"Looking for dad's coins that he wouldn't miss" means "Looking for loose money to steal from my father" which is not so much a humorous story as it is an admission of guilt to being a little shit.
Now if that doesn't just speak to a whole mess of problems in that man's head.
I'd love to see video of this. This seems like a classic slip. He starts off telling an anecdote about looking through his dad's dresser and realizes that he's about to give an age and what he was looking for. Either his upbringing was a lot more square than mine or his maturity was really off. When I was a little kid, I got yelled at for hiding jewelry I found in my parents stuff (playing pirates I think). Being much older, late teens to twenties, is way too old to be doing this, unless you really were after "coins".
People keep assuming "coins" is code for porn.
But for Romney, money is porn. The curve of those DD quarters, the clandestine tryst with his secret, kinked 2-dollar bill...oooooooh, yeah.
Wrapping a Franklin around his Johnson. Money. Green. Good. Mmmmm. Profits rising, collecting interest. Soon, now. Looking for a shell corporation to collect the blast.
I didn't read the article very carefully, but the bits I skimmed were all of the form "John Smith invested in Bain Capital. The Smith family is known to have done some bad things." But nothing I saw indicated that John Smith was doing the bad things. (Instead, it's always "John Smith's brother did bad things" or "Jose Smith did bad things".)
Tarring people because their family members are dicks is common and psychologically effective, but really ought not be done. It's the same with the bin Ladens: they're big investors and have denounced and distanced themselves from their most famous scion. Just because the bin Ladens invested in your firm doesn't mean you're an al Qaeda sympathizer.
(If I missed more direct connections in the article, I'll happily take all this back; but right now it seems the HuffPost author is just smearing these people because they have family members who are dicks.)
I wonder at any given time what percentage people think to themselves in response to a picture without context, "I don't get at all what the fuck this is supposed to mean. Maybe I should respond that I don't get it...wait. What if it's a meme? What if it's a meme everyone knows but me? Am I not cool? Am I telling everyone that I'm not cool by pointing out that I can't identify this meme? Maybe I should take a break and go read G&T."
Yeah, I've been staring at that for a couple minutes trying to decide whether I'm just missing some reference or it that was supposed to go in a different thread. I haven't reached a decision yet.
Clearly that image/statement is on topic. This thread is about who America* choo-choo-chooses
*In this case America means the American who actually show up to vote.
I didn't read the article very carefully, but the bits I skimmed were all of the form "John Smith invested in Bain Capital. The Smith family is known to have done some bad things." But nothing I saw indicated that John Smith was doing the bad things. (Instead, it's always "John Smith's brother did bad things" or "Jose Smith did bad things".)
Tarring people because their family members are dicks is common and psychologically effective, but really ought not be done. It's the same with the bin Ladens: they're big investors and have denounced and distanced themselves from their most famous scion. Just because the bin Ladens invested in your firm doesn't mean you're an al Qaeda sympathizer.
(If I missed more direct connections in the article, I'll happily take all this back; but right now it seems the HuffPost author is just smearing these people because they have family members who are dicks.)
But in this case "John Smith" has the money and power he does because his "brother" does horrible things. For the bin Laden example, it would be like the bin Ladin family having the power it does because of the actions of Osama.
I didn't read the article very carefully, but the bits I skimmed were all of the form "John Smith invested in Bain Capital. The Smith family is known to have done some bad things." But nothing I saw indicated that John Smith was doing the bad things. (Instead, it's always "John Smith's brother did bad things" or "Jose Smith did bad things".)
Tarring people because their family members are dicks is common and psychologically effective, but really ought not be done. It's the same with the bin Ladens: they're big investors and have denounced and distanced themselves from their most famous scion. Just because the bin Ladens invested in your firm doesn't mean you're an al Qaeda sympathizer.
(If I missed more direct connections in the article, I'll happily take all this back; but right now it seems the HuffPost author is just smearing these people because they have family members who are dicks.)
Except that these families didn't exactly kick out their black sheep. Also, many of these families are organised tightly as well.
It'll be interesting to see what the Great Orange Satan has to say on this, considering how personal this is for the founder.
I didn't read the article very carefully, but the bits I skimmed were all of the form "John Smith invested in Bain Capital. The Smith family is known to have done some bad things." But nothing I saw indicated that John Smith was doing the bad things. (Instead, it's always "John Smith's brother did bad things" or "Jose Smith did bad things".)
