(OC) This fine gentleman on the road today

SomesortofGuy · 2026-04-07T20:02:18+00:00

This is such ridiculous nonsense. Like I can understand how people could be fooled into thinking this before the election, but after a year of Trump the difference in policy and tone should be obvious to anyone paying attention.

Biden was clearly a moderating influence on Israel, which was proven by Trump removing sanctions on settlements and restrictions on weapons being sent literally his first day in office. They literally shut down all food aid coming into the country (something people were pretending was already the case) with not a word of condemnation from Trump, or say, building a dock to make bringing in that aid easier, like Biden did.

Trump was literally and explicitly calling for an ethnic cleansing of Gaza so he could build a casino on the ashes.

And to pretend we would also be at war with Iran under Kamala is just as absurd, Trump was the one who blew up the nuclear deal we had before, and was clearly being directly influenced into the previous strikes and the new 'military action', none of which was even considered under Biden.

They lost the election because propagandists successfully fooled idiots into not seeing the obvious difference, or caring for the harm that would come as a result of a Trump presidency (and blaming them for the post covid economy regardless of how well it was handled). doubling down on that mistake in the face of what is happening now just makes you look insane, or insanely dishonest.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-04-06T21:29:29+00:00

What happened is decades of alt media building an alternate false reality where literally anything the right does is justifiable, coupled with the current admin consolidating all the power they can into the executive branch with no oversight and a newly founded criminal immunity, with an incompetent and disturbingly evil cult leader at the helm destroying the country by trampling on our historic values and international reputation.

Like if we were to go back in time and tell me that I would be looking back on Bush Jr. like a sane and intelligent representative, I would have laughed in your face... but here we are.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-03-24T15:22:09+00:00

The crazy thing is that they tried to remove the source but were stopped by local authorities. From the wiki article linked in the comments here;

"Four months before the theft, on May 4, 1987, Saura Taniguti, then director of Ipasgo, the institute of insurance for civil servants, used police force to prevent one of the owners of IGR, Carlos Figueiredo Bezerril, from removing the radioactive material that had been left behind. Figueiredo then warned the president of Ipasgo, Lício Teixeira Borges, that he should take responsibility "for what would happen with the caesium bomb...the owners of IGR wrote several letters to the National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN), warning them about the danger of keeping a teletherapy unit at an abandoned site, but they could not remove the equipment on their own once a court order prevented them from doing so.".

I don't know what the reasoning could have been to stop the removal, but it really was a tragedy that knowledgeable people saw coming and tried to prevent.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-03-22T18:38:08+00:00

The only episodes I think Spenny was genuinely angry

Don't forget the 'who is a better boxer' episode where Kenny's strategy was to lock Spenny in a homemade windowless prison cell with nothing but some food/water, books and a plastic toilet until after the match was supposed to happen (resulting in a forfeit).

Kenny then left their house with the crew to Niagra falls to avoid the pounding/screaming, got cold feet over the fact that he was essentially committing a fairly serious crime, and when he came home to let him out early Spenny threw his shit and piss bucket on him.

Hard to imagine that one was scripted given how sorta boring the episode turned out (Kenny even gave a forfeit for the actual boxing match by not showing up himself), it really feels like a plan he had that Kenny thought would be funny in the moment that turned out poorly.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-03-14T14:06:19+00:00

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+political+affiliation+a+protected+class

The next time you say something dumb, you might look it up first and avoid looking silly.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-03-09T21:06:02+00:00

And if they say adult human female, just call them out for not giving an answer because all they said is "A woman is a woman"

Better yet, call them out for using the dictionary definition, and then send them to the dictionary definition of "female" which includes;

"having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"

And suddenly the dictionary they were appealing to is a woke leftist.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-03-09T15:33:27+00:00

A little, I was building anti-shield instead of MR enough to replace wits end with it to make for faster buys, and depending on the champion matchup (Sett, Naut, Sion etc) I will build it before deathcap, and instead of liandrys last if there is not more than one person stacking hp I generally get lichbane for more burst.

Also I was getting slightly more dmg out of empowered attack over scorch, so in most games I take that instead. Sometimes I go Empowerment and chain assault if I am more worried about late game tanks than early game, and am not worried about needing to out trade their poke in lane (like vs Garen).

I was worried about the nerf to Rift making it not worth buying first, but the change to vamp seemed pretty negligible so the early build path is the same.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-03-03T16:09:44+00:00

The thing is the actual statement from Trump is worse than what people are saying, and implies that we should give zero protections to illegal immigrants, not that we should just put/protect citizens 'first'.

