The Off Topic Topic

[Liep]

The 27 new jet fighters we bought from our very good friends, the Americans, have just become a bit more expensive because we have to buy extra parts for it so as to have a reserve because they're already going out of production. The planes won't begin construction for 2 more years.

Geez. Should've gotten the Swedish ones.

[The Brain]

You shouldn't have resisted in 1659.

[MadBurgerMaker]

The 27 new jet fighters we bought from our very good friends, the Americans, have just become a bit more expensive because we have to buy extra parts for it so as to have a reserve because they're already going out of production. The planes won't begin construction for 2 more years.

Geez. Should've gotten the Swedish ones.

  I don't understand.  They're going out of production, but won't be produced for two more years?  What plane did they buy? 

[The Minsky Moment]

SNL has opened with non-humour acts in the past. The show in the aftermath of the Paris attacks last year comes to mind.

So the message being sent is that the election is comparable to two terrorist attacks (Paris and 9/11)?
If so I get the backlash.

[Martinus]

SNL has opened with non-humour acts in the past. The show in the aftermath of the Paris attacks last year comes to mind.

So the message being sent is that the election is comparable to two terrorist attacks (Paris and 9/11)?
If so I get the backlash.

Yeah, that's my point.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, that's my point.

Ok
But where were you and DS when SNL did that ridiculous hour long advertisement for the Trump primary campaign last year?

[Martinus]

Yeah, that's my point.

Ok
But where were you and DS when SNL did that ridiculous hour long advertisement for the Trump primary campaign last year?

I don't know. Was it posted here? I don't normally watch SNL. I started watching because of their great parody of Trump by Alec Baldwin.

[Ideologue]

SNL has opened with non-humour acts in the past. The show in the aftermath of the Paris attacks last year comes to mind.

So the message being sent is that the election is comparable to two terrorist attacks (Paris and 9/11)?
If so I get the backlash.

Of course it is.  [CDM]Maybe you'll even get to find out how comparable it is![/CDM]

A joke candidate who doesn't respect liberal democratic norms and appears to be a complete retard (that is, if he's not legitimately, medically demented) won the American presidency by something like negative two million votes, put paid any hope of a legitimately-composed nine-member Supreme Court, and only God knows what will happen during the next four years.  It would not necessarily have been appropriate for McCain winning or even Mitt Romney winning--that is, such open partisanship may not have been appropriate for the 2008 and 2012 elections, which did not feature such high stakes, or such obvious anti-democratic rhetoric, or (to repeat) such blatant anti-democratic results.  But it was deeply appropriate for 2016.  Indeed, trying to be overtly funny would have been grotesque.  (And not just because it's SNL, although that obviously has never helped it.)  Certainly, I found John Oliver's stupid mugging on Sunday to angry up my blood.

[derspiess]

Yeah, that's my point.

Ok
But where were you and DS when SNL did that ridiculous hour long advertisement for the Trump primary campaign last year?

Looking back at my calendar, I was at a friend's house for his birthday that night.  Did not watch.

[Ideologue]

SNL has opened with non-humour acts in the past. The show in the aftermath of the Paris attacks last year comes to mind.

So the message being sent is that the election is comparable to two terrorist attacks (Paris and 9/11)?
If so I get the backlash.

Yeah, that's my point.

You know, I can think of no one more qualified than you to determine which gestures are in good taste, and which are not.

[The Larch]

SNL has opened with non-humour acts in the past. The show in the aftermath of the Paris attacks last year comes to mind.

So the message being sent is that the election is comparable to two terrorist attacks (Paris and 9/11)?
If so I get the backlash.

I don't mean to equate them, I only wanted to say that it's not unheard of and just recalled another time when that happened.

[Ideologue]

Are we actually equating Paris to 9/11?  Paris was just three or four Orlandos.  Whereas 9/11 was roughly sixty Orlandos' worth of dead people, plus two major American landmarks (and WTC 7) worth several dozen billion dollars apiece, plus nasty physical damage to the Pentagon, plus four aircraft, plus a near-run thing regarding the destruction of the Capitol Building or the White House, plus the psychic damage inherent in having symbols of American power turned against it, and used to destroy other symbols of American power...

The point is, all sorts of different things can be bad--and even if you think it's a false equivalence, it doesn't fucking make the other bad thing not bad.

[Martinus]

Bill Burr is my new fucking hero:

https://youtu.be/wWD50H37Duc

[Eddie Teach]

Bill Burr is my new fucking hero:

https://youtu.be/wWD50H37Duc

Should have taken some of Heisenberg's money. He isn't God. 

[Martinus]

Bill Burr is my new fucking hero:

https://youtu.be/wWD50H37Duc

Should have taken some of Heisenberg's money. He isn't God. 

That went over my head.