocating continuous deficit spending. The former lead to reducing inflation, the latter to reducing unemployment. See, mum, no higher identities.
Jerome
2nd August 2015, 01:31 PM
Inflation and unemployment has nothing directly to do with government spending.
Inflation is caused by excess currency within an economy.
Unemployment is caused by excess taxation of an economy.
Inflation is caused by excess currency within an economy.
Unemployment is caused by excess taxation of an economy.
Hermit
2nd August 2015, 04:07 PM
Inflation and unemployment has nothing directly to do with government spending.
Inflation is caused by excess currency within an economy.
Unemployment is caused by excess taxation of an economy.Excess and shortage of currency is influenced by governments' fiscal and tax policies. I prefer to trust the theories of Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Lawrence Klein and Paul Krugman over your fact free nonsense.
Inflation is caused by excess currency within an economy.
Unemployment is caused by excess taxation of an economy.Excess and shortage of currency is influenced by governments' fiscal and tax policies. I prefer to trust the theories of Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Lawrence Klein and Paul Krugman over your fact free nonsense.
Jerome
2nd August 2015, 04:21 PM
Ohh, so you are backtracking and there is an inherent presumption of a higher identity in the question ...
Hermit
2nd August 2015, 04:50 PM
Ohh, so you are backtracking and there is an inherent presumption of a higher identity in the question ...Not at all. The economists are not causing inflation or unemployment.
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 12:29 AM
Naomi R. Wolf is an American author and former political advisor to Al Gore and Bill Clinton. With the publication of the 1991 bestselling book The Beauty Myth, she became a leading spokeswoman of what was later described as the third wave of the feminist movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrYdpQAZP7U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrYdpQAZP7U
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 12:49 AM
Considering she was never actually involved in either administration I find this appeal to authority dubiously shallow.*
Her entire involvement with Bill or Al was completely geared towards "help us get women voters". And that's it.
Show me a video of some former White House Press Secretaries talking about this, sure.
*This is not to say I disagree with what was presented. I have no formal opinion. I stopped listening when I heard "Can you tell us what happened in Boston? That looked an awful lot like a police state".
Her entire involvement with Bill or Al was completely geared towards "help us get women voters". And that's it.
Show me a video of some former White House Press Secretaries talking about this, sure.
*This is not to say I disagree with what was presented. I have no formal opinion. I stopped listening when I heard "Can you tell us what happened in Boston? That looked an awful lot like a police state".
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 12:56 AM
lol @ 'I stopped when it became uncomfortable'
She didn't really address Boston, in fact she intentionally moved around it.
She talked about the new laws in place which allow government to directly propagandize the population. See, Bush was skirting the law, right on the edge. Under the current administration it is legal to literally fake news and events for propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWTiffTQs0I
She didn't really address Boston, in fact she intentionally moved around it.
She talked about the new laws in place which allow government to directly propagandize the population. See, Bush was skirting the law, right on the edge. Under the current administration it is legal to literally fake news and events for propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWTiffTQs0I
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 12:59 AM
lol @ 'I stopped when it became uncomfortable'
Yeah, sure Jerome.
That's why I stopped listening. Because it was uncomfortable.
:flirt:
Yeah, sure Jerome.
That's why I stopped listening. Because it was uncomfortable.
:flirt:
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 01:25 AM
Being informed requires time, attention and research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJSp1skVIkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJSp1skVIkA
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 01:45 AM
Being informed requires time, attention and research.
And not generally relying on unconfirmed or otherwise unprovable hearsay from "experts" at "conventions" where people aren't laughed out of the room when discussing a temporary rise in security following a terrorist act.
You're right, I agree.
And not generally relying on unconfirmed or otherwise unprovable hearsay from "experts" at "conventions" where people aren't laughed out of the room when discussing a temporary rise in security following a terrorist act.
You're right, I agree.
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 01:49 AM
She is a well researched author you dolt. She actually did the heavy lifting, she did the actual research, she did the actual travel to locations where the story was and is happening.
She is not some tumbler sjw, she is a real feminist with real smarts and real sourced research.
She is not some tumbler sjw, she is a real feminist with real smarts and real sourced research.
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 01:59 AM
She is a well researched author you dolt. She actually did the heavy lifting, she did the actual research, she did the actual travel to locations where the story was and is happening.
She is not some tumbler sjw, she is a real feminist with real smarts and real sourced research.
Maybe in regards to feminism and womens' issues, sure. But you're posting bits about censorship and government conspiracies, which are a far cry from that field.
And in regards to the latter...