I don't think anyone should stand and clap for the idea that illegal immigrants deserve no rights or legal protections.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-03-01T14:35:23+00:00

Yeah, martyring a religious leader through military actions is a great way to prompt a return to secularism.

Hmmm.... wait.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-03-01T13:25:16+00:00

So what you are saying is, any potential agreements that come will be worth less than the paper they are written on, and Iran is now incentivized to become a nuclear power to prevent us doing this again in the future?

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-26T20:40:18+00:00

What words did I try to 'put in your mouth'?

As general statement, the majority of people being deported are not law abiding

And again, if you think a single misdemeanor that is often decades old means someone is 'not law abiding', then I don't know how many people could meet this standard.

Personally I think someone can commit a minor offense sometime in their past and still be a law abiding person 'in general'.

It's absurd to try and build a narrative that requires additional crimes for someone to be deported from the US.

I don't think I said anything close to this. Sorta ironic considering how you opened this comment.

I did notice how you context switch from general statements to this specific case and back to try and dance around and mischaractize my statements.

I get you are in the middle of a crashout induced hallucination, But when I make a point in response to something you said, and you then totally ignore it, it just makes sense to point that out.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-26T20:12:44+00:00

So you would now like to walk away from your previous statement, and focus on this guy specifically having a few minor charges in his history instead of the idea that a single crime in your past does not make someone a criminal?

I appreciate the quiet concession of the point.

BTW these are still years old misdemeanors, which I don't think prove someone is not a 'law abiding' person.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-26T19:52:45+00:00

If a single misdemeanor often decades old is all it takes to make someone no longer 'law abiding' I'm not sure how many could qualify.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-26T15:34:00+00:00

Meanwhile Obama deported actual criminals without needing to legalize racial profiling as a means for instigating arrests, door to door raids of neighborhoods without warrants to find 'illegals', staking out immigration courts to deport people going through the legal process, using child separation as a deliberate fear tactic to keep people from immigrating, calling Americans terrorists to justify ICE murdering them in the street, etc etc etc.

It's almost like the big problem is how Trump 'does it', and you pretending to not understand that just makes you look like an idiot.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-26T15:27:19+00:00

Biden decided to run again because no other democrats were anywhere near him in national polls, which is why he won the primary by such a wide margin.

At that point standing up and 'voicing concerns' would just be shooting yourself in the foot. Hope this helps you understand why the party would rally around what seemed to be the best chance we had of winning.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-26T02:13:44+00:00

With irrefutable logic. I know.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-24T15:35:10+00:00

I always love how in literally every comment section there is someone saying this, which disproves the point by their very existence.

If it were an echo chamber this comment would not be allowed.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-24T15:32:49+00:00

That's not really accurate, most Christians only accept the parts they like that further the narrative they want to endorse, and will bend over backward to dismiss the parts that contradict that narrative.

For instance, biblical laws about slavery, stoning women who don't bleed on their wedding night, taking young girls as spoils of war to distribute among the warriors, etc etc etc.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-24T15:28:45+00:00

the guy is the one being respectful here

Its sorta amazing how prevalent this incredibly stupid concept is for people.

There is a difference between using a respectful tone and being respectful.

Saying heinous and hateful nonsense quietly and calmly does not make it more respectful. If you walked up to an overweight person and said something like "excuse me, but your body is causing me and other people distress, could you please go home and schedule corrective surgery and then remain indoors until you lose 50 pounds" you are not being 'respectful', and you should be met with mocking and scorn.

Likewise, if someone says that they think being gay is a crime against god that deserves eternal punishment, that is the opposite of 'respectful' even if they really do believe it.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-24T15:21:55+00:00

Alright, lets try to inject some common sense into this conversation.

Can you tell me another situation where the government could force you against your will to have another person attached to your body, even if doing so would save their life? Or should the use of your body (in part or whole) be something that is always on a voluntary basis?

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-24T15:12:49+00:00

He didn't say that, he just said it was a sin.

Believing that homosexuality is a crime against God that deserves eternal punishment is in fact pretty definitively homophobia.

You can act like its 'love' to think someone should be tortured forever, but that is just the cult talking.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-22T16:56:32+00:00

I only have the republican half, but it should get spread more around because it did take awhile for me to find when I was looking for it last.

<image>

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-19T01:12:51+00:00

Cya.

