Takerial Posts
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
animefreak_usa wrote...
6/2(1+2)=96/2(3)
3*3
amiright?
3-4(5*4)=-77
3-4(20)
3-80
Yeah, it's 9 and always will be 9.
But so many people are convince it's 1.
I guess they never learned in school that multiplication and division are the same function, same as addition and subtraction.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
https://www.popsugar.com/tech/Viral-YouTube-Math-Problem-43172557
Until you go to a comments and see more than a handful of people convinced that the answer is really one.
How are people failing at such a level?
Until you go to a comments and see more than a handful of people convinced that the answer is really one.
How are people failing at such a level?
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Cruz wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Cruz wrote...
Apparently she's worth 20 Million, as far as comedians go, that's pretty good. I'm all for freedom of speech but that was a pretty edgy gag so complaining about the negative response is stupid. If you're going to do something controversial at least stick to your guns instead of crying and complaining about people no longer wanting to associate with you. I think the term for her behavior is crybully and it's absolutely pathetic.
I hope she has that 20 million in tangible assets.
Cause her intangible assets are going to take a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig drop.
Ah, who am I kidding.
I hope she goes fucking broke for this.
She probably will lose business and venues for her stand up comedy but it doesn't mean matter to me if nothing really changes for her. It's just another edgy joke that shouldn't mean anything to anyone except the for those who feed of outrage culture.
The main issues with the whole thing is first, she's trying to play the victim in the whole thing now. Being sorry just because people are mad at you doesn't make you a victim and if she's trying to sue or something since she has a lawyer she is trying to set an extremely dangerous precedent.
The other main issue is that comedians like her think that anything is fine to make as a joke.
Too many don't realize the difference between the idea that any topic is fair game for making a joke versus any joke is fair game.
The former is true, the latter is not.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
animefreak_usa wrote...
Spoiler:
I must admit.
This shit made me laugh pretty hard.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Cruz wrote...
Apparently she's worth 20 Million, as far as comedians go, that's pretty good. I'm all for freedom of speech but that was a pretty edgy gag so complaining about the negative response is stupid. If you're going to do something controversial at least stick to your guns instead of crying and complaining about people no longer wanting to associate with you. I think the term for her behavior is crybully and it's absolutely pathetic.
I hope she has that 20 million in tangible assets.
Cause her intangible assets are going to take a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig drop.
Ah, who am I kidding.
I hope she goes fucking broke for this.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
animefreak_usa wrote...
Meh. Who cares. Wanker being wankers.I would say it was one of the most amazing cases of career suicide I've ever seen.
If I could bring myself to call what she had a career.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Was to go "Wait, she was still getting work?"
I'm absolutely baffled she was someone that even had a slight bit of relevance still.
I'm absolutely baffled she was someone that even had a slight bit of relevance still.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Manes wrote...
All the manga you post is shit, for the last four years I remember.Ah well, at least there's no more Shinji Ex.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Has some brolove in it yo.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
animefreak_usa wrote...
Takerial wrote...
animefreak_usa wrote...
623 wrote...
animefreak_usa wrote...
Gravity cat wrote...
luckydog001 wrote...
>victim blaming
She filed a complaint because she saw a single beastiality/rape doujin and received backlash. Apparently that's "victim blaming". Fucking SJWs.
I don't think we have beast. Only one one site is the futa masturbation one and the dog just touches her wee wee.. not sex.
I honestly can't think of anything that would have been at AX last year and being sold at the table that would have looked like horse rape on the cover. Also, lol, didn't Fakku have a tent at AX? That means the other person in the twitter convo would have had to have gone in to have seen that "horse rape" book.
Still begs the question of what the fuck is the horse rape book. Bestiary is only digital.
Was there any monster based hentai at that time?
Like something involving ogres or minotaurs?
Only physcial monster girl or monster anything is the oni mother and daughter and they're in moonrunes.
*shrugs*
Maybe Jacob was wearing his horse head.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
animefreak_usa wrote...
623 wrote...
animefreak_usa wrote...
Gravity cat wrote...
luckydog001 wrote...
>victim blaming
She filed a complaint because she saw a single beastiality/rape doujin and received backlash. Apparently that's "victim blaming". Fucking SJWs.
I don't think we have beast. Only one one site is the futa masturbation one and the dog just touches her wee wee.. not sex.
