Date: January 29th, 2017 10:24 PM
Author: Fat Plodding Law Beaver (dracula who must show his cock)
20s, nobody cares because we all do it.
30s, most of us slow down and you start realize who might be showing signs of a problem.
40s, it's very obvious.
You see their work, looks, families, and mental health just
fucking implode. Years of compulsive boozing takes a massive toll. The
physical difference between a routine, hard drinker and a normal person
at 45 can be startling.
I am still a GC-cucked lawyer slave and I currently work around
people that average about a decade older than me. I would say 20% have a
debilitating alcohol problem. Of that fraction, about half are open
drinkers and the rest try to keep it a secret. Out of all of them, the
person who I am certain is in the most dire circumstances has never been
visibly drunk around me or anyone else we work with. But all the signs
are there, neon bright.
I can't say it enough times so I'll just evangelize to you
brothers quickly. If you need to self-medicate, then learn to utilize
marijuana on a regular basis. Of all the things you can choose it will
fuck you up the least in the long run. I love drinking but if I suddenly
realized that I was dependent, I would go cold turkey that instant. If
you're a slow burn progressive alcoholic, as most are, you won't realize
how deep you're into it until you're in crisis. The genetic wasters
were all made to face their problems in their 20s, even teens. They
cleaned up, or else prison, death, homelessness, other brutal
consequences. They're out of the picture or sober. Escaping this early
fate lulls many of you into thinking that you're just fine, even as you
go to sleep with a mushy forebrain five nights a week.
You brothers in your 30s who think you've hit some kind of sweet
spot: you haven't. You're on the slow ride. I'm not saying don't drink.
By all means, drink. But the second you think you really need it? Like,
nothing else is going to do for you what alcohol is doing? You need to
let it go. Let it go without regret. Pick up weed if you crave
inebriation. You'll lose weight, feel better in the mornings, and you
won't wear the physical signs of your addiction like a vasodilated
badge.
I work with this one guy. Excellent attorney. Well known in his
field, all the proper credentials and background signals. Fine to work
with and doesn't display most of the ticks and obsessions that you see
in seasoned biglawyers. He's fresh out of his third marriage, his kids
hate him, his face is a patchwork of rosacea and broken blood vessels,
he smells like fetid liquor sweat every other day, and he lives like a
pig. He pays people to do almost everything for him because he can't
manage on his own and he no longer cares about his lifestyle. He eats
like a garbage disposal. No more marriages because even the money
grubbing divorcee shrews can't stand to be with him on a physical level.
He doesn't have much wealth to show for his years of grinding and
everything it did to him. He'll never be able to detach from the bottle
without forced detox and a new career, the latter being nearly
impossible. And nobody cares enough about him anymore to push for
change. He's late 50s but looks borderline elderly. Ten years ago he was
decent looking, fit, socially inclined guy with happy teenaged children
despite the marriages. Now he's a fucking puddle. His fingers are
mangled from all the falls over the years.
Smoke weed, brothers. Smoke it up and don't look back.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3508537&forum_id=2#32494889)
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Imagine you are a liberal Dem in '04 and I appear to you as a ghostly apparition
Date: January 25th, 2017 4:42 PM
I tell you:
"In 2017, the President of the United States will be someone who has very clearly and forcefully stated to the world that the Iraq War was a mistake.
He will also make it a major priority to renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals to get a better deal for American workers. He will repeatedly exclaim that, when it comes to trade, corporate profits should come second to securing good jobs for American workers. Not free trade, fair trade!, he'll say.
On the first day of his presidency, he will make it a priority to meet with several organized labor leaders in the White House; they will leave the meeting thrilled and state that they truly believe he is on their side and that he wants to do whatever he can to help create jobs and improve wages for American workers. He will make it a favorite pastime to call up fat-cat CEOs and yell at them about how they need to stop outsourcing jobs and need to invest in American labor OR ELSE."
"That's amazing," you'd say. I might reply: "well, you know, some people think that is a little tyrannical and autocratic trying to bully people like --" "Oh please," you'd cut me off, "I think those CEOs can take it. It's amazing to hear we'll finally have someone showing a little bit of back bone for labor against capital in this country! Anyway, this guy sounds amazing. Tell me more. What does he think about health care?"
