I'm pretty sure the reason the Benjamin costs $100 is because Franklin is on the $100 bill. There is no deeper meaning or cost analysis. It's just named what it costs.
Hey remember that show Bullshit w/ Penn and Teller, where they showed that a lot of people really couldn't tell the difference between food from an expensive 5-star restaurant and food from KFC? And that they couldn't tell the difference between a $10 bottle of water and water poured into an identical bottle directly from the garden hose? We need P&T to get in here and bullshitify these drinks.
For water I'll buy it; the water industry is a fraud. But someone who cannot tell the difference between KFC and a five-star restaurant chicken has had his eyes gouged out, his nose punched in, and his mouth washed with acid. That's the only way you can confuse them.
If I remember, it was not a blind taste test. What they did was they put five star food in crappy KFC style paper packaging and people did not notice anything amiss. Then they took KFC quality food and served it up with incredible five star presentation and people generally did not notice a problem.
So it seemed to have nothing to do with tasting a difference in a blind taste test. I actually don't think they had the people taste both. As I recall, it had more to do with certain people having a bias towards "refined things" and wanting to seem to be the kind of person who enjoys such things, even if they don't really enjoy the thing or the thing is not really that special, etc.
Hence, Trump drinks.
WordLust on
+2
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Politifact rating: mostly false. Fact checkers do good work, but one time when he was 14 Billy stole $20 from his mother's purse.
Politifact rating: pants on fire. Literally Billy accidentally set his pants on fire while playing with some lighter fluid with friends at a BBQ back in college. However, his claims that asking girls "wanna see my burn scars" is a viable pickup line has been labeled Flip-Flop after it apparently worked for the first time in years last weekend with Sherryl from accounting.
Shit, she helped build the modern GOPs media perception and then suddenly has a conscience about the monster she tinkered on for 12 years? Naw, I'll pass on the love fest.
People are allowed to change.
And I bet most people here are taking a 'wait and see' attitude with her. But they're still allowed to enjoy the moments where they eat themselves.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
Man, if that's the guy's actual name he is either very stupid or very committed.
The Benjamin bugs me. First of all because it has the only uppercase letter on the entire page, and second because who the fuck will pay $100 for a drink?
override367 on
+2
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Shit, she helped build the modern GOPs media perception and then suddenly has a conscience about the monster she tinkered on for 12 years? Naw, I'll pass on the love fest.
People are allowed to change.
And I bet most people here are taking a 'wait and see' attitude with her. But they're still allowed to enjoy the moments where they eat themselves.
It's a big tent, man.
Don't think I said people are incapable of change. Like what you like, but I'm pretty sure after the trump ordeal is over she'll stay right where she is and continue to do the same dog and pony show that channel has done since its creation. I don't entirely count moments of lucidity as change.
Crayon on
+7
Options
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
I'm pretty sure the reason the Benjamin costs $100 is because Franklin is on the $100 bill. There is no deeper meaning or cost analysis. It's just named what it costs.
and also as was pointed out it comes with very expensive food
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
It's also amusing because the narrative is already starting to shift towards obstruction with just under 2 weeks to go. I saw Pat Toomey commercials last night about how he'll fight Hillary Clinton and that's why we should vote for him, delightfully followed by a Trump commercial, so GOP undermining is in full swing.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
Aren't the stars not actually an award or anything but just a thing you can buy?
You do have to buy them, but I think there are also some qualifiers. It's basically like getting verified status on twitter, but you also pay $10,000 for it or something.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The Benjamin bugs me. First of all because it has the only uppercase letter on the entire page, and second because who the fuck will pay $100 for a drink?
But its Euros, right. Those operate on monopoly money rules, right?
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
like soliciting donations from foreign powers to run your ultra racist campaign?
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I don't even think you need to bring erasure into it. it's a fucked up thing to do.
the most interesting thing yesterday was that biographer talking about his 2014 interview with trump. I listened to the NYT podcast about it and then caught him all over cnn and msnbc. absolutely fantastic stuff. nothing that will affect the election but it really gives you a glimpse into trump's soul. well worth it to hear whatever you can from that dude.
At the very least, that's vandalism. Politically motivated, at that.
If someone spray painted a swastika on Mel Brooks' star, we'd be pretty pissed. Trump is a terrible person, but he hasn't crossed an event threshold that makes doing things that are otherwise illegal and disrespectful ok.
