Merriam-Webster Word of the Year 2017

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You said he wasn't harmed, I was replying that I do think he has been harmed (although not by me, despite your pronoun usage).

youre missing the point of the words though sorry, cant keep this up! but you're still wrong! and actually greedy and evil for your belifes are grounded in good intentions, like those men that built the atom bomb... they just happened to extinguish the lives of millions of innocent people in the process.

oh yea and their invention has put us at great risk and damaged the world in irreparable ways forthwith.. so will modern western feminism.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by hyejin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

woke

threw up please excuse me

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure LCK isn't exactly loving life right now ...

the man has a humiliation fetish. he's said so himself, repeatedly. losing status and being told he's bad and wrong is prime jackoff material for LCK.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the man has a humiliation fetish. he's said so himself, repeatedly. losing status and being told he's bad and wrong is prime jackoff material for LCK.

exactly why I agree he is loving life and he will be fine, and he will be back on top in 4 years, just watch.

meanwhile all the people that worked for him that lost their jobs, libtards are like "THOSE ARE ACCEPTABLE LOSSES FOR OUR PETTY NON PERMANENT OUTRAGE"

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

youre missing the point of the words though sorry, cant keep this up! but you're still wrong! and actually greedy and evil for your belifes are grounded in good intentions, like those men that built the atom bomb... they just happened to extinguish the lives of millions of innocent people in the process.

oh yea and their invention has put us at great risk and damaged the world in irreparable ways forthwith.. so will modern western feminism.

Wow, it's not often that I find myself arguing against a conservative on the side of causing military casualties! But you're taking a very narrow view if you think the atom bomb only cost the lives of the people of Hiroshima/Nagasaki with no benefit. Had we not dropped the bomb we still would have won the war, but both sides would have lost a ton more people (more than the bombs took).

And that's just USA vs. Japan ... when Japan wasn't even our real audience, the USSR was. Without the atom bomb it's very likely that WW3, between us and the commies, would have followed not too long after WW2. The only reason we had the cold war instead (which certainly cost lives, but nowhere near as many as a "hot" war) was because of the atom bomb.

(And even with it we still almost had WW3 anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)

Oh and women getting equal treatment under the law to men is going to "ruin the world"? That's like 1940's thinking, but keep pushing it, I'm sure it's popularity will only grow [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.].

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wow, it's not often that I find myself arguing against a conservative on the side of causing military casualties! But you're taking a very narrow view if you think the atom bomb only cost the lives of the people of Hiroshima/Nagasaki with no benefit. Had we not dropped the bomb we still would have won the war, but both sides would have lost a ton more people (more than the bombs took).

And that's just USA vs. Japan ... when Japan wasn't even our real audience, the USSR was. Without the atom bomb it's very likely that WW3, between us and the commies, would have followed not too long after WW2. The only reason we had the cold war instead (which certainly cost lives, but nowhere near as many as a "hot" war) was because of the atom bomb.

(And even with it we still almost had WW3 anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)

Oh and women getting equal treatment under the law to men is going to "ruin the world"? Hyperbolize much?

Except that Stalin never wanted to export the revolution and china was against the USSR for a very long time

Also, MAD applied without a demonstration on cities

Finally, Russia, like the soviets before them, could never match western economics and needed nukes to even the stakes. In short, stick to arguments about feminism

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that Stalin never wanted to export the revolution and china was against the USSR for a very long time

Also, MAD applied without a demonstration on cities

Finally, Russia, like the soviets before them, could never match western economics and needed nukes to even the stakes. In short, stick to arguments about feminism

So are you arguing the cold war didn't happen? Because I'm pretty sure it did. And again, without the bomb it would not have been "cold" at all. As I said, the fact that we very nearly had WW3 even with the bomb just shows how willing the countries involved were to battle each other.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So are you arguing the cold war didn't happen? Because I'm pretty sure it did. And again, without the bomb it would not have been "cold" at all. As I said, the fact that we very nearly had WW3 even with the bomb just shows how willing the countries involved were.

The Cold War would've always been cold

The USSR didn't even have china as an ally and couldn't hope to possibly win an all out conflict with the west

Nukes gave the soviets staying power. So did oil. They've never actually had anything to offer. Cold War would've happened because of natural disagreements between the two preeminent powers given that there were no natural agreements between the two. Even without nukes, why would the soviets risk a war with the US by invading Europe? Maybe they could win, but it's doubtful. In the long run, they were fucked, just as in the long run Russia is pretty fucked today

Nukes keep India and Pakistan from all our war. They prevented nothing between the soviets and NATO, assuming you grant Russians the capacity for rational self interest. Also, you argued that dropping the bombs on Japan was needed to demonstrate our nuclear arsenal. You think a test on a deserted island in the pacific wouldn't mean as much? Human beings didn't need to be incinerated to prove a point.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You think a test on a deserted island in the pacific wouldn't mean as much? Human beings didn't need to be incinerated to prove a point.

I think you and I have a very different perspective on human nature. I 100% disagree that bombing a random island has the same effect as bombing a bunch of people. Now I understand how that's a completely irrational statement: either way you demonstrate your bomb right? But the thing is, humanity is not a rational species, and we react (strongly) to seeing massive numbers of other humans die.

[fash]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Last I checked most Jews were white.

As an Ashkenazi Jew, I take personal offense to your attempt to victimize Jews with your European and Western imperialism. How dare you say something so anti-Semitic!

One is Jewish, not because of religion, but because he is born into the Nation of Israel, a tribe that originates in Judea. Even genetic studies show the tribe's origin is in the Middle East, and in spite of white admixture, they are similar to other Jews (especially Sephardi Jews), Lebanese Arabs, and Palestinians.

Those who wish to deny this for political reasons are no different than holocaust deniers and are spreading propaganda in an attempt to colonizing the chosen people's ancient middle eastern tribal identity.

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But more importantly that is clearly a biased list, as I don't see lots of recent accusations. For instance:

• Blake Farenthold (Texas Congressman, white)
• Morgan Spurlock (Movie Director, white)
• Tavis Smiley (Host on PBS, black)
• NFL Network Analysts Marshall Faulk, Ike Taylor and Heath Evans (Black, Black, White)

Finding those took like 2 minutes of Googling. I'm sure I, or whoever compiled that list, could easily have found a ton more ... if they weren't specifically trying to compile a list that made Jews look bad that is.

Oops. It misses a couple recent ones because it isn't a recent list.

6th grade algebra pop quiz: How many more goyim would you have to add to that list of 36 Jews outed by #MeToo in order to reduce that 74% Jewish proportion down to 2% in order to be commensurate with the 2% of the US population that is Jewish? Where my autistes at?