I honestly can't think of anything that would have been at AX last year and being sold at the table that would have looked like horse rape on the cover. Also, lol, didn't Fakku have a tent at AX? That means the other person in the twitter convo would have had to have gone in to have seen that "horse rape" book.
Still begs the question of what the fuck is the horse rape book. Bestiary is only digital.
Was there any monster based hentai at that time?
Like something involving ogres or minotaurs?
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
It was as shitty as I imagined.
Guy watches his mom die and he's like "Aw man, no. That's not cool."
Random gay couplization.
And to top it all off. This wonderfully huge plot hole.
So, it apparently took 20 years to get the distress signal.
But when the Queen dies, they instantly know and retrieve the ship.
What?
And if their plan was to harvest the core.
Then where was the core harvester in the last movie? Like where was it?
Guy watches his mom die and he's like "Aw man, no. That's not cool."
Random gay couplization.
And to top it all off. This wonderfully huge plot hole.
So, it apparently took 20 years to get the distress signal.
But when the Queen dies, they instantly know and retrieve the ship.
What?
And if their plan was to harvest the core.
Then where was the core harvester in the last movie? Like where was it?
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
That's some mighty fine low expectations there.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
You talk about state pride like it's some toxic force as opposed to nationalism.
Caring about your immediate community is altruism, caring about people thousands of Kilometers is just being pathological altruism. That's why there's a clear distinction between your local representatives, your state representatives and those which represent/serve you at a federal level. Otherwise, I who lived in the most populated state, would subject almost everyone who doesn't live in my state to be beliefs despite never even being to the places where I'm passing laws.
I don't know why this is difficult for anyone to grasp, but then I forget you're you.
If it were up to me we'd be a confederate akin Switzerland.
I never compared the two in terms of toxicity, they're both bad, but eliminating one would be one less problem to worry about in terms of pseudo altruism. When I say pseudo, I mean its false on the grounds that there's a catch. Typical altruism is where you do something positive for someone unconditionally. The altruism you're refering to has conditions: It has to be in the same region/community in order for you to care about it. That's why it's important to get rid of state pride and combine all the states into one. You're just left with national altruism which is still pseudo altruism, but it's better than having two. You're argument is based on the current model of how things are done. If we assume the direct democracy model was put into practice, then there wouldn't be a need for Presidents or state representatives. It would just be the people working together to make life better for themselves. That's how I think it should be.
Caring about your local community/state is not bad. You can't eliminate the term. You can't put in a system in place that recognizes differences without given them some sovereignty otherwise you'd end up with a state with undefined powers, an identity crisis and mass contempt (Like the EU).
>that's how I think it should be
Again, it's still mob rule.
Are you implying the EU is in bad shape because it doesn't have as many divided states as the US? Also, if you're so certain "mob rule" would ruin the country, then why the hell are "mobs" allowed to vote for a leader responsible for the well being of the country? Anyway I try to slice it, your reasoning just doesn't make sense. I'll agree to disagree on the pseudo altruism aspect of caring for one's community/state.
>doesn't know what I'm talking about in regards to the EU
>mobs vote for the leader and not the electorate.
Holy shit, you're actually serious.
I'm genuinely glad you get no real say in how any system works when you're so ignorant to your own.
Dude. There's no point in trying to argue with him. I think he's legit retarded.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
FinalBoss wrote...
Takerial wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
1)What is your opinion of the presidency?A president to a republic is absolutely necessary, as to maintain the check and balances of the system. But the balance largely favors the executive branch because of the Bush and Obama administrations. Every couple years, people look for justifications to give it more power and by pass the legislative branch. Obama pretty much had the power to go to war without actually having to declare war.
2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?
No, fuck off with your direct democracy bullshit. Also having citizens have to take some test is no different than post Civil War (and later Jim Crow era) literacy test. The system was ripe for the "ruling class" to abuse & disenfranchise the poor, the disabled and marginalized.
3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?
"Drain the swamp". I don't think Trump will be the one to do that though, but as the political left keeps doubling down on their stupid race/gender rhetoric, they will lose more power and elections. Perhaps then actual liberals and libertarians will challenge the conservatives and try to put the system of checks and balances back in order. Putting draconian limits on the those running for congress on what they can earn and receive, with term limits should also be considered.
Okay, I understand your concerns with citizens needing to take a test, but what is wrong with direct democracy in general? Care to elaborate your concerns in that regard?
