Fox News' latest attempt to churn up negative stories about Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz backfired immediately this week.The Fox News story in question dealt with Walz's tenure as a high-school football coach and featured the headline, "Tim Walz allegedly told high school football player struggling with ...
Fox News' latest attempt to churn up negative stories about Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz backfired immediately this week.
I guess when you got two people who took a shit on your floor and you gotta pick one to house-sit for you over the weekend, it's probably best to ask them why they thought shitting on your floor was a good idea.
When one says, "I'm sorry, I was trying to help by de-escalating, but this made more of a mess than I expected" and the other says, "I wanted to show off my Bible," while holding their Bible upside down, then you've got a much more clear choice.
Someone who shits on the floor with good intentions shows that they're aiming to please and can be trained to do better using positive reinforcement. Someone who shits on the floor for attention with sociopathic reasoning is a bit of a wildcard with no means or desire to be reined in.
Sure, you could consider someone else who hasn't yet taken a shit on your floor, but you gotta wonder how they're gonna keep your house safe from other floor-shitters when they don't have the ability to work door locks.
To continue your stupid fucking metaphor there are multiple people available to house sit for you who have a well documented policy of not shitting on floors but anytime somebody suggest you hire any of them you insist they aren't hireable and point to the fact you refuse to hire them as evidence.
So funny how libs dive deeper and deeper into now completely unintelligible metaphors in order to justify political positions when like, dawg, we've got reality right here let's just stick to that lol
The house is the United States of America and shitting on the floor represents breaking up protests via official requests of enforcement agencies.
You correctly pointed out that Walz called the National Guard on his own citizens. During protests that risked growing out of control, if they weren't already. While I don't love that use of force, I can understand being concerned for your citizens and attempting to deescalate. Considering the context of the protests and ongoing police mobilization, local first responders couldn't exactly be trusted to handle the situation. I'm sure Walz's previous service with the National Guard let him feel like he could trust them to reasonably handle the situation, and it's part of the reason they're there in the first place.
Mobilizing enforcement agencies is usually pretty shitty in general, but if you genuinely think it's gonna help and hurt the fewest people, then at least your intentions were in the right place.
As for the other person mobilizing enforcement agencies so they can hold a Bible upside down, here ya go. Four days after Walz called in the National Guard to curb violence in Minnesota, Trump mobilized multiple enforcement agencies to violently break up peaceful protests Lafayette Square. Causing what the New York Times aptly described as "a burst of violence unlike any seen in the shadow of the White House in generations," Trump then slow-walked his fat ass out in front of St. John's Church and held a Bible upside down for cameras. Stood there, creepily, saying nothing until a report asked "is that your Bible?" To which Trump responded in a disturbingly aggressive tone "it's a Bible."
So, as you enumerate all of Walz's single great mistakes that keep getting echoed, I feel the need to remind you of content, context, means, scope, and justification.
Now, you might argue, asking "why do you feel the need to immediately point out Trump? There are third party candidates who haven't mobilized any enforcement agencies!" and you'd be absolutely right! You know who else has never mobilized any enforcement agencies? Me. Just because someone has never been in a position for them to have the ability to mobilize enforcement agencies or sell military weapons doesn't mean that they won't. And you know what else I have in common with those other third-party candidates? We all have the exact same chances of winning the presidency in this election.
All this does is highlight to me how meaningless western democracy really is. For your vote to mean anything you you have to vote for one of two parties that will do nothing material to improve your own quality of life (unless you are rich), and who will both continue to participate in genocide and illegal wars to maintain the status quo. A system that in my eyes is deserving of overthrow.
I'd be voting third party or not at all. Seeing as a vote for either of the two main parties is seemingly just as pointless.
Sure, the system has been abused to the point that it does deserve to be overthrown, but do the people underneath that system deserve that kind of anarchy?
Ironically, in an ideal world, I'd likely be an anarchist, but true anarchism can't exist in a world with billionaires. The fact is, when we expanded to such large civilizations with an unnatural necessity to control large swathes of groups, we built a self-abusing system that generally benefits from hurting us.
Use whatever idioms you want, unringing bells, toothpaste in tubes, etc. We're all in a stupidly precarious situation and the only way out requires a massive form of unrealistic cooperation.
I guess when you got two people who took a shit on your floor and you gotta pick one to house-sit for you over the weekend, it's probably best to ask them why they thought shitting on your floor was a good idea.
