The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

When feminists and liberal men disagree, this means liberal men are thinking with their dicks.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Prostitution is one of those issues where people are stuck in an irrational mindset due to tradition and other things. Prostitution being illegal hurts prostitutes more than anyone else. The only reason prostitutes are dependent on abusive pimps is because prostitution is illegal. The oft suggested idea of only arresting pimps and johns (aside from making no legal or moral sense) doesn't fix this since prostitution would still be an illicit business in that scenario and they would still need pimps to "push" for them and get their clients in a lot of cases. If it were legal they could work independently and easily advertise like any other business (especially in the age of the internet) or work at a heavily regulated legal brothel. If you're actually interested in what's best for sex workers this is the best scenario.

The reasons people oppose legal prostitution are-

A.- Traditional Western/Christian morality (why conservatives oppose it) backed up by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual gibberish about "culture rot"

B.- Women with cuckold (or I guess cuckqueen) anxieties who subconsciously think their husbands/boyfriends will got out and screw a bunch of prostitutes if it's legal. Men's sexual anxieties/insecurities/frustration have been oft discussed as having an effect on their political beliefs (see Dr. Strangelove, or posts in this thread) so this is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

It's actually not a terrible post that makes good (if albeit somewhat crude) points until it gets to that last paragraph.

I second that motion.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I think this is entirely accurate. We need to do everything we can to avoid this nightmare.

This is why the War on Terror has been a bad idea from the start. Just like the War on Drugs. It creates a breeding ground for authoritarians.

But that's no excuse for anyone to actively support someone who says they will be a dictator.

I'll agree with the first paragraph.

The second part of this is a stretch.  We survived Nixon, and Hillary is far more Nixonian than Trump.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This should be a wake up call to all renegade Republicans to flock to Trump and help prevent this wicked witch of the east from becoming the next president.

If they fail to do it, they will have no one but themselves to blame for their own ruin.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Too many people take our federal republic, democratic institutions, and our status as a free, self-governing people for granted, it seems.  We have long forgotten what it was like to be ruled by despots....  

We will remember that, if Clinton wins.

Only if Hillary is elected we will sink into anarchy. If the chief executive is someone who is breaking the law how can they enforce it?

I need to up my standards for posts that belong in the bad post gallery. This is from like 5 minutes browsing the 2016 board.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

oops wrong gallary. This one is funny.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Snow becomes a man again and chooses Mike Lee for the male name.  Snow/Lee also gets the ballot changed to read Mike Lee (Republican).  Then, people have no idea how to vote, and Snow/Lee happens to win by 20 votes by pure chance.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I hope all the white hicks on Obamacare who voted for Trump get a serious illness and go bankrupt.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

If the 2008 primaries had been as rigged as the 2016 ones, there wouldn't have been a President Obama.

Truest statement I've seen in awhile.

Both of them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

"Pro-business" means you want government to put its finger on the scale. That is neither conservative nor consistent with true free market individualism.

No it means you are promoting innovation , job creation , and a better economy in general. 

Small Business is responsible for nearly all economic growth in this country not the government . The only way that is possible is to deregulate and reduce taxes for small business which by the way is a pro business policy. But im sure you wont understand that knowing you think Carter was a better president then Reagan

Good job posting into the thread itself.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

"Pro-business" means you want government to put its finger on the scale. That is neither conservative nor consistent with true free market individualism.

No it means you are promoting innovation , job creation , and a better economy in general. 

Small Business is responsible for nearly all economic growth in this country not the government . The only way that is possible is to deregulate and reduce taxes for small business which by the way is a pro business policy. But im sure you wont understand that knowing you think Carter was a better president then Reagan

This is what I am talking about when I claim that conservatism is basically a feeling, not an ideology.

A trump supporter criticizing ideological incoherence and stances determined by gut feeling. The total lack of self awareness is breathtaking.

The post is good, the overwhelming hypocrisy doesn't at all invalidate that.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

"Pro-business" means you want government to put its finger on the scale. That is neither conservative nor consistent with true free market individualism.

No it means you are promoting innovation , job creation , and a better economy in general. 

Small Business is responsible for nearly all economic growth in this country not the government . The only way that is possible is to deregulate and reduce taxes for small business which by the way is a pro business policy. But im sure you wont understand that knowing you think Carter was a better president then Reagan

This is what I am talking about when I claim that conservatism is basically a feeling, not an ideology.

A trump supporter criticizing ideological incoherence and stances determined by gut feeling. The total lack of self awareness is breathtaking.

The post is good, the overwhelming hypocrisy doesn't at all invalidate that.

Uh, sure it does...

No, it doesn't. What matters is what is said, not who says it.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

"Pro-business" means you want government to put its finger on the scale. That is neither conservative nor consistent with true free market individualism.

No it means you are promoting innovation , job creation , and a better economy in general. 