Writing in The Atlantic in January 2013, law and business professor Mark Nuckols declared, "In her various books, articles, and public speeches, Wolf has demonstrated recurring disregard for the historical record and consistently mutilated the truth with selective and ultimately deceptive use of her sources. ... In particular, Nuckols argued, "Naomi Wolf has for many years now been claiming that a fascist coup in America is imminent. Most recently in The Guardian she alleged, with no substantiation, that the U.S. government and big American banks are conspiring to impose a 'totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent.'
Source (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/no-naomi-wolf-america-is-not-becoming-a-fascist-state/266951/?single_page=true)
Vox journalist Max Fisher urged Wolf's readers "to understand the distinction between her earlier work, which rose on its merits, and her newer conspiracy theories, which are unhinged, damaging, and dangerous."
Source (http://www.vox.com/2014/10/5/6909837/naomi-wolf-isis-ebola-scotland-conspiracy-theories)
Charles C. W. Cooke observed at the National Review Online, "Over the last eight years, Naomi Wolf has written hysterically about coups and about vaginas and about little else besides. She has repeatedly insisted that the country is on the verge of martial law, and transmogrified every threat—both pronounced and overhyped—into a government-led plot to establish a dictatorship. She has made prediction after prediction that has simply not come to pass. Hers are not sober and sensible forecasts of runaway human nature, institutional atrophy, and constitutional decline, but psychedelic fever-dreams that are more typically suited to the InfoWars crowd.
Source (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389666/fevered-delusions-naomi-wolf-charles-c-w-cooke)
And more.
But you're not really interested in talking about how many of these presentations and lectures at these "conferences" by "qualified / reputable" individuals are anything but qualified or reputable in the field they are espousing at these nutjob conferences that are anything but qualified and reputable themselves, are you?
She is not some tumbler sjw, she is a real feminist with real smarts and real sourced research.
Maybe in regards to feminism and womens' issues, sure. But you're posting bits about censorship and government conspiracies, which are a far cry from that field.
And in regards to the latter...
Writing in The Atlantic in January 2013, law and business professor Mark Nuckols declared, "In her various books, articles, and public speeches, Wolf has demonstrated recurring disregard for the historical record and consistently mutilated the truth with selective and ultimately deceptive use of her sources. ... In particular, Nuckols argued, "Naomi Wolf has for many years now been claiming that a fascist coup in America is imminent. Most recently in The Guardian she alleged, with no substantiation, that the U.S. government and big American banks are conspiring to impose a 'totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent.'
Source (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/no-naomi-wolf-america-is-not-becoming-a-fascist-state/266951/?single_page=true)
Vox journalist Max Fisher urged Wolf's readers "to understand the distinction between her earlier work, which rose on its merits, and her newer conspiracy theories, which are unhinged, damaging, and dangerous."
Source (http://www.vox.com/2014/10/5/6909837/naomi-wolf-isis-ebola-scotland-conspiracy-theories)
Charles C. W. Cooke observed at the National Review Online, "Over the last eight years, Naomi Wolf has written hysterically about coups and about vaginas and about little else besides. She has repeatedly insisted that the country is on the verge of martial law, and transmogrified every threat—both pronounced and overhyped—into a government-led plot to establish a dictatorship. She has made prediction after prediction that has simply not come to pass. Hers are not sober and sensible forecasts of runaway human nature, institutional atrophy, and constitutional decline, but psychedelic fever-dreams that are more typically suited to the InfoWars crowd.
Source (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389666/fevered-delusions-naomi-wolf-charles-c-w-cooke)
And more.
But you're not really interested in talking about how many of these presentations and lectures at these "conferences" by "qualified / reputable" individuals are anything but qualified or reputable in the field they are espousing at these nutjob conferences that are anything but qualified and reputable themselves, are you?
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 02:09 AM
lol @ instead of hearing her you went and looked for attacks against her.
Do you think it is untrue that the feds have been supply military equipment to local police?
Do you think it is untrue that the feds have been supply military equipment to local police?
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 02:16 AM
lol @ instead of hearing her you went and looked for attacks against her.
Jerome, I'm going to level with you.
I am highly paranoid about any government or authority.
I believe the official story is often a bunch of hogwash.
Money and corporate interests dominate and will always come first in regards to the government over the needs of the populace.
Many of these deals and moves take place in very shady ways, in very opaque business deals that we rarely if ever find out the true ramifications of.
The government, as a subsidy of these corporate interests, has control of most media outlets and continues to pass legislation to further their grasp over maintaining a steady propaganda machine.
