User Controls
Posts by Sudo
-
2022-02-23 at 7:26 PM UTC in Did your mom ever blow farts on you belly?Can you weave baskets?
-
2022-02-23 at 7:15 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Get off that bus editionI think I lost a lucrative contract because of my laziness.
FUCK THE FREE MARKET -
2022-02-23 at 6:35 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Get off that bus editionI'm a runny gay of funk
-
2022-02-23 at 6:34 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Get off that bus editionRee-nigged
-
2022-02-23 at 4:09 PM UTC in So I’m going on a coffee date with a Eurasian this afternoonHave you fucked her yet grylls? Wtf is going on? Is she a Virginia? I'm not tryna Rag on you just tryna unnerstand
-
2022-02-23 at 4:03 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
Originally posted by stl1 HOW CAN YOU STILL SUPPORT THIS ASSCLOWN?
The Guardian
Trump praises ‘genius’ Putin for moving troops to eastern Ukraine
Oliver Milman
Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them.
Trump said he saw the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis on TV “and I said: ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”
The former US president said that the Russian president had made a “smart move” by sending “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen” to the area.
Trump, a long-term admirer of Putin who was impeached over allegations he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it could help damage the reputation of Joe Biden, praised the Russian president’s moves while also claiming that they would not have happened if he was still president.
“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened.
“But here’s a guy that says, you know, ‘I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent’ – he used the word ‘independent’ – ‘and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
Trump’s intervention was criticized by the two Republicans serving on the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot, who are among the few Republicans who have been critical of the former president. Liz Cheney tweeted that Trump’s statement “aids our enemies. Trump’s interests don’t seem to align with the interests of the United States of America.”
Adam Kinzinger, meanwhile, retweeted a screenshot from the House Republicans that showed Biden walking away – which was captioned with the comment: “This is what weakness on the world stage looks like” – to denounce it in fiery terms. Kinzinger wrote: “As still ‘technically’ a member of house Republicans, let me, with all my might, condemn this damn awful tweet during this crisis. You can criticize policy but this is insane and feeds into Putins narrative. But hey, retweets amirite?”
During a lengthy speech on Monday that questioned Ukraine’s right to exist, Putin said he recognized the independence of two breakaway regions in Ukraine’s east – the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) – and that Russian troops will be sent there for “peacekeeping operations.”
The move has been roundly condemned by western leaders as a dangerous escalation of the tense situation at the border between the two countries and a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said that Putin’s declaration was “nonsense” and that Russia was “creating a pretext for war”. Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, said that Russia was “plainly in breach of international law” by trying to break off the two territories.
Other than Cheney and Kinzinger, most other Republicans and leading conservative figures have vacillated between condemning Biden as being weak in his response to the situation and claiming that Putin is being vilified in a conflict that should not interest the US.
“Hating Putin has become the central purpose of America’s foreign policy,” said Tucker Carlson, the rightwing Fox News host on Tuesday. “It’s the main thing that we talk about. Entire cable channels are now devoted to it. Very soon, that hatred of Vladimir Putin could bring the United States into a conflict in eastern Europe.”
I don't understand why this would bother you. Did you support the US's moves into Syria/Libya/support for the KSA's genocide of yemenis? -
2022-02-23 at 3:27 PM UTC in What are you doing at the momentI'm watching a show called max and ruby with me son then gonna go return a trash pump and run errands for the day and maybe get a float trailer
-
2022-02-23 at 3:19 PM UTC in What are you doing at the moment
-
2022-02-23 at 3:10 PM UTC in The Official NIS 2A ThreadAnyone know any good tutorials for restoring old nazi shit?
-
2022-02-23 at 3:07 PM UTC in Memorial page
Originally posted by Sophie He didn't even declare himself the winner. Kill yourself.
By typing that I declared myself the winner (when I didnt, nor does that have to dovwith anything) he kinda declared himself a loser, lol. Just super weird.
Originally posted by Sophie Last i spoke to him he was suffering from heartache due to a breakup. He seemed pretty depressed but this was a while ago.