When one says, "I'm sorry, I was trying to help by de-escalating, but this made more of a mess than I expected" and the other says, "I wanted to show off my Bible," while holding their Bible upside down, then you've got a much more clear choice.
Someone who shits on the floor with good intentions shows that they're aiming to please and can be trained to do better using positive reinforcement. Someone who shits on the floor for attention with sociopathic reasoning is a bit of a wildcard with no means or desire to be reined in.
Sure, you could consider someone else who hasn't yet taken a shit on your floor, but you gotta wonder how they're gonna keep your house safe from other floor-shitters when they don't have the ability to work door locks.
I would simply not hire anybody to house sit for me who has shit on my floor before.
Now I'm sure you'll explain to us how it's complicated and not that simple, even though it totally fucking is.
Nope, not that complicated at all. That's completely your right.
The problem is that someone's always trying to shit on your floor. I agree, in a perfect world, I'd prefer if people just wouldn't shit on the floor.
To continue your stupid fucking metaphor there are multiple people available to house sit for you who have a well documented policy of not shitting on floors but anytime somebody suggest you hire any of them you insist they aren't hireable and point to the fact you refuse to hire them as evidence.
You metaphor is foolish and you should keep you scat fetish to yourself.
I'm struggling to understand this metaphor. What does the house, the floor and the shit represent. Who is doing the shitting?
So funny how libs dive deeper and deeper into now completely unintelligible metaphors in order to justify political positions when like, dawg, we've got reality right here let's just stick to that lol
"It's bad when when people call the cops on peaceful protestors"
"You might think so, but what if we turned it into a weird metaphor that involves people shitting in my living room for no reason"
The house is the United States of America and shitting on the floor represents breaking up protests via official requests of enforcement agencies.
You correctly pointed out that Walz called the National Guard on his own citizens. During protests that risked growing out of control, if they weren't already. While I don't love that use of force, I can understand being concerned for your citizens and attempting to deescalate. Considering the context of the protests and ongoing police mobilization, local first responders couldn't exactly be trusted to handle the situation. I'm sure Walz's previous service with the National Guard let him feel like he could trust them to reasonably handle the situation, and it's part of the reason they're there in the first place.
Mobilizing enforcement agencies is usually pretty shitty in general, but if you genuinely think it's gonna help and hurt the fewest people, then at least your intentions were in the right place.
As for the other person mobilizing enforcement agencies so they can hold a Bible upside down, here ya go. Four days after Walz called in the National Guard to curb violence in Minnesota, Trump mobilized multiple enforcement agencies to violently break up peaceful protests Lafayette Square. Causing what the New York Times aptly described as "a burst of violence unlike any seen in the shadow of the White House in generations," Trump then slow-walked his fat ass out in front of St. John's Church and held a Bible upside down for cameras. Stood there, creepily, saying nothing until a report asked "is that your Bible?" To which Trump responded in a disturbingly aggressive tone "it's a Bible."
So, as you enumerate all of Walz's single great mistakes that keep getting echoed, I feel the need to remind you of content, context, means, scope, and justification.
Now, you might argue, asking "why do you feel the need to immediately point out Trump? There are third party candidates who haven't mobilized any enforcement agencies!" and you'd be absolutely right! You know who else has never mobilized any enforcement agencies? Me. Just because someone has never been in a position for them to have the ability to mobilize enforcement agencies or sell military weapons doesn't mean that they won't. And you know what else I have in common with those other third-party candidates? We all have the exact same chances of winning the presidency in this election.
All this does is highlight to me how meaningless western democracy really is. For your vote to mean anything you you have to vote for one of two parties that will do nothing material to improve your own quality of life (unless you are rich), and who will both continue to participate in genocide and illegal wars to maintain the status quo. A system that in my eyes is deserving of overthrow.
I'd be voting third party or not at all. Seeing as a vote for either of the two main parties is seemingly just as pointless.
Sure, the system has been abused to the point that it does deserve to be overthrown, but do the people underneath that system deserve that kind of anarchy?
Ironically, in an ideal world, I'd likely be an anarchist, but true anarchism can't exist in a world with billionaires. The fact is, when we expanded to such large civilizations with an unnatural necessity to control large swathes of groups, we built a self-abusing system that generally benefits from hurting us.
Use whatever idioms you want, unringing bells, toothpaste in tubes, etc. We're all in a stupidly precarious situation and the only way out requires a massive form of unrealistic cooperation.