• Announcements


      D1P 2017 Charity Campaign for The Life You Can Save: $1,615 (as of June 4, 2017)   12/12/2016

      I've decided to extend our charity campaign for The Life You Can Save organizations for the entirety of 2017 so feel free to contribute at any time!  Periodically through the year, I'll have game giveaways for those who have donated to the campaign as a "thank you" for supporting this worthy endeavor!

      D1Pcast Episode D1Pcast Episode 28 - E3 2017 Rabbids Everywhere (Ft. SeVeN CDN and GuyWhoPostThings)   06/01/2017

      E3 2017 has come and gone and now we are left with this empty feeling as we know we have to wait another 365 days for the next one. We [email protected] [email protected]@[email protected] I break down everything that was glorious (and not so glorious) at E3 2017. From EA's snoozefest to Microsoft's XOXO launch exclusivitiness to Devolver Digitals blood bath! So listen on in as we grade each conference and even have an extra special guest way in their thoughts on Ubisoft's conference in this months D1Pcast!      


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Signifyin(g)Monkey last won the day on August 1 2015

Signifyin(g)Monkey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


About Signifyin(g)Monkey

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Except the pentagon either disagrees or failed to make its concerns known when given fair warning. So it's yet another instance of the press being blamed for administrative dysfunction by Trump and Republicans who support him. But we all knew that would be the case; They have become terribly predictable.
  2. As expected, making it more difficult to bomb a country makes neoconservatives furious--it is very much like taking a spoiled toddler's toys away. Anyway, I agree the emphasis should not be on Bush alone--it should be on the neoconservative establishment as a whole, including senior members of Dubya's administration and neocon 'intellectuals' like Bill Kristol, and focus on not forgetting the disastrous results of implementing their policies. Bush was just the addled head of the neocon beast, after all. But let's acknowledge our common faults--we both know Republicans will still be banging on about Hillary Clinton for as long as Trump forces them to find ways to distract from his bumbling. And that looks to be right up till the 2020 election.
  3. The military, which Republicans support by much the same number as they don't support college, is a mirror image of the same, and it has churned out a generation of fucked-over veterans who can't get proper medical care and wallow in anger because they end up working shitty jobs despite putting in years of hard work and taking significant risks, often in pursuit of high ideals. In many cases because neoconservatives pursued fruitless wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, because their worldview demands war, war, war. Again, institutional dysfunction knows no partisan boundaries.
  4. Presidential elections are indeed vicious, and politicians are in general truth-benders and liars, but it's clear from statements like these-- That Trump's campaign could well have been doing something questionably legal too. It tells us that senior level members of the Trump campaign were open to listening to this offer, and if this offer had yielded information about Hillary Clinton it could have been illegal under federal law. Trying to whitewash that senior Trump officials were flirting with legally questionable campaign tactics is pretty dishonest, since we know you would not be doing the same had this been Hillary Clinton. At the very least you should be calling it irresponsible, and want further investigation as to what happened and whether any laws were broken. Instead you are on here trying to make it seem like "there's nothing left to see here", when that's not at all the case. Indeed, you say your 'point isn't to try to defend or excuse the lies', but your arguments are specifically constructed to play down what the import of said lies might be, since they haven't resulted in any legal convictions yet. That falls well into 'defend and excuse' territory. It's a distinction without a difference, unfortunately. It's why you can be innocent in a court of law but guilty in the court of public opinion--and doesn't it seem a little strange for someone such as yourself, who considers themselves the objective counterpoint to a bunch of knee-jerk posters, to be trying so desperately hard already to exonerate him in the latter when we have yet to figure out whether he's guilty in the former? In fact, isn't that the crime you consistently allege posters around here commit--jumping to conclusions before all the evidence is in? And yet you've already reached a conclusion as to Trump or workers in the Trump campaign's guilt here. And we both know that you won't be singing this self-same tune if Trump avoids conviction and people here argue that it's because he has the power of the executive branch and the best lawyers his fortune can afford working for him in court. (i.e., "he's guilty but the courts are corrupt") By then it will be "that's just sour grapes; the courts decide who broke the law or not; Trump was exonerated, therefore he's innocent", the Clinton goalposts will be moved to suit the new line, and you will be trying to make the conversation about the liberal media and not Trump himself. But you're trapped, I suppose, as consistently defending Trump requires conservatives to take on quite predictable rhetorical behaviors.