Yeah I remember that too but he said he was getting back in the army or something and talking to a new girl and wasn't taking as much Xanax if I recall. I hope things didn't go off thr rails -
2022-02-23 at 3:04 PM UTC in Honk Honk = Heil HitlerHank Hill=Henry Hill=Hubert Humperdink
-
2022-02-23 at 3 PM UTC in What are you doing at the moment
Originally posted by aldra how do you know in any circumstance though? child abuse is rarely discovered, especially at a point when it can be helped. What I'm saying is that homosexual adoption doesn't negate state abuses, it simply opens the door to adopters (or foster carers) who are statistically, as a group, more of a risk than the general population.
If you want to get specific there are several fags I know, my brother being one of them as well as some of my girlfriend's friends, who I"m confident would make at least decent parents (probably able to provide a better childhood than I had). My concern is that they're drawn from a high-risk pool.
I will cut you
I don't mind talking about this more but I won't keep posting it in this thread, I think we've derailed it enough
Yeah good point tis not the thread for it
I agree drawing from a high risk pool is well...high risk but is the state officials were less lazy and did better monitoring it would reduce the risk.
And kids who spend the majority of their adolescence in care are a danger to themselves and everyone else. There are way more kids in care than there are parents for them and that's where the laziness of public officials comes into play. If they looked out for them and were more stringent it would mitigate some of the risk of adoptive parents. I used to think gays should be banned from adopting too until I saw how bad things were for kids in the care of the state. -
2022-02-23 at 2:54 PM UTC in What are you doing at the moment
Originally posted by aldra have a look at lesbians lol
Not saying fags and dykes are good parents at all but if the burden was taken off the state to provide for kids and put into resources and monitoring they would definitely be better off.
Have you ever met a kid who grew up in care? Have you ever met a prostitute or been to a strip club? Known anyone who's robbed a shop? Have you ever heard someone say "I'm becoming a prostitute to piss of my gay dads"
Did you read about that family of two "vegan" dykes in the states that drove their family of 7 black kids off a cliff? That type of shit is horrible and frightening but the fault lies at the feet of child welfare services, not for allowing pussylickers to adopt but for saying "OK they seem nice, nothing to see here, case closed"
Kids caught in bureaucracy is a tragedy and a stable home, regardless of what kind of sex their parents have is a way out of it. Just compare stats of kids in care vs kids with same sex parents. -
2022-02-23 at 2:44 PM UTC in What are you doing at the moment
Originally posted by aldra no, statistically it is a far, far greater rate than the general population. I'll go post stats later.
Yes group homes and foster care are fucked for a number of reasons, but it doesn't mean that putting children in the care of a group who are statistically worse is a good idea.
Of course there are homosexuals who would likely make good parents, but it does not make sense to restructure society and the general concept of parenthood to allow a dangerous group access to children because 'some of them are respectable'.
We'd do better to find ways to fix bad, absentee parents before we start opening parenthood to high-risk groups to try to compensate for their mistakes.
I agree there are alot of shitty parents, many of which fall through the cracks because
They don't check the boxes of abuse and neglect that agencies look for. Saying "it'd be better off fixing systemic issues than mitigating issues children face" doesn't help the generations stuck in the system. When kids are taken into the care of the state they're essentially fucked and treated as a statistic.