Furthermore I believe that the people in power would like to retain their power and will do anything within their control to maintain it.
This includes things such as militarizing a police force, creating false social dilemmas, and false flag operations in order to keep us distracted from our enemy.
But I've listened to a lot of "experts" peddle hogwash narrations of "true" events on everything from UFOs to FEMA death camps.
And frankly, I know an unqualified source and a load of hogwash when I see one.
And this woman has never been in the position to qualitatively speak about things such as government surveillance or mass media control in any meaningful "insider" fashion.
If she ever got close, she would have been silenced. You and I both know the government is not above that.
Jerome, I'm going to level with you.
I am highly paranoid about any government or authority.
I believe the official story is often a bunch of hogwash.
Money and corporate interests dominate and will always come first in regards to the government over the needs of the populace.
Many of these deals and moves take place in very shady ways, in very opaque business deals that we rarely if ever find out the true ramifications of.
The government, as a subsidy of these corporate interests, has control of most media outlets and continues to pass legislation to further their grasp over maintaining a steady propaganda machine.
Furthermore I believe that the people in power would like to retain their power and will do anything within their control to maintain it.
This includes things such as militarizing a police force, creating false social dilemmas, and false flag operations in order to keep us distracted from our enemy.
But I've listened to a lot of "experts" peddle hogwash narrations of "true" events on everything from UFOs to FEMA death camps.
And frankly, I know an unqualified source and a load of hogwash when I see one.
And this woman has never been in the position to qualitatively speak about things such as government surveillance or mass media control in any meaningful "insider" fashion.
If she ever got close, she would have been silenced. You and I both know the government is not above that.
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 02:16 AM
Now stop seeing me as a "brainwashed sheeple" and start realizing not every conspiracy thing you read is fucking accurate
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 02:19 AM
Basically you are a misogynist. That is the only way I can see you not considering Naomi Wolf a qualified person.
It is mostly a compilation of already well know facts reported in the mainstream news. She just goes more in depth with her research.
It is mostly a compilation of already well know facts reported in the mainstream news. She just goes more in depth with her research.
Timewave
3rd August 2015, 02:22 AM
The rest of the world know fox news America are biasing their stories so much in America that they are in fact false.
The rest of the world also knows that Murdoch has a political agenda that all of his power is directed towards furthering. The sane sensible people (a minority?) simply understand that 'Andrew Bolt" and all the shock jock are the leading edge and which side the media they are viewing comes down on.
Look, we know Abbott and the Australian people have accepted a false view of 'boat people' refugees. So much so that the opposition, has had to accept the same 'story' to have a chance to get elected.
None of this is conspiracy theory because it is all out in the open to anyone who is not a scared little white guy.
The rest of the world also knows that Murdoch has a political agenda that all of his power is directed towards furthering. The sane sensible people (a minority?) simply understand that 'Andrew Bolt" and all the shock jock are the leading edge and which side the media they are viewing comes down on.
Look, we know Abbott and the Australian people have accepted a false view of 'boat people' refugees. So much so that the opposition, has had to accept the same 'story' to have a chance to get elected.
None of this is conspiracy theory because it is all out in the open to anyone who is not a scared little white guy.
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 02:23 AM
Basically you are a misogynist. That is the only way I can see you not considering Naomi Wolf a qualified person.
:amerifag:
Just stop for a second and look at your own post.
It is mostly a compilation of already well know facts reported in the mainstream news. She just goes more in depth with her research.
Then I suppose the other sources I cited are also misogynists?
:amerifag:
Just stop for a second and look at your own post.
It is mostly a compilation of already well know facts reported in the mainstream news. She just goes more in depth with her research.
Then I suppose the other sources I cited are also misogynists?
borealis
3rd August 2015, 02:40 AM
Naomi Wolf, very sadly, really lost her way quite a few years ago.
Seriously, Jerome. ISIS members have beheaded people. There are no 'crisis actors'.
Seriously, Jerome. ISIS members have beheaded people. There are no 'crisis actors'.
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 02:46 AM
Don't disagree with him, Bor, or you'll be labeled a misogynist because he's an avid SJW.
Timewave
3rd August 2015, 02:52 AM
:traumatized: why are people so serious :traumatized::nod:
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 02:52 AM
Seriously, Jerome. ISIS members have beheaded people. There are no 'crisis actors'.
We created ISIS, they are the same guys we funded and supplied to overthrow Libya, then moved them to overthrow Syria, but that didn't work.
We created ISIS, they are the same guys we funded and supplied to overthrow Libya, then moved them to overthrow Syria, but that didn't work.