I'd continue: "Well, when it comes to health care, he will come out in favor of negotiating against drug companies for lower prices on prescription drugs. And he will say that, whatever we do on health care reform, we need to make sure that we guarantee coverage for people with preexisting conditions.
He will be forcefully in favor of preserving social security and medicare. He will call for six weeks of guaranteed maternity leave.
Also, I should note, he is in favor of large-scale government spending on massive projects to put Americans to work rebuilding our national infrastructure.
He will also come out in favor of reform to close the carried interest tax loophole.
Also, he won't seem very religious all. Not only will he be for civil unions, he will in fact openly admit that he has no problem with gay marriage. He will even wave around a rainbow LGBT flag at one of his rallies."
At this point, you would probably stop me. "Stop, stop. I don't believe you," you'd say, "It's too good to be true."
In your head you are picturing some heroic left-wing dream candidate.
"Well, there is more," I'd say. "You really should know that he wants to build a wall on our border with Mexico to prevent further illegal immigration and, although he has suggested that after the wall is built he may be open to some limited amnesty for illegal immigrants already here, he does not support blanket amnesty for all 11 million+ illegal immigrants in the country. He dismisses all arguments about illegal immigration ultimately benefiting GDP, because he believes the most important thing to focus on is the well-being of low-wage American workers."
In response to this, you might say that you need to see the specifics. But you'd probably agree wholeheartedly with that last point about low-wage workers and generally think the 2017 President's view was within the range of reasonable views. After all, at this point, even the NYT editorial board is still against amnesty for illegal immigrants ( http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/opinion/hasty-call-for-amnesty.html ) and the idea of a physical wall on some or all of the Mexican border doesn't seem like a crazy idea ( http://freebeacon.com/issues/flashback-democrats-supported-mexico-border-fence/ ). See also: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/05/18/flashback-bill-clinton-in-96-sounds-like-trump-on-immigration-we-are-a-nation-of-laws-n2164898 ; http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/time-harry-reid-sounded-exactly-donald-trump-illegal-immigration . You might even say "wait, did you say 11+ million? We haven't done anything about that yet?"
"Uh ok," I'd say, "well you should also know that he is going to make some very strong statements about the need for law and order and say that he wants to crack down hard on crime."
Again, you might ask for specifics. But, at the end of the day, you'd probably say something like: "don't all politicians talk that way these days? I mean Bill Clinton sure did. I think we can stomach another Clinton/Biden crime bill. This doesn't seem so bad, especially when weighed against all of that great stuff you were talking about earlier. Tell me more about how he wants to renegotiate NAFTA...."
"Well, I'm not sure you understand," I'd say. "He is going to say some pretty controversial stuff on race and the inner cities that people are really not going to like."
"Like what?" you'd ask.
"Well," I'd say, "one particularly controversial statement that will rile a lot of people up is: '[The] inner cities of our country . . . are a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way possible [and] I’m going to help the African-Americans. I’m going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.'"
"Bravo!" you'd say. "I'm glad we will finally have someone willing to speak honestly about the inner cities and the terrible conditions so many people, racial minorities especially, are living in. If conservatives find that controversial, then that's their problem. I'm tired of Bush ignoring our inner cities. This guy sounds great!"
At this point, I'd realize you weren't quite getting it. I could try reading out some particular awkward Trump quotes, but I'd probably realize I'm not going to convince you that your left-wing hero of 2017 is a racist on the basis of quotes like that. If "you cannot go to a 7 -Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" or "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" doesn't do it for Joe Biden, the taco bowl tweet probably won't do it here. So I switch gears.
"Well," I'd reply, "there's more you need to know." "He is going to come into office on the heels of some terror attacks in Europe and the U.S. by islamic extremists. Don't worry, nothing as bad as 9/11, but still pretty bad. Because many of the people involved in these attacks came from overseas, he is going to institute a temporary ban on immigration from 7 middle eastern countries until the government can establish better vetting procedures for new visitors and immigrants."
You'd probably reply with something like: "Well, I'll have to see what those new vetting procedures actually are. But after Bush, I'll just be glad if he doesn't invade all seven! Anyway, tell me more about this guy...."
At this point I'd have to start reeling off things like lowering the corporate tax rate, an ed secretary who believes in charter schools, cutting back on administrative regulations in certain areas, seeking to balance the budget in view of our $19 trillion national debt.