I have intimate specific knowledge of this but will spare you, what's important is that disqualifying a whole subgroup of people from adopting children in the care of the state is completely counter productive. If there is a better vetting process for potential adoption homes (for both straight and gay) then it's objectively a good thing and helps heal damage done by abuse/neglect/the foster care system. Fucking indigenous people have insanely high rates of abuse and drug use but disqualifying them from adopting children based on biology is dumb. #notallfags
Regardless, I'm not sure you're aware how horrible the "child welfare" system really is. It's a trade off to let some fags parent a kid but if they're not actively abusing them it's infinitely better than the state. You're using a Ben Shapiro argument and you're much smarter than that -
2022-02-23 at 2:27 PM UTC in What are you doing at the momentI'm looking at some studies now that say for the most part same sex intimate partner violence is slightly higher. I'm sure if compared to households of children who were taken by the state the rate is much lower
Regardless the adoption system is pretty fucking broken. A problem is too that everyone wants a puppy and nobody wants an abused and neglected dog. Ask a kid in a group home if they want a gay family or to stay in care and chances are they'll say fuck yes -
2022-02-23 at 2:18 PM UTC in What are you doing at the moment
Originally posted by aldra just some rough thoughts, not going to go too hard into it in a general thread like this
the social-historical purpose of marriage is to create a permanent, stable relationship to prepare for a family. it's recently been rebranded to be 'all about love', but marriage has no practical effect attached to love; the ceremony doesn't allow you to love someone more or less. if anything, in that regard, it's a self-serving grab for attention.
homosexuals cannot (normally) raise a family, so their primary basis for marriage is null and void.
what worries me more, though, is that even though the institution is no longer entirely practical (not so much due to homosexuals, but more thanks to things like no fault divorce) it retains the implication that marriage = family, and as a result homosexuals seeking to have children becomes more and more common, be it through adoption or surrogacy or whatever else.
There are so many children either up for adoption or in foster care because there are far too many people unfit to be parents, so why would anyone think it makes sense to open parenthood to groups that are statistically far worse? Homosexual men have obscene numbers of sexual partners and as a result, tend to have very unstable relationships. They abuse drugs, commit domestic violence and abuse children at a much higher rate than the rest of the population. Lesbians have similarly unstable relationships and run domestic violence rates at around 7x that of the general population last I checked.
Dude I used to think like this when it comes it comes to gay adoption until I actually looked at the stats and kids are infinitely better off with gay parents than in group homes and foster homes. Nigga look at the stats, I think gay parents is super cringe but it's objectively better for society than being in the care of the state.
You're talking about how you feel homosexuals are degenerate and abuse drugs and have multiple sexual partners LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, because you think they run a higher likelihood of providing a shitty family doesn't disqualify them from adopting. Maybe a more thorough vetting process is a better idea (which it definitely is for all prospective adoptors) and more checks and balances and follow ups.
I know a bit about the adoption system in my country and it's pretty fucking broken but a couple of stable faggots who genuinely want to provide a good life for a kid is hardly the worst thing. Kids in group homes/foster homes are a kagillion times more likely to be abused, strip and on drugs than kids who get made fun of for having two dads. -
2022-02-23 at 2:04 PM UTC in Memorial page
-
2022-02-23 at 1:37 PM UTC in What are you doing at the moment
Originally posted by SEGA Nigga Drive All I'm saying is, cordyceps for example were only "rediscovered" so that Chinese Olympic athletes who test pissing hot as fuck can go "noooo nooo is TRAditionA CHI-knees Medicine maaaashroom".
This is completely false. Cordyceps are a whole group of species of fungi that have been consumed for a long ass time in many places other than China -
2022-02-23 at 1:33 PM UTC in What are you doing at the moment
Originally posted by aldra my brother's getting garried
I don't really approve of gay marriage, but I can't say that to him
hmm.
My brother was in a long term relationship with a chinaperson who met all my family and it ended because he was cheating on her with another chinaperson who he still sees.
We spent alot of time arguing about her motivations and trustworthiness and I kinda realized I was being a dick, but now that they've broken up and he fucks with a more anglicized chinaperson (who is apparently married to a rich Chinese guy or something) he's gathered alot of Intel on them and talks alot of shit about them with specifics.
I haven't seen the stats on how long gay marriages typically last compared to straight ones but chances are they'll break up and you can talk shit about the whole concept of marriage with him.
I think marriage altogether is fucking gay, what do you see is different about gay marriage? -
2022-02-23 at 12:43 PM UTC in What value do you feel that you offer society?I have some small bidnizzes and provide some degenerate services and raise young men to be the leaders of tomorrow. Might fuck around and get knighted idk