As for draining the swamp as a solution to giving citizens more power, I disagree. All it does is give us more power to elect honest politicians to do the dirty work for us, which is lazy.
It essential says that rights and laws don't come from principle but on whatever whims some of the most populated states have. It will more than likely just cause secession everywhere, or keep people more divided.
>draining the swamp is lazy
No. The united states is a representative republic. Voting for the right representative and making your concerns known is already every citizens responsibility.
Like I originally stated, the citizens won't come up with the laws and pass them. Congress will come up with the bills and citizens will vote on which ones get passed. If economical statistics show something doesn't work, then congress can propose another bill that will appeal the last bill and people can vote on that. You say this system will keep people more divided, but you don't really know that for sure, it's just a baseless hypothesis. Majority of people want better education for their kids, a strong economy, equal rights, etc. As for your previous statement regarding the requirement of a test to vote, I forgot to mention that the educational courses needed to pass such test should be free and available in paperback and digital formats. So its not like the requirement can't be fulfilled by your average joe. And to solve the highly populated states voting problem, we should just combine all 50 states into one. Its labels that divide people. Combine the states and that's one less thing people have to concern themselves with (aside from the city they dwell in). Nationalism is already a problem for us, we don't need to be divided by state anymore. I'm aware we have different states because we have different laws based on the area, but nothing is absolute in that regard.
I already know what the U.S is based on. Citizens are pretty much powerless when it comes to this system, that's why I proposed the idea in the OP. Protesting and other methods that try to reach out to the government rarely does anything.
No, I'm saying direct democracy will divide us further. The US a representative democracy because it's made of states, not a single populace. Removing the function of states will only lead the end of the union. You say that nationalism is a problem yet you suggest the most nationalist thing ever.
Also people already have the ability to propose/suggest laws to their local and state representatives.
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
Who would you rather perform a surgery on you.
The highly trained doctor who studied intensely for years to do said thing.
Or some guy in a back alley who once read a book that mention the surgery once and assures you that is enough to know what needs to happen.
That's why your idea is retarded.
The problem isn't the style of government.
It's the fact that the various branches were allowed to remove or bypass a lot of the checks of power that were there previously over time. This allowed for more corruption to enter in and slowly over time it's created this kind of stalemate of power were no one wants to actually get anything done for fear of costing what particular brand of corruption they get money from their power.
Hence the need to 'drain the swamp'. It's the reset the checks in place and to get rid of the corruption which is the main reason that nothing is getting done.
Not a very good analogy. unlike a surgeon, any average joe can become President so long as they fit the criteria. I'm just saying cut that part of the system and allow the people to vote for which bills go into effect directly. The president is supposed to represent the majority anyways in terms of virtues, but oftentimes they fail to meet up to the people's expectations. We keep saying drain the swamp, drain the swamp, but how are we supposed to do that without power?
You apparently don't understand analogies very well.
My analogy wasn't suggesting it wasn't possible for an average joe to become President. Though the actual possibility is nonexistent because of obvious reasons.
My analogy was suggesting you wouldn't want the super unqualified person who would be retarded about it to take it. You would want the super qualified person to take it.
So you're suggesting that we need power to drain the swamp and you have an issue with that.
But, where exactly do we get this power to enact your retarded idea? I'm pretty sure it would take a lot less power to drain the swamp than to enact your retarded idea.
You're shit at arguing.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Huh.
I didn't even notice this thread until now.
Neat.
The thing about what you posted, if it's verifiable, is that it only points to a lot of the underlying fact of there is something very wrong going on in Sweden.
Groups like that only become powerful, become emboldened enough to pull off stunts like that if there is a very real sense of fear in the general population.
In the very least, people in Sweden are become very scared of the immigration issue.
Sure, their politicians and many of their reporters talk about immigration not being an issue. But those same people live in areas where immigration is not an issue, as in there are none.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3022743/sweden-malmo-immigration-nigel-farage-ylva-johansson-rape-statistics-u-turn/
And their politicians have been caught trying to diminish and hide the problems. Their government sponsored website "clears" up misconception about Sweden despite studies that aren't ran by the Government suggesting otherwise.
I didn't even notice this thread until now.
Neat.
The thing about what you posted, if it's verifiable, is that it only points to a lot of the underlying fact of there is something very wrong going on in Sweden.
Groups like that only become powerful, become emboldened enough to pull off stunts like that if there is a very real sense of fear in the general population.