At least we can be sure that was was likely someone who doesn't like Trump (or wants to appear that way). Unlike last time when someone drew a swastika on it and it was genuinely impossible to tell if it was done by a hater, or one of his literal neonazi supporters.
Yeah, I haven't lived in the bay area for a few years now, but Plum Bar + Dogwood in Oakland were pretty hard to beat (honorable mentions to Make Westing for all around excellence and Cafe Van Cleef for pure insanity of decor/crowd).
Maven in SF was pretty good, but didn't hit any other places in the City that really could compete with the top 2 above. However, the name of the game is proximity, and most of the good bars near me in SF were beer-focused (Magnolia, Toronado).
+1
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
At the very least, that's vandalism. Politically motivated, at that.
If someone spray painted a swastika on Mel Brooks' star, we'd be pretty pissed. Trump is a terrible person, but he hasn't crossed an event threshold that makes doing things that are otherwise illegal and disrespectful ok.
What would be considered crossing this line o'yours.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
So I finally got around to listening to the show "Hamilton."
One of the interesting things about the show is how Hamilton has a choice on casting the deciding endorsement between two candidates who he absolutely hates: Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. But eventually, he comes to the decision that he's rather go with the devil he knows (Jefferson) over the Devil he doesn't know (Burr) and endorses Burr. A decision he stands by even though it literally kills him in the end.
What I'm saying is, modern Jill Stein and Gary Johnson voters are wimps.
This is cool, I didn't know anything about Hamilton. He actually makes the case that I've been trying to make to my family about why they can't vote Trump. IE that you can't trust someone with no principles:
Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government – Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands – No compact, that he should make with any passion in his breast except Ambition, could be relied upon by himself – How then should we be able to rely upon any agreement with him? Mr. Jefferson, I suspect will not dare much Mr. Burr will dare every thing in the sanguine hope of effecting every thing
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
You only think that because he had historical erasure put on him. The guy was a few less petty snubs away from being a war hero.
+10
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
The benjamin looks like it comes with a bunch of expensive stuff on the side... or it is the most disgusting cocktail ever made.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If you look at the actual statement, it's not really anything like your paraphrase or the TPM article.
For example, on the subject of them not making "a dent in the two-party system", here's what he actually had to say:
We are making strides toward breaking the two party monopoly
There is a kind of "vote for Hillary" implication in one paragraph:
Against that backdrop, I would like to address myself to all those in the electorate who remain torn between two so-called major party candidates whom they cannot enthusiastically support.
which, combined with the rest, can be interpreted as saying vote for the lesser of two evils. However, Hillary is not mentioned again, explicitly or implicitly, in the rest of the statement. He certainly believes Clinton is better than Trump (and has made statements to that effect in the past), but the statement as a whole is anti-Trump rather than pro-any candidate. I read it more as him trying to attract disaffected Republicans to the Libertarian party than trying to get them to vote Hillary (although, again, I'm sure he personally sees Clinton as the lesser of two evils and would prefer disaffected Republicans to vote for her over Trump if they're not going to go third party). I think this is implied in statements like
I hope that this election cycle will secure for the Libertarian Party a permanent place in our national political dialogue.
He wants the Libertarian Party to do well, he wants Trump to do poorly, the statement is ambivalent about Clinton. He's not giving up--the only thing he said anywhere close to that is the "the deck is stacked against" them in half a sentence.
After careful observation and reflection, I have come to believe that Donald Trump, if elected President of the United States, would not be able to stand up to this pressure and this criticism without becoming unhinged and unable to perform competently the duties of his office,” the former Massachusetts governor said in a statement.
Does Trump think the unfair criticism he gets as nominee is bad? The president is probably the most criticised person on earth. Can he handle it?
Posts
If I remember, it was not a blind taste test. What they did was they put five star food in crappy KFC style paper packaging and people did not notice anything amiss. Then they took KFC quality food and served it up with incredible five star presentation and people generally did not notice a problem.
So it seemed to have nothing to do with tasting a difference in a blind taste test. I actually don't think they had the people taste both. As I recall, it had more to do with certain people having a bias towards "refined things" and wanting to seem to be the kind of person who enjoys such things, even if they don't really enjoy the thing or the thing is not really that special, etc.
Hence, Trump drinks.