Tarring people because their family members are dicks is common and psychologically effective, but really ought not be done. It's the same with the bin Ladens: they're big investors and have denounced and distanced themselves from their most famous scion. Just because the bin Ladens invested in your firm doesn't mean you're an al Qaeda sympathizer.
(If I missed more direct connections in the article, I'll happily take all this back; but right now it seems the HuffPost author is just smearing these people because they have family members who are dicks.)
But in this case "John Smith" has the money and power he does because his "brother" does horrible things. For the bin Laden example, it would be like the bin Ladin family having the power it does because of the actions of Osama.
That is a natural conjecture to make, but so far as I can tell (admitting again that this is just on the basis of skimming it) the article does nothing to actually support it. Maybe John Smith has cut all ties with his family and made all his wealth selling lemonade to Girl Scouts; that's wholly consistent with what I see in the article. HuffPost wants you to assume that Romney's investors either were involved with the hit squads or made money off them, but doesn't really back that up. And a suggestion like that without the proof to back it up should always make the reader uneasy.
I didn't read the article very carefully, but the bits I skimmed were all of the form "John Smith invested in Bain Capital. The Smith family is known to have done some bad things." But nothing I saw indicated that John Smith was doing the bad things. (Instead, it's always "John Smith's brother did bad things" or "Jose Smith did bad things".)
Tarring people because their family members are dicks is common and psychologically effective, but really ought not be done. It's the same with the bin Ladens: they're big investors and have denounced and distanced themselves from their most famous scion. Just because the bin Ladens invested in your firm doesn't mean you're an al Qaeda sympathizer.
(If I missed more direct connections in the article, I'll happily take all this back; but right now it seems the HuffPost author is just smearing these people because they have family members who are dicks.)
But in this case "John Smith" has the money and power he does because his "brother" does horrible things. For the bin Laden example, it would be like the bin Ladin family having the power it does because of the actions of Osama.
That is a natural conjecture to make, but so far as I can tell (admitting again that this is just on the basis of skimming it) the article does nothing to actually support it. Maybe John Smith has cut all ties with his family and made all his wealth selling lemonade to Girl Scouts; that's wholly consistent with what I see in the article. HuffPost wants you to assume that Romney's investors either were involved with the hit squads or made money off them, but doesn't really back that up. And a suggestion like that without the proof to back it up should always make the reader uneasy.
You're right the article doesn't state that, but in doing digging regarding the families you see this is the case.
I didn't read the article very carefully, but the bits I skimmed were all of the form "John Smith invested in Bain Capital. The Smith family is known to have done some bad things." But nothing I saw indicated that John Smith was doing the bad things. (Instead, it's always "John Smith's brother did bad things" or "Jose Smith did bad things".)
Tarring people because their family members are dicks is common and psychologically effective, but really ought not be done. It's the same with the bin Ladens: they're big investors and have denounced and distanced themselves from their most famous scion. Just because the bin Ladens invested in your firm doesn't mean you're an al Qaeda sympathizer.
(If I missed more direct connections in the article, I'll happily take all this back; but right now it seems the HuffPost author is just smearing these people because they have family members who are dicks.)
But in this case "John Smith" has the money and power he does because his "brother" does horrible things. For the bin Laden example, it would be like the bin Ladin family having the power it does because of the actions of Osama.
That is a natural conjecture to make, but so far as I can tell (admitting again that this is just on the basis of skimming it) the article does nothing to actually support it. Maybe John Smith has cut all ties with his family and made all his wealth selling lemonade to Girl Scouts; that's wholly consistent with what I see in the article. HuffPost wants you to assume that Romney's investors either were involved with the hit squads or made money off them, but doesn't really back that up. And a suggestion like that without the proof to back it up should always make the reader uneasy.
You're right the article doesn't state that, but in doing digging regarding the families you see this is the case.
Did you skip the part where one of the founding investors ("allegedly") assasinated two Guatemalan leftists? The US Government wouldn't confirm it was him specifically but Guatemala would.
In Iowa Wednesday, he hinted that his Massachusetts record would help him implement nationwide reforms:
We’ve got to do reforms in health care and I have some experience doing that as you know. And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care. I want to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions are able to get insurance and that people don’t have to worry about getting dropped from their insurance coverage and that health care is available to all people.
In Iowa Wednesday, he hinted that his Massachusetts record would help him implement nationwide reforms:
We’ve got to do reforms in health care and I have some experience doing that as you know. And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care. I want to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions are able to get insurance and that people don’t have to worry about getting dropped from their insurance coverage and that health care is available to all people.
Goddamnit, Romney.
What is this?