You'd probably say something like: "Well then, I guess we won't have cured the democratic party of Clintonism altogether by 2017, but....... wait? Did you say $19 trillion? Our national debt is really going to more than double between now and 2017?"
"Yes, it's going to get pretty deep," I'd reply.
"Hmm. Well that's what we get for all these dumb wars in the middle east," you'd say. "I guess our president in 2017 will be left to try and clean that up."
"There's more," I'd say. "He is going to have a pretty sordid history when it comes to women. There will be a couple accusers who say he sexually harassed them. Nothing definitive, but a lot of allegations. There will be a tape where he's caught, about 10 years before running for president, saying he has 'grabbed women by the pussy.'"
(Long sigh) "Well then I guess we realllly won't have rid the Democratic party of clintonism entirely" (chuckle). "But it does sound like he will be pretty good for women on policy. Tell me more about that six weeks of maternity leave. Sounds very progressive...."
"Oh shit, there's one big thing I forgot to tell you. He's pro-life. Or at least he says he's pro-life now. He had said he was pro-choice in the past, though. Some people think he just plays the pro-life role now because he needed it to get elected."
This you would probably be very taken aback by. "I don't believe it," you'd say. "Are you sure? He's so progressive on all of those other issues.... we've progressed so much that we can elect a guy like this, but he still needed to play the pro-life card to get elected? Even as a democrat? How did we go backward on that one?"
"Well," I'd say "he'd been a democrat previously, but actually ran for president as a Republican.
That would probably blow your mind. "You're telling me this guy is a Republican? I mean, jesus, I'm going to disagree with him on abortion and the corporate tax stuff but, oh wow.... it seems too good to be true that we're really going to progress so much between now and 2017 that this is what our REPUBLICANS will look like? I mean, wow, from George W. Bush to this guy? I mean, it sounds like we are really going to have a lot of common ground to work from. I could certainly work with a Republican like that. You are sure he's a Republican right? Really? OK, wow."
At that point, I would have to ask: "would it surprise you to learn that you are literally going to cry openly in the street while waving around a sign comparing this guy to Hitler?"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32458197)
I tell you:
"In 2017, the President of the United States will be someone who has very clearly and forcefully stated to the world that the Iraq War was a mistake.
He will also make it a major priority to renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals to get a better deal for American workers. He will repeatedly exclaim that, when it comes to trade, corporate profits should come second to securing good jobs for American workers. Not free trade, fair trade!, he'll say.
On the first day of his presidency, he will make it a priority to meet with several organized labor leaders in the White House; they will leave the meeting thrilled and state that they truly believe he is on their side and that he wants to do whatever he can to help create jobs and improve wages for American workers. He will make it a favorite pastime to call up fat-cat CEOs and yell at them about how they need to stop outsourcing jobs and need to invest in American labor OR ELSE."
"That's amazing," you'd say. I might reply: "well, you know, some people think that is a little tyrannical and autocratic trying to bully people like --" "Oh please," you'd cut me off, "I think those CEOs can take it. It's amazing to hear we'll finally have someone showing a little bit of back bone for labor against capital in this country! Anyway, this guy sounds amazing. Tell me more. What does he think about health care?"
I'd continue: "Well, when it comes to health care, he will come out in favor of negotiating against drug companies for lower prices on prescription drugs. And he will say that, whatever we do on health care reform, we need to make sure that we guarantee coverage for people with preexisting conditions.
He will be forcefully in favor of preserving social security and medicare. He will call for six weeks of guaranteed maternity leave.
Also, I should note, he is in favor of large-scale government spending on massive projects to put Americans to work rebuilding our national infrastructure.
He will also come out in favor of reform to close the carried interest tax loophole.
Also, he won't seem very religious all. Not only will he be for civil unions, he will in fact openly admit that he has no problem with gay marriage. He will even wave around a rainbow LGBT flag at one of his rallies."
At this point, you would probably stop me. "Stop, stop. I don't believe you," you'd say, "It's too good to be true."
In your head you are picturing some heroic left-wing dream candidate.