  5. Even if in the end the no laws were broken, the fact remains that Donnie Jr. tried to use the resources of a foreign power that carried out a cyberattack on US election infrastructure to influence the outcome of a presidential election, and A.) that's shady as hell, thus B.) such behavior should be criticized. Technically Hillary broke no laws by using her private e-mail server--she was acquitted, remember?--and yet you were all adither about that. Something doesn't have to be illegal to be nefarious, malicious or irresponsible.
  6. Salty that it actually turns out that Donnie Jr.--a top aide to Trump-- tried to get a foreign power to influence an American election, and that it's now confirmed said foreign power also carried out a cyberattack on American election infrastructure, eh? I would be too, if I supported Trump.
  7. That's pretty hackish, even for you. He attempted to get a foreign power to influence an American election--the same foreign power that would later be confirmed as carrying out a cyberattack on American election infrastructure. That's a big fucking deal, whether it changed the outcome of the election or not. You're self-evidently grasping at straws here. We both know that if this was Hillary Clinton, you and the NY Post would be screaming bloody murder.
  8. You always go on about this, and I always have to remind you that that's par for the course on Internet forums, which tend to favor one side of the political spectrum or the other, except it's arguably worse on the right. Posting lefty opinions on a right-wing forum will get you banned real quick. Meanwhile leftist forums more often tend to let conservatives hang around in the name of 'tolerance '. Right-wingers, on the other hand, tend to think of tolerance as a left-wing weakness, and police their forums accordingly. PS--as prominent as she may be, this woman is far less prominent than right-wing white supremacists like Richard Spencer and David Duke. Now, if I'm playing this petulant little game of guilt-by-association correctly, Duke and Spencer's prominence surely indicate conservatives are all racists who support white supremacism, right? Engel and heyyou, why does your tribe hate brown people? Do explain.
  9. Words? Minimizing what happened in the Crimea (Putin's only there "in a way") signals a willingness to defend Eastern Europe from Russian revanchism? Praising Putin's despotic style of leadership does the same? L-o-l. Btw, Obama made the same pledge of defense, you know. Actions? Letting His own top aide, Trump Jr., allow Russian diplomats to influence an American election by meeting with them to acquire dirt on Clinton signals a 'tough' stance on Russia? Maybe if this was kindergarten and it was Opposite Day. (But, sure, maybe Trump didn't know and will fire his son...Trump's past suggests that's exactly what he'll do...*Borat voice* NOT!) Oh, the mental pretzel-making partisanship has cornered you into. I know, I know: "Um...errr...fake news!"
  10. I take it this is your way of admitting that you did indeed lambast Obama for 'empowering a revanchist Russia' but have had nothing to say now that Trump is doing the same thing. "When you've got no defense, talk about the liberal media"--the go-to rhetorical tactic of the right wing in the age of Trump. Very cute. But also very obvious.
  11. Remember when heyyou, and many conservatives, consistently lambasted Obama for empowering a revanchist Russia? And their argument now is *fingers plugging ears* "This is totally different because..um...FAKE NEWS! Benghazi e-mails fake news!!!" "But didn't you say Obama needed to put more pressure on Russia? And now, after a confirmed Russian cyber attack on election infrastructure, Trump is--" "Nanana FAAAKE NEEEWS!!!!"
  12. Maybe you didn't notice, but neither of you gave examples; you both just listed a bunch of comedians. Nonetheless, Carlin is a good example of a leftist comedian who also made fun of the left, as is Louis CK.
  13. Sanctions are a better strategy than a military engagement, but it's worth noting that the country's population is already suffering from large-scale starvation. They're used to it, so they could hold out for awhile.
  14. Obama is a mediocre, mid-tier president all the way, like Clinton. No way he makes it into the top five or bottom five. Only myopia could justify such an evaluation.
  15. Yeah, the democrats are always yammering on about voting fraud after they lose elections unlike Republicans... Oh wait...