You joined 2 hours ago just to say that? I believe you!
(That was an alternative affirmation.)
Right, because nobody ever registers because they have something specific to say…
Everybody starts with a first post. While I’m not necessarily in agreement with or a fan of @cudgel, this contention that nobody’s first post can be legitimate if it is negative is ridiculous.
No, not new to Boing Boing, just the Rob post this morning self-aggrandizing his PS efforts finally put me over the comment hurdle. I don’t feel I need to justify how long I’ve been reading BB - any number wouldn’t be relevant for your brand of commentary. I expressed nothing against the site, just the juvenile PS jobs and the repetitious self-referential postings. If you cannot deal with either, I won’t bother to respond further.
I was thinking more of this:
If you think his driving trollies with Photoshopping Trump is bad, you may remember that article about the safe he posted in Mar 2016. Ten months, several empty promises, and 2200 comments later we’re still waiting for it to be opened.
" If you want to ascertain if someone is truly loyal to you, ask them to do something outrageous or stupid. If they balk, then you know right away they aren’t fully with you."
That depends on what kind of subordinates you want. A better, more confident leader would come with a stupid suggestion just to see what advisors had the courage to protest and who were just useless sycophants. As King Lear found out, the people who flatter you aren’t always your true friends.
After all of TWO WHOLE HOURS!
Welcome to Boing Boing, comrade.
You don’t have to justify anything. I’m just recognising the good use to which you put your first comment. Your contributions can only go upwards from there!
…but you’d have expected him to be able to push a lot through at the beginning, anyway. If he’s pursuing a short term strategy, then once the party is over, congressional Republicans may find themselves in perpetual damage control mode as their party leader proceeds to further isolate them from the mainstream. After all, he’s in office in spite of them, not because of them—he has no reason to care if he leaves office with the GOP in ruins.
“Swordsman of the narrow hips
Narrow lips and murderous mind
Fenced with chariots and ships
By your joculators hailed
The mailed wonder of mankind,
Far to westward you have sailed” (Graves)
It’s about Alexander the Great, but almost anything like this can be turned into a forecast of Trump.
Yeah, I’d give it till next Moday at least.
SAW THAT SHIT IN A MOVIE!!!
…the title of which I’m unable to recall at the moment. Character 1 tasks Character 2 to do something, and then later in the film Character 1 explains his tasking…wish I could recall what film that was…
As long as he’s in the White House during a lockdown. “Was that glass breaking?”
Except for Bobby Kennedy of course, appointed by his brother John to be Attorney General apparently at the insistence of their father Joseph. Needless to say, this was considered highly irregular at the time.
Righto. Because that’s the biggest problem we’ve got right now. Looking juvenile. As long as you think that way, let me offer you a link to something that’ll change your mind, <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ>immediately.
Then in that survey, way more Trump voters than Hillary voters wanted to fuck with the survey people. Which also tells us something.
It’s like a gang initiation. Instead of “go kill a rival gang member and we’ll let you in,” it’s “go tell an egregious lie with a straight face and you will have proven your loyalty.”
Or, in this case, keep telling egregious lies to continue to prove your loyalty. As with other abusers, Trump’s support is fickle, and his victims have to constantly affirm their loyalty.
Is there a survey you can cite for that?