And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care. I want to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions are able to get insurance and that people don’t have to worry about getting dropped from their insurance coverage and that health care is available to all people.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE ALREADY IN ACA YOU PONCE!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I didn't read the article very carefully, but the bits I skimmed were all of the form "John Smith invested in Bain Capital. The Smith family is known to have done some bad things." But nothing I saw indicated that John Smith was doing the bad things. (Instead, it's always "John Smith's brother did bad things" or "Jose Smith did bad things".)
Tarring people because their family members are dicks is common and psychologically effective, but really ought not be done. It's the same with the bin Ladens: they're big investors and have denounced and distanced themselves from their most famous scion. Just because the bin Ladens invested in your firm doesn't mean you're an al Qaeda sympathizer.
(If I missed more direct connections in the article, I'll happily take all this back; but right now it seems the HuffPost author is just smearing these people because they have family members who are dicks.)
But in this case "John Smith" has the money and power he does because his "brother" does horrible things. For the bin Laden example, it would be like the bin Ladin family having the power it does because of the actions of Osama.
That is a natural conjecture to make, but so far as I can tell (admitting again that this is just on the basis of skimming it) the article does nothing to actually support it. Maybe John Smith has cut all ties with his family and made all his wealth selling lemonade to Girl Scouts; that's wholly consistent with what I see in the article. HuffPost wants you to assume that Romney's investors either were involved with the hit squads or made money off them, but doesn't really back that up. And a suggestion like that without the proof to back it up should always make the reader uneasy.
You're right the article doesn't state that, but in doing digging regarding the families you see this is the case.
Did you skip the part where one of the founding investors ("allegedly") assasinated two Guatemalan leftists? The US Government wouldn't confirm it was him specifically but Guatemala would.
:oops:
Edit: Oh sweet baby jesus, Romney is the cure to a head that doesn't hurt.
Veevee on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
No, the only thing in the ACA is the individual mandate which forces you to pay Solyndra to hire people on welfare to serve on death panels to execute your grandfather who never built anything.
No, the only thing in the ACA is the individual mandate which forces you to pay Solyndra to hire people on welfare to serve on death panels to execute your grandfather who never built anything.
Not enough racist dog whistling in this post and you degree of difficulty is too low. I award it a 13.8 (gymnastics judging: out of a random number!)
That's not going to get you on the podium.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The hilarious thing is that a spokesperson talked about how the person wouldn't have died if she was in Massachusetts and had Romneycare twice. This is apparently something they are going to push. Go on, Romney, alienate that base.
The hilarious thing is that a spokesperson talked about how the person wouldn't have died if she was in Massachusetts and had Romneycare twice. This is apparently something they are going to push. Go on, Romney, alienate that base.
Well the media isn't calling out their outright fucking lies about anything, why not do it to the GOP as well?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No, the only thing in the ACA is the individual mandate which forces you to pay Solyndra to hire people on welfare to serve on death panels to execute your grandfather who never built anything.
Not enough racist dog whistling in this post and you degree of difficulty is too low. I award it a 13.8 (gymnastics judging: out of a random number!)
That's not going to get you on the podium.
I demand an appeal, you haven't credited enlightened bum for the difficulty of the transition from death panels to government support for business. This is at least a 14.2
I take it that you missed when I posted the Daily Beast's Guide To Carrying At The Republican National Convention.
"While no handguns will be allowed inside the convention, which is being protected by the Secret Service, concealed carry license-holders will be able to carry their weapons in the streets surrounding the convention."
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I mean, I have the expectation of being shot if I pull a gun out in public for any reason though, even for defense.
"They will not, however, be able to have “super soaker” water guns, sticks, poles, portable shields or glass bottles."
Its not clear if they mean outside, but lets assume they mean inside. Why is this a story and why are we posting about it? Also does that mean signs? I am sure people will have signs on posts inside.
I take it that you missed when I posted the Daily Beast's Guide To Carrying At The Republican National Convention.
"While no handguns will be allowed inside the convention, which is being protected by the Secret Service, concealed carry license-holders will be able to carry their weapons in the streets surrounding the convention."
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I mean, I have the expectation of being shot if I pull a gun out in public for any reason though, even for defense.
"They will not, however, be able to have “super soaker” water guns, sticks, poles, portable shields or glass bottles."
Its not clear if they mean outside, but lets assume they mean inside. Why is this a story and why are we posting about it? Also does that mean signs? I am sure people will have signs on posts inside.
No, that is referring to outside the convention.