"Well, there is more," I'd say. "You really should know that he wants to build a wall on our border with Mexico to prevent further illegal immigration and, although he has suggested that after the wall is built he may be open to some limited amnesty for illegal immigrants already here, he does not support blanket amnesty for all 11 million+ illegal immigrants in the country. He dismisses all arguments about illegal immigration ultimately benefiting GDP, because he believes the most important thing to focus on is the well-being of low-wage American workers."
In response to this, you might say that you need to see the specifics. But you'd probably agree wholeheartedly with that last point about low-wage workers and generally think the 2017 President's view was within the range of reasonable views. After all, at this point, even the NYT editorial board is still against amnesty for illegal immigrants ( http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/opinion/hasty-call-for-amnesty.html ) and the idea of a physical wall on some or all of the Mexican border doesn't seem like a crazy idea ( http://freebeacon.com/issues/flashback-democrats-supported-mexico-border-fence/ ). See also: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/05/18/flashback-bill-clinton-in-96-sounds-like-trump-on-immigration-we-are-a-nation-of-laws-n2164898 ; http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/time-harry-reid-sounded-exactly-donald-trump-illegal-immigration . You might even say "wait, did you say 11+ million? We haven't done anything about that yet?"
"Uh ok," I'd say, "well you should also know that he is going to make some very strong statements about the need for law and order and say that he wants to crack down hard on crime."
Again, you might ask for specifics. But, at the end of the day, you'd probably say something like: "don't all politicians talk that way these days? I mean Bill Clinton sure did. I think we can stomach another Clinton/Biden crime bill. This doesn't seem so bad, especially when weighed against all of that great stuff you were talking about earlier. Tell me more about how he wants to renegotiate NAFTA...."
"Well, I'm not sure you understand," I'd say. "He is going to say some pretty controversial stuff on race and the inner cities that people are really not going to like."
"Like what?" you'd ask.
"Well," I'd say, "one particularly controversial statement that will rile a lot of people up is: '[The] inner cities of our country . . . are a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way possible [and] I’m going to help the African-Americans. I’m going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.'"
"Bravo!" you'd say. "I'm glad we will finally have someone willing to speak honestly about the inner cities and the terrible conditions so many people, racial minorities especially, are living in. If conservatives find that controversial, then that's their problem. I'm tired of Bush ignoring our inner cities. This guy sounds great!"
At this point, I'd realize you weren't quite getting it. I could try reading out some particular awkward Trump quotes, but I'd probably realize I'm not going to convince you that your left-wing hero of 2017 is a racist on the basis of quotes like that. If "you cannot go to a 7 -Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" or "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" doesn't do it for Joe Biden, the taco bowl tweet probably won't do it here. So I switch gears.
"Well," I'd reply, "there's more you need to know." "He is going to come into office on the heels of some terror attacks in Europe and the U.S. by islamic extremists. Don't worry, nothing as bad as 9/11, but still pretty bad. Because many of the people involved in these attacks came from overseas, he is going to institute a temporary ban on immigration from 7 middle eastern countries until the government can establish better vetting procedures for new visitors and immigrants."
You'd probably reply with something like: "Well, I'll have to see what those new vetting procedures actually are. But after Bush, I'll just be glad if he doesn't invade all seven! Anyway, tell me more about this guy...."
At this point I'd have to start reeling off things like lowering the corporate tax rate, an ed secretary who believes in charter schools, cutting back on administrative regulations in certain areas, seeking to balance the budget in view of our $19 trillion national debt.
You'd probably say something like: "Well then, I guess we won't have cured the democratic party of Clintonism altogether by 2017, but....... wait? Did you say $19 trillion? Our national debt is really going to more than double between now and 2017?"
"Yes, it's going to get pretty deep," I'd reply.
"Hmm. Well that's what we get for all these dumb wars in the middle east," you'd say. "I guess our president in 2017 will be left to try and clean that up."
"There's more," I'd say. "He is going to have a pretty sordid history when it comes to women. There will be a couple accusers who say he sexually harassed them. Nothing definitive, but a lot of allegations. There will be a tape where he's caught, about 10 years before running for president, saying he has 'grabbed women by the pussy.'"
(Long sigh) "Well then I guess we realllly won't have rid the Democratic party of clintonism entirely" (chuckle). "But it does sound like he will be pretty good for women on policy. Tell me more about that six weeks of maternity leave. Sounds very progressive...."
"Oh shit, there's one big thing I forgot to tell you. He's pro-life. Or at least he says he's pro-life now. He had said he was pro-choice in the past, though. Some people think he just plays the pro-life role now because he needed it to get elected."
This you would probably be very taken aback by. "I don't believe it," you'd say. "Are you sure? He's so progressive on all of those other issues.... we've progressed so much that we can elect a guy like this, but he still needed to play the pro-life card to get elected? Even as a democrat? How did we go backward on that one?"
"Well," I'd say "he'd been a democrat previously, but actually ran for president as a Republican.
That would probably blow your mind. "You're telling me this guy is a Republican? I mean, jesus, I'm going to disagree with him on abortion and the corporate tax stuff but, oh wow.... it seems too good to be true that we're really going to progress so much between now and 2017 that this is what our REPUBLICANS will look like? I mean, wow, from George W. Bush to this guy? I mean, it sounds like we are really going to have a lot of common ground to work from. I could certainly work with a Republican like that. You are sure he's a Republican right? Really? OK, wow."
At that point, I would have to ask: "would it surprise you to learn that you are literally going to cry openly in the street while waving around a sign comparing this guy to Hitler?"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32458197)
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Rebecca Berg on CNN is a total cutie.
Date: January 11th, 2017 8:13 PM
Author: Sempar Fi
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3488833&forum_id=2#32354223)
Family of Ahmed "Clockboy" Mohamed ordered to pay $250K for frivolous suits
Date: January 11th, 2017 6:27 PM
Author: DrakeMallard (Make Duckburg Great Again)
Anyone else tired of winning?
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/11/clock-boy-gets-his-clock-cleaned-with-texas-anti-slapp-statute/
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3488747&forum_id=2#32353518)
Fucking scary how psychotic libs have become. Holy shit.
Date: January 11th, 2017 3:40 PM
Author: TRUMPdog Bannonaire (Dr. Thunder)
This goes way beyond being upset "your" candidate lost. It's full-out mental illness.
Like nasty spoiled children who from ages 1 through 8 get everything they want and never told they're wrong, and then get vicious and vile when suddenly they are in a situation where they aren't catered to.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3488556&forum_id=2#32352118)
***OFFICIAL TRUMP PISSGATE PRESSER THREAD***
Date: January 11th, 2017 10:52 AM
Author: Get Thee to the TRUMPery
10 minutes!!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3488209&forum_id=2#32349573)
Sunday, January 8, 2017
A little decree about archiving
Date: January 8th, 2017 12:53 PM
Author: rachmiel
Over the years many have come to me with concerns about the collection of data by individuals on this site. I said nothing, because I don't like rules, but I also don't like chilling effects.
Today I've decided to make it very clear that archiving board data and/or sharing it with others is PROHIBITED. While I've never been explicit about this before, these activities have been used to intimidate and threaten our perception of privacy and it's time that a clear policy is stated.
At present the only exceptions to this are those granted to major search engines like Google, a class for which neither TSINAH nor Ragnus nor anyone else engaged in automated archiving qualify.
So, to reiterate, archiving board data (whether meta or actual post content) is prohibited, and the Board of Directors of Tafelpoastmachers GmbH reserves the right to take any action in order to prevent violations of our Terms of Service. (Yes, that's our new legal name following last year's corporate buyout; it's ugly but it's just how business works in the 21st century.) Folks, we're talking about the lives of our children at risk - I will stop at nothing for our children.
There are technical solutions that we can implement in order to make archiving more difficult, but first things first, I wanted to be clear about what's actually permitted. And archiving is not.
P.S. I'm not going to attempt to define archiving here, but I know it when I see it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3485004&forum_id=2#32326757)
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
"Gender studies" prof lies to males about class; writes article; gets pwned
| Date: January 3rd, 2017 10:33 AM Author: '"'''"'''" Read the comments https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2017/01/03/how-teach-gender-studies-classes-encourage-more-straight-males-enroll-essay She didn't tell men what the class was about, she lied to them, and in the article says NO I DIDNT (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3479903&forum_id=2#32288138) Tags: Hallie Lieberman, University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, dildos, sex toys, sluts, skanks, whores, liars, Hallie Lieberman |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)