Small Business is responsible for nearly all economic growth in this country not the government . The only way that is possible is to deregulate and reduce taxes for small business which by the way is a pro business policy. But im sure you wont understand that knowing you think Carter was a better president then Reagan

This is what I am talking about when I claim that conservatism is basically a feeling, not an ideology.

A trump supporter criticizing ideological incoherence and stances determined by gut feeling. The total lack of self awareness is breathtaking.

The post is good, the overwhelming hypocrisy doesn't at all invalidate that.

You want evidence that a free market economic does better then a government run economy , just look at the US vs the Soviet Union during the cold war. The US had a much stronger economy due to thriving business .

That's not the point. We know that. Even most leftists admit that Soviet style communism wasn't efficient. But you're only making a technical case, not a case why capitalism/free market is the moral alternative.

There only needs a technical case

There's a hell of a lot of area in between reaganism and full on Marxism.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I would like to congratulate the Republicans for making such an excellent choice in their nominee, from their deep bench of 17 candidates. Great job!

Pubs tend to always choose the most electable nominee. Not so with Dems.

Actually yes, Trump was the most electable one. Guys like Rubio or Kasich were good on paper only.

Lol Kasich would have won by 12 points and an electoral college landslide

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I think the sassy chip in the Jerrybot is malfunctioning. Better call Apple.

Or it's finals week and I really don't have time for racists like you or douchbags like Cathcon.

Why not spend your free time somewhere other then Atlas? The world won't end if you leave for a week.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I think the sassy chip in the Jerrybot is malfunctioning. Better call Apple.

Or it's finals week and I really don't have time for racists like you or douchbags like Cathcon.

Not familiar with traditional spelling, but I believe it's "douchebag".

In all honesty, sounds like stress is getting the best of you.

Yeah his posts sound like my mother at the peak of her alcoholism right before she'd start screaming and slapping me in the Publix checkout line.

You really have had a sh**t life haven't you.  is that why you have to troll.  To get the attention that you always needed as a child?

Oh just ing shut up

Seriously. I'm typing this 5:40 my time because I have a really early class. Why are you up at 5(your tme)

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Can everyone stop bickering and return to adding bad posts from other threads to the gallary?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Context: Opinion of Pat McCrory

Massive FF (Pro-LGBT R but not a one-issue voter)

How is that a bad post?

The mans' defining achievement is making life miserable for members of the LGBTQ+ community. Calling him a good person is not pro lgbtq+.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Natural selection is eugenics. We just need to stop leftist attempts to redefine strong as weak and beautiful as ugly.

Quite ironic given the implicit leftist endorsement of positive eugenics (at least for such valued traits as promiscuity and indolence)

Not leaving people to starve in the streets for being worthless lazy sluts or the children thereof='positive eugenics,' apparently. Slink off back to /pol/ where you belong, fash.

I would think that taxing those that are better able to plan for the future to fund those that cannot (and providing more money for each additional kid) is the very essence of "encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits"

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'm really not hateful on the inside. It's just that when I'm unmedicated, some things make more sense than they should. Especially as someone with an IQ of 122.

Bragging about having a high IQ on the internet is always suspicious.

... 122 IQ is not very impressive.

Oh God, another one.

That's 15th percentile.

Thank you for posting directly into the thread.

115-129 is 15th percentile, as shown here.

Again, thank you for posting directly into the thread.

Thank you for being so clever as to post directly into the thread.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Ok, can we just shut this thread down? all that seems to happen is people getting insulted and bullied for no reason now.

How about creating a new gallary?

EDIT: I think I might start working on that.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The Democrats' near absolute worst case scenario is a 54-46 R Senate(Heitkamp and one of McCaskill or Donnelly loses). Their likely absolute worst is a pickup in NV being offset by a loss in ND.

2022 has at least ten potential D pickups.

No, not really...

Totally agree. And how the hell does New Freaking Hampshire flip before Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, and even Oregon?

All in the stack except Kingpoleon.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The Democrats' near absolute worst case scenario is a 54-46 R Senate(Heitkamp and one of McCaskill or Donnelly loses). Their likely absolute worst is a pickup in NV being offset by a loss in ND.

2022 has at least ten potential D pickups.

No, not really...

Totally agree. And how the hell does New Freaking Hampshire flip before Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, and even Oregon?

All in the stack except Kingpoleon.

lmao. Delusional.

Please do not put bad posts directly into the Landfill.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The Democrats' near absolute worst case scenario is a 54-46 R Senate(Heitkamp and one of McCaskill or Donnelly loses). Their likely absolute worst is a pickup in NV being offset by a loss in ND.

2022 has at least ten potential D pickups.

No, not really...

Totally agree. And how the hell does New Freaking Hampshire flip before Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, and even Oregon?

All in the stack except Kingpoleon.

lmao. Delusional.

BTW you're right. Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, and Oregon flipping before New Hampshire is delusional.