And we're posting about it because the idea that you can ban signposts and waterguns from being carried around in the city, but not fucking handguns is patently ridiculous.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If it's on a bumper sticker, it's a stupid sentiment.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+8
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
In Iowa Wednesday, he hinted that his Massachusetts record would help him implement nationwide reforms:
We’ve got to do reforms in health care and I have some experience doing that as you know. And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care. I want to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions are able to get insurance and that people don’t have to worry about getting dropped from their insurance coverage and that health care is available to all people.
Goddamnit, Romney.
Wait, now instead of denouncing his record, he's wearing it like a badge of honor?
Posts
Best comment:
It was my excitement at your excitement at preacher showing you some nuance.
I see he hasn't come through yet
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Ah.
Nuance means penis, right?
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
I didn't read the article very carefully, but the bits I skimmed were all of the form "John Smith invested in Bain Capital. The Smith family is known to have done some bad things." But nothing I saw indicated that John Smith was doing the bad things. (Instead, it's always "John Smith's brother did bad things" or "Jose Smith did bad things".)
Tarring people because their family members are dicks is common and psychologically effective, but really ought not be done. It's the same with the bin Ladens: they're big investors and have denounced and distanced themselves from their most famous scion. Just because the bin Ladens invested in your firm doesn't mean you're an al Qaeda sympathizer.
(If I missed more direct connections in the article, I'll happily take all this back; but right now it seems the HuffPost author is just smearing these people because they have family members who are dicks.)
pleasepaypreacher.net
Clearly that image/statement is on topic. This thread is about who America* choo-choo-chooses
*In this case America means the American who actually show up to vote.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
HuffPo is if Politico had an obsession with nipples and was run by an even more insufferable tool.
But in this case "John Smith" has the money and power he does because his "brother" does horrible things. For the bin Laden example, it would be like the bin Ladin family having the power it does because of the actions of Osama.
Hell with the Republican base its probably a plus. Saint Zombie Reagan was a big supporter of those death squads too.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
pleasepaypreacher.net
Except that these families didn't exactly kick out their black sheep. Also, many of these families are organised tightly as well.
It'll be interesting to see what the Great Orange Satan has to say on this, considering how personal this is for the founder.
That is a natural conjecture to make, but so far as I can tell (admitting again that this is just on the basis of skimming it) the article does nothing to actually support it. Maybe John Smith has cut all ties with his family and made all his wealth selling lemonade to Girl Scouts; that's wholly consistent with what I see in the article. HuffPost wants you to assume that Romney's investors either were involved with the hit squads or made money off them, but doesn't really back that up. And a suggestion like that without the proof to back it up should always make the reader uneasy.
Did you skip the part where one of the founding investors ("allegedly") assasinated two Guatemalan leftists? The US Government wouldn't confirm it was him specifically but Guatemala would.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What is this?
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE ALREADY IN ACA YOU PONCE!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Edit: Oh sweet baby jesus, Romney is the cure to a head that doesn't hurt.
Not enough racist dog whistling in this post and you degree of difficulty is too low. I award it a 13.8 (gymnastics judging: out of a random number!)
That's not going to get you on the podium.
8->
Old news is old Than. And I think they did ban some guns, but just this type *Flex*.
pleasepaypreacher.net
How will they tell who is the Manchurian candidate or not if guns are allowed?
Well the media isn't calling out their outright fucking lies about anything, why not do it to the GOP as well?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I take it that you missed when I posted the Daily Beast's Guide To Carrying At The Republican National Convention.
I demand an appeal, you haven't credited enlightened bum for the difficulty of the transition from death panels to government support for business. This is at least a 14.2
"While no handguns will be allowed inside the convention, which is being protected by the Secret Service, concealed carry license-holders will be able to carry their weapons in the streets surrounding the convention."
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I mean, I have the expectation of being shot if I pull a gun out in public for any reason though, even for defense.
"They will not, however, be able to have “super soaker” water guns, sticks, poles, portable shields or glass bottles."
Its not clear if they mean outside, but lets assume they mean inside. Why is this a story and why are we posting about it? Also does that mean signs? I am sure people will have signs on posts inside.
And we're posting about it because the idea that you can ban signposts and waterguns from being carried around in the city, but not fucking handguns is patently ridiculous.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
cnn.com/2012/08/08/opinion/canellos-kleinbard-romney-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Wait, now instead of denouncing his record, he's wearing it like a badge of honor?
GODDAMN IT, ROMNEY.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm sure the Secret Service loves an "anyone can have a gun" policy at the convention.
But you can't have it inside the building.
pleasepaypreacher.net