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 02:53 AM
:traumatized: why are people so serious :traumatized::nod:
Truth bombs are upsetting to people ...
Truth bombs are upsetting to people ...
borealis
3rd August 2015, 02:55 AM
:traumatized: why are people so serious :traumatized::nod:
It'll pass.
It'll pass.
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 02:56 AM
Naomi Wolf, very sadly, really lost her way quite a few years ago.
As if the daughter of holocaust survivors wouldn't know what a fascist state looks like ...
As if the daughter of holocaust survivors wouldn't know what a fascist state looks like ...
Majiffy
3rd August 2015, 03:00 AM
:traumatized: why are people so serious :traumatized::nod:
:majiffy:
:majiffy:
MSG
3rd August 2015, 03:33 AM
:clippy:
Zeluvia
3rd August 2015, 06:49 PM
Money and corporate interests dominate and will always come first in regards to the government over the needs of the populace.
Many of these deals and moves take place in very shady ways, in very opaque business deals that we rarely if ever find out the true ramifications of.
:this:
I sense the far right and the far left might actually be coming to the same conclusion and we might get a new middle in another generation.
Many of these deals and moves take place in very shady ways, in very opaque business deals that we rarely if ever find out the true ramifications of.
:this:
I sense the far right and the far left might actually be coming to the same conclusion and we might get a new middle in another generation.
Zeluvia
3rd August 2015, 07:28 PM
1990 National Defense Restoration Act allows DOD to give surplus military equipment to local law enforcement for the War On Drugs.
1990 Base Closure and Realignment Act sets out the procedure for closing bases for decades to come.
Seemed like a good idea at the time = P
1990 Base Closure and Realignment Act sets out the procedure for closing bases for decades to come.
Seemed like a good idea at the time = P
gib
3rd August 2015, 07:59 PM
heh, just looked it up, sounds about right
The crazy thing to me is the emotional involvement people get over political parties, particularly when they get bent over on a consistent basis.
For example, Obama doubled down on Bush policies, but the idiot class still thinks they are different administrations.
It ends this year. I watched season 1, liked it, and decided to wait for it to complete and then watch it all.
http://orig11.deviantart.net/4c31/f/2012/047/f/2/no_don_quixote__by_aragnael-d4pw9ce.jpg
There's a twist at the end when the main character dies.
The crazy thing to me is the emotional involvement people get over political parties, particularly when they get bent over on a consistent basis.
For example, Obama doubled down on Bush policies, but the idiot class still thinks they are different administrations.
It ends this year. I watched season 1, liked it, and decided to wait for it to complete and then watch it all.
http://orig11.deviantart.net/4c31/f/2012/047/f/2/no_don_quixote__by_aragnael-d4pw9ce.jpg
There's a twist at the end when the main character dies.
gib
3rd August 2015, 08:10 PM
Now stop seeing me as a "brainwashed sheeple" and start realizing not every conspiracy thing you read is fucking accurate
omg that is so what they want you to think
omg that is so what they want you to think
OmicronPersei8
3rd August 2015, 08:11 PM
Jerome, I'm going to level with you.
:shat:
:catthrow:
:eggs:
:shat:
:catthrow:
:eggs:
Jerome
3rd August 2015, 08:36 PM
Now stop seeing me as a "brainwashed sheeple" and start realizing not every conspiracy thing you read is fucking accurate
omg that is so what they want you to think
As an aside, how are those investigations going into those high level elite pedophile rings?
There wouldn't be a conspiracy to keep an investigation from happening, would there be?
omg that is so what they want you to think
As an aside, how are those investigations going into those high level elite pedophile rings?
There wouldn't be a conspiracy to keep an investigation from happening, would there be?
gib
3rd August 2015, 09:04 PM
Jerome http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=278148#post278148
Majiffy
4th August 2015, 12:28 AM
Basically, rich perverts are probably still humping kids, yes.
Gonzo
2nd February 2016, 11:09 AM
http://mindromp.org/forum/picture.php?albumid=3&pictureid=384
MSG
19th January 2017, 10:00 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2fEm_0WEAAMyCI.jpg
OmicronPersei8
19th January 2017, 10:11 PM
whats 1488
MSG
19th January 2017, 10:13 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words#14_and_88
gib
19th January 2017, 10:14 PM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=1488
OmicronPersei8
19th January 2017, 10:16 PM
ic
MSG
19th January 2017, 10:17 PM
:ninja:
gib
19th January 2017, 10:29 PM
S24EJjsAZdw
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét