Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Crazy IdeasFollow

#52 Jul 22 2014 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What I suppose Gbaji is trying to say is that the GOP currently gets zero electoral votes out of CA, any EV's would be a gain for them and a loss for the Democrats. That's true (and part of why this will never pass anyway) but I think he overstates the results and his claims of latent GOP groundswells in the state are fairly Pollyanna. Based off previous elections results for those areas, three or four of the states would be blue. They would also be the most heavily populated states and thus return the most EV's. The remaining states would likely be purple and MAY net the GOP maybe 10-15 of California's current 55 EVs. So maybe equal to an Indiana or a Virgina.

Obviously even a 1 EV loss would be a loss so, yeah, splitting CA into six states would be a loss for the Democrats. Would it be a huge loss or a massive loss or a devastating loss? Probably not. No Democratic presidential win within the past century was decided by a 10-15 EV margin. There could be a scenario where it DID matter, of course, but it's not a likely one.

And, again, it's all moot since it'll never happen anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Jul 22 2014 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
What's your math for this? do you have a source with numbers, or are do you just intuitively know the numbers? I'd like to see them if you have a link.


You're kidding, right? California currently has 53 US congressional districts. It's one state, so it has two senators. That gives it a total of 55 electoral votes. If you divide it up into 6 roughly equal sized states, you'd end out with the same total number of districts, each of which would presumably vote the same for their representatives, so the House remains unchanged. However, after the split, because each state would have two senators, you'd increase the total number of EC votes by 10 (so "California" now has 65 EC votes). Assuming 9 districts in each state (with one having 10, which we'll generously give to the Dems), even if just two of those states go for the GOP, they pick up 22 EC votes (9 for each state's districts, plus 2 for each states senators). The Dems, on the other hand *lose* 18 EC votes right off the bat (for the two states worth of districts), but gain 6 votes (cause they've got 4 states worth of senators instead of just one).

Net loss for the Dems is 12 EC votes. Net gain for the GOP is 22 EC votes. The *only* way the Dems win is if they can take all 6 states in every election. Which is not just unlikely, but very close to impossible. And this assumes 4 states go Dem to 2 states GOP. If they split evenly, it's a bigger loss for the Dems. And heaven forbid the GOP is able to pick up 4 of those 6. The bigger point is that several of those states become competitive, while right now most GOP nominees don't even bother because the two big honking metro areas that are massively liberal. outweigh the rest of the state in terms of votes. This is why you can't just look at county outcomes in the past and assume they'd stay the same going forward.


The Senate picture isn't as clear cut. I assumed a 100% senate sweep in each state going one way or the other above, but there's no requirement for that. And there would be at least two states where the Senators could quite possibly split. Point being that, similarly to the EC situation, the Dems are currently getting 100% of the senate seats from California. Just in terms of weight, they're going to lose something in any sort of split. It's not a matter of whether it'll be bad for the Dems, but how bad. Just to maintain the same numerical advantage, they'd have to get 2 more senators out of the result than the GOP. That means that just to break even they have to get 7 of the 12 senators. While I suppose it's possible the Dems could gain out of this, the deck is stacked against them.


You were kidding though, right? I didn't actually have to explain this. Cause... Obvious? Right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Jul 22 2014 at 4:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Obviously even a 1 EV loss would be a loss so, yeah, splitting CA into six states would be a loss for the Democrats. .


So you agree that the guy who wrote the NYT piece was engaging in wishful thinking (or just plain lying) then? Great! Why were we arguing about this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jul 22 2014 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
The guy doing basic math rather than the guy engaging in obvious wishful thinking (and hoping that his audience *can't* do math).
It's incredibly meta of you to admit that even you don't listen to yourself.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Jul 22 2014 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
NYT has the crazy methodology of looking at past elections and who voted which way. Gbaji has the methodology of saying "Nuh uh". Who you gonna listen to?


Um... The guy doing basic math rather than the guy engaging in obvious wishful thinking (and hoping that his audience *can't* do math). I love how you ignore the math, and go off on a tangent about election results predictions. It doesn't matter what the results of the last election were. What matters is the math. And the math says that the Dems lose if California were to split.


Like how Romney was a clinch? That kind of math? That kind of election results prediction?

gbaji wrote:
This isn't even really something that's debatable.


Let's talk about this, I don't think we agree.

gbaji wrote:
Is there actually a question about this?


Obviously, since we are talking about it. Surely you can see this. It is just obvious!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#57 Jul 22 2014 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So you agree that the guy who wrote the NYT piece was engaging in wishful thinking (or just plain lying) then? Great! Why were we arguing about this?

I think the guy who wrote the NYT piece would feel that 3/4 blue + 2/3 purple states would be a Democratic win in the Senate and a moderate loss in the EV total.

In fact, that's exactly what he says.
Quote:
The implications for the Senate are obvious: 10 new Senate seats, four of which would almost certainly go to Democrats. The other six would be competitive, especially in presidential election years. If Democrats and Republicans were to split the six competitive seats, Democrats would net four seats in the Senate. That would give Democrats a 62-48 advantage in the Senate but push Democrats only one seat closer to a filibuster-proof majority, which would now require 66 seats.
[...]
This [electoral college] disadvantage could cost Democrats a close presidential election. Nonetheless, the disadvantage would be fairly modest. In fact, it would be about the same size as Mr. Obama’s Electoral College advantage in 2012, which is hardly considered insurmountable. There is not even a guarantee that the Electoral College advantage built during the Obama years will last four more years.


Edited, Jul 22nd 2014 6:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Jul 22 2014 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
Is there actually a question about this?

Only if you can read a map and add. If you make wild fucking guesses and yell "math" at sparrow while making a 50 gallon drum of your hobo subsistence mash, maybe not.

Obama won by 126 EC VOTES. How the fuck does Romney make that up by *splitting* fucking 65?? HOW? Oh that's right...he doesn't and you can't fucking add. How are you possibly this stupid???

Edit: Oh wait, you didn't mean the EC in an election. You meant net EC delegates? That's even stupider given California's demographics.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2014 8:38pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#59 Jul 22 2014 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm pretty confident that Gbaji didn't actually read the NYT article before ranting about it given that he was under the impression that "GOP getting one extra EV is a benefit" was some big win over the content of the piece.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Jul 22 2014 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
I'm pretty confident that Gbaji didn't actually read the NYT article before ranting about it given that he was under the impression that "GOP getting one extra EV is a benefit" was some big win over the content of the piece.

Well to be fair, I didn't read it either, but no one's ever lost money betting against Gbaji.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#61 Jul 22 2014 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Well to be fair, I didn't read it either

You weren't ******** about it either.

Plus, I assume you don't read anything as right wing as the NYT. It's all Salon, Common Dreams and Mother Jones for you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Jul 22 2014 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
Plus, I assume you don't read anything as right wing as the NYT. It's all Salon, Common Dreams and Mother Jones for you.

Reactionaries.

http://socialistworker.org/

I actually can't stand Salon, or Mother Jones most of the time, or, really, The Nation even. I'm more of an Economist kind of guy.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#63 Jul 22 2014 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
****, *I* read The Economist. Because the alternative at the local hospital is Better Homes and Gardens...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#64 Jul 23 2014 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
You were kidding though, right? I didn't actually have to explain this. Cause... Obvious? Right?
So you didn't read the NYT or Joph's post before you started yelling right? Fair enough. Everyone understands that splitting it up would be a loss of EC, but since no one was saying they wouldn't you were disagreeing with an imaginary position. That's why I asked for clarification, because I thought maybe you had a point.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#65 Jul 23 2014 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
Debalic wrote:
****, *I* read The Economist. Because the alternative at the local hospital is Better Homes and Gardens...
I read news on my cell phone, or comics I've loaded onto my psp. Waiting Room Reading Material™ is always atrocious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Jul 23 2014 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
I read the brochures that explain colonoscopies, root canals etc.

I like the pictures.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#67 Jul 23 2014 at 2:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Obama won by 126 EC VOTES. How the fuck does Romney make that up by *splitting* fucking 65?? HOW? Oh that's right...he doesn't and you can't fucking add.


What the **** does this have to do with Romney or Obama? I'm saying that the Dems will lose electoral votes if California Splits. Which they will. Whether that actually affects the outcome of any given election isn't the point. It would be a net loss for the Dems and make it harder for them to win in the future.

Quote:
How are you possibly this stupid???


Ask that while looking in the mirror. At no point did I *ever* say that if California had been split into 6 states, Romney would have won the last election,and I'm kinda scratching my head as to why you guys keep going there. This isn't about any specific election. It's about the electoral math going forward. WTF is wrong with you guys?

Quote:
Edit: Oh wait, you didn't mean the EC in an election. You meant net EC delegates? That's even stupider given California's demographics.


Huh? You're not making any sense. The Dems lose electoral votes. Period. Thus making future electoral college wins harder for them. That's not even a matter of debate. What I find bizarre is that we have elections were we go nuts over like 20-30 EC votes in say Ohio or Florida, but you're all just hand waving away a similar automatic loss of votes for the Dems for every election going forward, like it just doesn't matter because Obama won by X EC votes, so apparently you think that no other presidential election in the future of presidential elections will be close.

That's just weird.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Jul 23 2014 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
You were kidding though, right? I didn't actually have to explain this. Cause... Obvious? Right?
So you didn't read the NYT or Joph's post before you started yelling right? Fair enough. Everyone understands that splitting it up would be a loss of EC, but since no one was saying they wouldn't you were disagreeing with an imaginary position. That's why I asked for clarification, because I thought maybe you had a point.


I did read the article and Joph's post. My first response was that I disagreed with the author's assumption that the outcome of the Obama/Romney election is a good measuring stick to use for future electoral outcomes. I also disagree with the assumption of a sort of political status quo remaining in the resulting states. I think it's wishful thinking to assume that the result would be three solid blue states, and three "up for grabs" states. First off, let's recognize that even that is a benefit for the GOP, and a loss for the Dems, but I suspect that the same people making that sort of assessment are the sort of people who were shocked when California voters voted (with pretty significant margins) against *** marriage, twice.

A **** of a lot of conservative leaning people in California don't bother to vote in most elections, especially presidential elections, because they know that they have zero chance to tip the scales against the massive liberal numerical advantage created by the greater LA and SF metro areas. Take them out of the equation, and I think you'd be surprised how many of those counties that look purple on an election map today become solidly red in a divided state situation. IMO, the Dems would actually be lucky to split the total states and Senators evenly. But even a 4/2 split in the Dems favor only ends out being a wash in the Senate and a net loss in the EC. Anything less than that and they suffer really big losses all the way around.

As I said right off the bat, the author is engaging in wishful thinking. California is not going to split, but if it did, it would represent a pretty significant negative political loss for the Dems.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2014 2:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Jul 23 2014 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
ends out


I thought of a new example that makes it clearer why this bugs me...The below sentence makes no sense to me:

I beat him about the head and shoulders with a ball peen hammer and he ended out at the hospital

As opposed to:

I beat him about the head and shoulders with a ball peen hammer and he ended up at the hospital


Edited, Jul 23rd 2014 2:33pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#70 Jul 23 2014 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
I did read

I'd just like to reiterate that it amazes me that you *can* read.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#71 Jul 23 2014 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
A **** of a lot of conservative leaning people in California don't bother to vote in most elections, especially presidential elections, because they know that they have zero chance to tip the scales against the massive liberal numerical advantage created by the greater LA and SF metro areas.

They PM Gbaji to tell him about it. These are the same guys, no doubt, who were going to make California competitive for McCain.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2014 4:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Jul 23 2014 at 3:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
ends out


I thought of a new example that makes it clearer why this bugs me...The below sentence makes no sense to me:

I beat him about the head and shoulders with a ball peen hammer and he ended out at the hospital

As opposed to:

I beat him about the head and shoulders with a ball peen hammer and he ended up at the hospital


Another distraction. Honestly though, is the hospital "up" in some way? I'm curious why one word works better than another for you. Both words can be used to describe a state one is in ("you're up" vs "you're out", "he's up to no good" versus "he's out of bounds"). I tend to view "up" as more about what someone's doing and "out" as where someone is, which is why I prefer to use "end out" instead of "end up". I still don't see the issue here, but I'm sure several posters will take this as an opportunity to change the subject.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Jul 23 2014 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
Another distraction.
A distraction you created.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Jul 23 2014 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,601 posts
You're Up and You're Out don't mean the same thing.

If you end out at the hospital, it sounds like you are not IN the hospital, to me, anyway.

And I wasn't doing it as a distraction, I just don't care about the other things you said. Like, at all.

ETA also, in my examples, you are "him" Smiley: lol

Edited, Jul 23rd 2014 3:03pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#75 Jul 23 2014 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A **** of a lot of conservative leaning people in California don't bother to vote in most elections, especially presidential elections, because they know that they have zero chance to tip the scales against the massive liberal numerical advantage created by the greater LA and SF metro areas.

They PM Gbaji to tell him about it. These are the same guys, no doubt, who were going to make California competitive for McCain.


And, once again, you have to bring up a past election rather than look at the issue at hand. Everything else being the same, splitting California would be a net loss for the Demcrats. However, if things don't stay the same, odds are they'll shift in favor of the GOP.

How many times over the years have I joked that my vote for president isn't going to matter because of the state I live in? If it weren't for local election issues, and district representatives and whatnot, I probably wouldn't bother to vote. And if I didn't live in a relatively competitive district, I can absolutely see not bothering at all in some elections. Put the folks in say the 51st and 53rd districts in a state not including LA and SF, and you'll see a bunch of conservatives who don't bother to vote because they're always outvoted locally and statewide who will show up to vote for US senate and president because now their vote actually has a chance of making a difference. Right now, it really doesn't.

I almost laughed at the NYT author suggesting that because "Southern California" went for Obama in 2012, that this meant it would be competitive as a separate state. Including San Diego to Orange County and the Inland Empire? This, and several other delusions, are present in the article in question. As I've said several times now, trying to use the Obama election numbers as a predictor of what would happen if these areas were separate states is pure folly. It's a terrible yardstick to use.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Jul 23 2014 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
You're Up and You're Out don't mean the same thing.


I didn't say they did. I said:

gbaji wrote:
Both words can be used to describe a state one is in ("you're up" vs "you're out", "he's up to no good" versus "he's out of bounds"). I tend to view "up" as more about what someone's doing and "out" as where someone is, which is why I prefer to use "end out" instead of "end up".


Quote:
If you end out at the hospital, it sounds like you are not IN the hospital, to me, anyway.


And "up" does? As I said above, to me, "up" is more about doing something, while "out" is more about being somewhere. Which is why I prefer to use the phrase "end out" to describe a condition that results from an action rather than the action itself. We call something an "outcome" and not an "upcome", right? To me, "end out" is a more logical phrase (and more correctly describes the concept) than "end up". Obviously, "end up" is the common idiom, so it's not like I run around criticizing people for their nonsensical word usage. Cause that would be a silly waste of time.

Lots of common phrases don't actually make sense from an etymological point of view. Doesn't make them wrong at all.


Edited, Jul 23rd 2014 3:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Jul 23 2014 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, "end up" is the common idiom, so it's not like I run around criticizing people for their nonsensical word usage. Cause that would be a silly waste of time.


I thought a silly waste of time was what I came to the Asylum for! Smiley: tongue

gbaji wrote:
Lots of common phrases don't actually make sense from an etymological point of view


Yes, but they are common phrases. As opposed to "End Out".

I think the reason that one works better for me over another is that since literally EVERYONE, except you, since the beginning of time has used end up, when I see end out, it is like seeing a fnord

If I walk three blocks down the road, I end up in the 7-eleven.
If I walk three blocks down the road, I end out in the 7-eleven.

How did I end up in this predicament?
How did I end out in this predicament?

Nope, just doesn't work for me.


Edited, Jul 23rd 2014 3:39pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#78 Jul 23 2014 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And, once again, you have to bring up a past election rather than look at the issue at hand.

We all realize from the past umpteen elections that you know fuck-all about elections, demographics, voting trends, polling, etc but there's no reason for you to revel in your self-imposed ignorance.

Yes, Gbaji, people keep looking at past electoral trends to help glimpse a probable future. They are all oh-so-very-silly for it. I get it: You have your usual need to show how much smarter you are then the fancy book-learnin' types with your grade school teacher approved Super Genius. You're also always wrong about anything even tangentially dealing with elections so no one really gives a shit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 Jul 23 2014 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
you'll see a bunch of conservatives who don't bother to vote because they're always outvoted locally and statewide
California conservatives sound like a bunch of people who would rather roll around on the ground and cry at the first sign of opposition than actually do anything. I mean, ha ha, we have you proving that on an almost daily basis, but it's nice to see even you acknowledge that being the case.
gbaji wrote:
Cause that would be a silly waste of time.
Which is exactly your plan. Poor victim you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#80 Jul 23 2014 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
If you end out at the hospital, it sounds like you are not IN the hospital, to me, anyway.


And "up" does?
Our hospital is on a hill, makes it easy to end up there.

Smiley: nod

Edited, Jul 23rd 2014 5:14pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#81 Jul 23 2014 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
And, once again, you have to bring up a past election rather than look at the issue at hand.

No, you missed the point. He was bringing up you being catastrophically, unequivocally wrong about the most recent election to demonstrate your lack of credibility here. It's an ad hominem point, sure, but when someone is continuously, wildly, egregiously wrong about a subject it does sort of call into question why anyone would take their fact free guesses about the future outcome of said subject seriously. He's not arguing about the election, he's just making fun of you. Seemed pretty clear to me. Why would anyone argue electoral math with you? You're an idiot who doesn't understand it. Fact, not opinion.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#82 Jul 24 2014 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
You're Up and You're Out don't mean the same thing.

If you end out at the hospital, it sounds like you are not IN the hospital, to me, anyway.

And I wasn't doing it as a distraction, I just don't care about the other things you said. Like, at all.

ETA also, in my examples, you are "him" Smiley: lol

Edited, Jul 23rd 2014 3:03pm by stupidmonkey


"End up in the hospital" : you've been laid up, recovering from stitches, etc.

"End out in the hospital" : you're facedown on the hospital floor with a thermometer up your ****. Unrelated to any medical condition, of course.

Quote:
Both words can be used to describe a state one is in ("you're up" vs "you're out", "he's up to no good" versus "he's out of bounds"). I tend to view "up" as more about what someone's doing and "out" as where someone is, which is why I prefer to use "end out" instead of "end up".


Ok, so he's up of bounds instead of out of bounds. What up of bounds means is unclear, he may or may not be in the bound (on the up and up) or just feel like he's above the law.

Edited, Jul 24th 2014 8:51am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#83 Jul 24 2014 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Smiley: deadhorse

You know if you get a nice hot compost pile, you can break down a dead horse into usable garden bits in two weeks or less.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#84 Jul 24 2014 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Or chop it up into a bunch of chicken korma meals and sell them at £3 apiece.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#85 Jul 24 2014 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
Ahh, British cuisine.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#86 Sep 13 2014 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
To the surprise of no one, the proposal to split California has died an ignoble death, failing to receive even enough petition signatures to put it on the ballot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#87 Sep 13 2014 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
And that's saying something. We put **** near anything on the ballot.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#88 Sep 15 2014 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Here's another crazy idea. Wiping with wipes!