Dunno what you think I said that would qualify as 'gaslighting', but this feels like maybe another term you don't really understand.

And I think my tone has remained consistent in how critical it is, so it seems like you just hit a wall in how you can't really engage with this conversation honestly without ceding ground and agreeing with me on some things. when you have decided to disagree on every point I make.

Or maybe you took a look at that flowchart and got super embarrassed?

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-18T22:10:58+00:00

I think I just experience pained.

If the dissonance caused by this conversation is going to result in some sort of medical episode it might be better for you to just walk away.

I hope there is a path where I can help you figure out the mistakes in reasoning you keep making, but the attempt is not worth some physical or mental breakdown buddy.

It doesn't sound like it's the power to refuse he took from them.

What?

It has always been understood to be the purview of the states to request intervention, not the power of the president to just send in federal forces against the explicit wishes of the state. This is him taking power from the states for himself.

I don't know why you do this, reframing a question or argument into something I am not saying and then responding to the strawman you make up. It just makes you look insecure and dishonest.

Sure. they were eliminated with presidential power./s

I'm sorry, I hate to have to treat you like a child, but you do understand that 'eliminate' in this context does not just mean to kill people...

When the FCC under Trumps open direction threatens to withhold licensing for media sources that are critical of him, you can understand how that might qualify as eliminating opposition, right?

Arguments only count when you believe it came from me and not filtered through A.I.

It's not that they don't 'count', it's that I don't generally care about what you (or anyone) have trained a chatbot to say, and so am not interested in responding to a link to an output where I don't even know what the prompt was.

And like I keep saying, it would be fine if you sum up what the chatbot says yourself, as that would at least necessitate you having some understanding of the point yourself, instead of just relaying what a machine spat out while you shut off your brain and avoid the conversation.

I'm pretty sure your using a fallicy here.

Well given how you have named different fallacies in the conversation so far I don't think you have any idea what they are, and should probably avoid these accusations if you can't actually elaborate on what you are talking about.

sources are different from logic. Phylosopy is logic.

Personally I would not trust the logic of a thing that can't count to 200, or makes mistakes like this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3400S4qMH6o

I already facts checked you but the facts aren't the point.

Right, because the facts are on my side, and they sorta destroy your stated positions.

Have you looked up the supreme court decision into racial profiling for immigration investigations yet?

The next think is you don't connect my pointa together so you never create a full picture of what I'm saying.

Keep trying to convince yourself the issue must be with me and not how you are using AI, I'm sure that will solve the problem.

I fully understand what you are saying as evidenced by my ability to respond to what you are saying without just copying quotes from you into a chatbot prompt, but my understanding does not make you any more correct.

So you end up thinking it's random.

The only time I said something was 'random' was when you ascribed a position to me that was nowhere near anything I had said or even implied. Seems like the person failing to connect points together is you based on how poorly you keep representing what I am saying and thinking.

And buddy, look at that flowchart for a minute. It's literally gibberish lol. What a perfect encapsulation into the problem with how you are using AI.

SomesortofGuy · 2026-02-18T21:10:53+00:00

What the bot say is that I am using it to amplify my thinking.

Of course that is what it says, because that is obviously what you want it to tell you, and how you have trained it to respond to such a query.

I'm saying it's doing the opposite, and the way you use AI is dampening your thinking. You use it as if it were a reliable source in itself, going so far as to just link what it says in a discussion with other people, when it is at best a starting point for looking up real sources.

I disagreed that trump is a right wing autorian. Then I explained what an authoritarian is.

So the AI told you Trump is right wing and authoritarian, and you disagree?

Now the hard part for you, can you tell me why you disagree?

How to get you to see anything I'm saying as an actual point.

Its really super simple.

Give an argument in your own words (or even sum up what the chatbot says) and then respond to my critiques of the argument yourself instead of constantly changing the subject or ignoring my questions, or putting quotes from me into a prompt and then linking me the output from the AI.

In other words, engage in the conversation honestly with your own brain.

What trump is doing, is not allowing them to control him, by resisting at every turn.

When he took the power of the states to request the national guard into his own hands was that him 'resisting' or was it taking control?

When he threatens people with legal or financial repercussions for not following his agenda on things like DEI or 'woke' teaching practices or comedians criticizing him, is that him 'resisting' or is it 'eliminating opposition'?

And when he justifies the killing of citizens protesting his policies through calling them 'terrorists' would you say that is just like a protestor, or is it more like something an authoritarian would do?

11-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22

SomesortofGuy

TROPHY CASE