In the very least, people in Sweden are become very scared of the immigration issue.
Sure, their politicians and many of their reporters talk about immigration not being an issue. But those same people live in areas where immigration is not an issue, as in there are none.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3022743/sweden-malmo-immigration-nigel-farage-ylva-johansson-rape-statistics-u-turn/
And their politicians have been caught trying to diminish and hide the problems. Their government sponsored website "clears" up misconception about Sweden despite studies that aren't ran by the Government suggesting otherwise.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
1)What is your opinion of the presidency?A president to a republic is absolutely necessary, as to maintain the check and balances of the system. But the balance largely favors the executive branch because of the Bush and Obama administrations. Every couple years, people look for justifications to give it more power and by pass the legislative branch. Obama pretty much had the power to go to war without actually having to declare war.
2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?
No, fuck off with your direct democracy bullshit. Also having citizens have to take some test is no different than post Civil War (and later Jim Crow era) literacy test. The system was ripe for the "ruling class" to abuse & disenfranchise the poor, the disabled and marginalized.
3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?
"Drain the swamp". I don't think Trump will be the one to do that though, but as the political left keeps doubling down on their stupid race/gender rhetoric, they will lose more power and elections. Perhaps then actual liberals and libertarians will challenge the conservatives and try to put the system of checks and balances back in order. Putting draconian limits on the those running for congress on what they can earn and receive, with term limits should also be considered.
Okay, I understand your concerns with citizens needing to take a test, but what is wrong with direct democracy in general? Care to elaborate your concerns in that regard?
As for draining the swamp as a solution to giving citizens more power, I disagree. All it does is give us more power to elect honest politicians to do the dirty work for us, which is lazy.
It essential says that rights and laws don't come from principle but on whatever whims some of the most populated states have. It will more than likely just cause secession everywhere, or keep people more divided.
>draining the swamp is lazy
No. The united states is a representative republic. Voting for the right representative and making your concerns known is already every citizens responsibility.
Like I originally stated, the citizens won't come up with the laws and pass them. Congress will come up with the bills and citizens will vote on which ones get passed. If economical statistics show something doesn't work, then congress can propose another bill that will appeal the last bill and people can vote on that. You say this system will keep people more divided, but you don't really know that for sure, it's just a baseless hypothesis. Majority of people want better education for their kids, a strong economy, equal rights, etc. As for your previous statement regarding the requirement of a test to vote, I forgot to mention that the educational courses needed to pass such test should be free and available in paperback and digital formats. So its not like the requirement can't be fulfilled by your average joe. And to solve the highly populated states voting problem, we should just combine all 50 states into one. Its labels that divide people. Combine the states and that's one less thing people have to concern themselves with (aside from the city they dwell in). Nationalism is already a problem for us, we don't need to be divided by state anymore. I'm aware we have different states because we have different laws based on the area, but nothing is absolute in that regard.
I already know what the U.S is based on. Citizens are pretty much powerless when it comes to this system, that's why I proposed the idea in the OP. Protesting and other methods that try to reach out to the government rarely does anything.
No, I'm saying direct democracy will divide us further. The US a representative democracy because it's made of states, not a single populace. Removing the function of states will only lead the end of the union. You say that nationalism is a problem yet you suggest the most nationalist thing ever.
Also people already have the ability to propose/suggest laws to their local and state representatives.
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
Who would you rather perform a surgery on you.
The highly trained doctor who studied intensely for years to do said thing.
Or some guy in a back alley who once read a book that mention the surgery once and assures you that is enough to know what needs to happen.
That's why your idea is retarded.
The problem isn't the style of government.
It's the fact that the various branches were allowed to remove or bypass a lot of the checks of power that were there previously over time. This allowed for more corruption to enter in and slowly over time it's created this kind of stalemate of power were no one wants to actually get anything done for fear of costing what particular brand of corruption they get money from their power.
Hence the need to 'drain the swamp'. It's the reset the checks in place and to get rid of the corruption which is the main reason that nothing is getting done.
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
æ£ç¾© wrote...
Expected results... It's sad but these kinds of videos tend to be ignored and/or crucified by the PC master race... and no I'm not talking about computers.
Instead, this is the kind of shit that needs global mainstream coverage.
Coverage these things will never receive.
It's scary because you see a lot of Liberals point to Sweden as an example of what the United States should strive to become.