Politifact rating: pants on fire. Literally Billy accidentally set his pants on fire while playing with some lighter fluid with friends at a BBQ back in college. However, his claims that asking girls "wanna see my burn scars" is a viable pickup line has been labeled Flip-Flop after it apparently worked for the first time in years last weekend with Sherryl from accounting.
People are allowed to change.
And I bet most people here are taking a 'wait and see' attitude with her. But they're still allowed to enjoy the moments where they eat themselves.
It's a big tent, man.
Huh. I read that book and I don't remember that part.
Man, if that's the guy's actual name he is either very stupid or very committed.
So, you're saying that poor scotch had a meeting with Trump?
Also:
Similar to one of my favorite drinks, the Division Bell.
Don't think I said people are incapable of change. Like what you like, but I'm pretty sure after the trump ordeal is over she'll stay right where she is and continue to do the same dog and pony show that channel has done since its creation. I don't entirely count moments of lucidity as change.
OMG they TRASHED it!
and also as was pointed out it comes with very expensive food
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
It's also amusing because the narrative is already starting to shift towards obstruction with just under 2 weeks to go. I saw Pat Toomey commercials last night about how he'll fight Hillary Clinton and that's why we should vote for him, delightfully followed by a Trump commercial, so GOP undermining is in full swing.
can't wait to see Trump's response to this.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
Liar! Bias! RIGGED! Sad!
You do have to buy them, but I think there are also some qualifiers. It's basically like getting verified status on twitter, but you also pay $10,000 for it or something.
But its Euros, right. Those operate on monopoly money rules, right?
...right?
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
like soliciting donations from foreign powers to run your ultra racist campaign?
(note, I do not support vandalism at all)
Big ups for doing the right thing, Weld.
the most interesting thing yesterday was that biographer talking about his 2014 interview with trump. I listened to the NYT podcast about it and then caught him all over cnn and msnbc. absolutely fantastic stuff. nothing that will affect the election but it really gives you a glimpse into trump's soul. well worth it to hear whatever you can from that dude.
If someone spray painted a swastika on Mel Brooks' star, we'd be pretty pissed. Trump is a terrible person, but he hasn't crossed an event threshold that makes doing things that are otherwise illegal and disrespectful ok.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yeah, I haven't lived in the bay area for a few years now, but Plum Bar + Dogwood in Oakland were pretty hard to beat (honorable mentions to Make Westing for all around excellence and Cafe Van Cleef for pure insanity of decor/crowd).
Maven in SF was pretty good, but didn't hit any other places in the City that really could compete with the top 2 above. However, the name of the game is proximity, and most of the good bars near me in SF were beer-focused (Magnolia, Toronado).
What would be considered crossing this line o'yours.
This is cool, I didn't know anything about Hamilton. He actually makes the case that I've been trying to make to my family about why they can't vote Trump. IE that you can't trust someone with no principles:
On my sleeve, let the runway start
You only think that because he had historical erasure put on him. The guy was a few less petty snubs away from being a war hero.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If you look at the actual statement, it's not really anything like your paraphrase or the TPM article.
For example, on the subject of them not making "a dent in the two-party system", here's what he actually had to say:
There is a kind of "vote for Hillary" implication in one paragraph:
which, combined with the rest, can be interpreted as saying vote for the lesser of two evils. However, Hillary is not mentioned again, explicitly or implicitly, in the rest of the statement. He certainly believes Clinton is better than Trump (and has made statements to that effect in the past), but the statement as a whole is anti-Trump rather than pro-any candidate. I read it more as him trying to attract disaffected Republicans to the Libertarian party than trying to get them to vote Hillary (although, again, I'm sure he personally sees Clinton as the lesser of two evils and would prefer disaffected Republicans to vote for her over Trump if they're not going to go third party). I think this is implied in statements like
He wants the Libertarian Party to do well, he wants Trump to do poorly, the statement is ambivalent about Clinton. He's not giving up--the only thing he said anywhere close to that is the "the deck is stacked against" them in half a sentence.
Does Trump think the unfair criticism he gets as nominee is bad? The president is probably the most criticised person on earth. Can he handle it?
GotV ad for New Hampshire from Funny or Die
"Whoa I don't joke about curses take that shit out of the telemprompter"
Affleck 2024!
pleasepaypreacher.net