Baby wipes in treatment plants have been an issue in the enviro-regulatory world for a decade or better. They don't biodegrade like tp or even paper towels and clog things up. I assumed it was people that were actually using baby wipes to wipe baby's bottoms or maybe wipe the make up off their face or maybe even to clean their hands in the absence of water.

It just dawned on me that these 'new' hygiene wipes that have become so popular are being used in lieu of toilet paper. Smiley: oyvey

We seem to have come so far, but when you look back and realize we've been wiping our butts with nothing but soft paper one realizes how far we have yet to go.

At my age I'll probably remain a relic of the old ways and continue wiping with Charmin til the end.

What do you wipe with?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#89 Sep 15 2014 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Supposedly, the bathroom wipes break down but any plumber I've heard with an opinions says that they're great for the pipe rooting business. Baby wipes are (I believe) marked as not being flushable on the package but there's a lot of brands so maybe it varies.

The wife buys bathroom wipes and I use them when the situation calls for it but it's a short ride in the soil pipe from toilet to septic tank for us. Provided I get the septic tank emptied on schedule, I'm hoping they never become a problem.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Sep 15 2014 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
I have not yet been exposed to the phenomena that is bathroom wipes. Is it worth checking out?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#91 Sep 15 2014 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
Small packs of wet wipes are easier to carry than toilet paper, and that first month of a new and varied diet made carrying them a more practical choice in the field, so I just got used to it and tend to keep a supply in my bag. Mostly now for those times I forget the aftereffects of a lunch at Chipotle.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Is it worth checking out?
It's like a unicorn licking you clean. Magical.

Edited, Sep 15th 2014 11:26am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#92 Sep 15 2014 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Jeez I must be living in a cave.

Who knew:
Quote:
Kleenex® Cottonelle Fresh Care Premoistened Wipes let you feel cleaner and fresher than dry toilet paper alone, anytime, anywhere. These wipes are designed for use by the whole family and are safe to flush (1 or 2 at a time) as they break apart in water after flushing. POP-UP lid easily dispenses one wipe at a time!


Break apart /= biodegrade, apparently, at least not in the time frame of the waste water cycle. There is no end to the stories of sewer problems from 'wipes'. The ad campaign Save Your Pipes, seems to be only implicating the actual 'baby' wipes.

I think our waste water treatment has fallen behind the times.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#93 Sep 15 2014 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's like a unicorn licking you clean. Magical.

Some wipe producer would pay good money for that advertising scheme.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#94 Sep 15 2014 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
It's like a unicorn licking you clean. Magical.

Do you have problems disposing of all the unicorn ****? I assume you need some kind of stall with hay etc in your bathroom? Since they're in the bathroom, can they just use the toilet?

Edited, Sep 15th 2014 10:33am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#95 Sep 15 2014 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
It's like a unicorn licking you clean. Magical.

Do you have problems disposing of all the unicorn ****? I assume you need some kind of stall with hay etc in your bathroom? Since they're in the bathroom, can they just use the toilet?

Edited, Sep 15th 2014 10:33am by Xsarus
Who would lick them clean?

Unicorn's are magical. I'm sure the first thing that got spirited away was all that ghastly body waste.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#96 Sep 15 2014 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,998 posts
I'm still waiting for the "3 seashell thing" from Demolition Man.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#97 Sep 15 2014 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
It's like a unicorn licking you clean. Magical.
Some wipe producer would pay good money for that advertising scheme.
Actually, I found an early storyboard for a commercial.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#98 Sep 15 2014 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
Don't forget that unflushable wipes in conjunction to greasy British cuisine has caused several bus-sized (and larger) clots of solidified sewage underneath London...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#99 Sep 15 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
If you're worried about excess solid waste, you could just use a bidet.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#100 Sep 15 2014 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,068 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
If you're worried about excess solid waste, you could just use a bidet.


I tried once, while over in Italy.

Couldn't get it to work neatly. Maybe my fat American *** was just too big?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#101 Sep 15 2014 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My American fittings are too large as well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (37)