Well if a religion topic is allowed... then why not a politics thread? Most people don't care for it in the main "Post Your Thoughts of the Moment" thread anyhow.
How about the RNC and DNC?
Michelle Obama is a good speaker.
RNC was just.... lmao
Regarding my political standing
[11:21:14 PM] Jub: THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AS FREE PEOPLE
[11:21:20 PM] Jub: THEY'VE ALREADY MADE THE LAW
[11:21:39 PM] Jub: THAT WHEN ENOUGH STATES DECLARE STATE OF EMERGENCY, THEY CAN DECLARE MARTIAL LAW AND DO MEAN THINGS TO US! :(
again, conspiracy theorist. ::)
The RNC was a pretty fantastic event... all the energy there really was inspiring.
The DNC has had some pretty great speeches and Obama is ready to go with Romney. I can't wait to see the debates!
This is going to be a fantastic election (and pretty close, if I might add!)
I'm a member of the elite shadowkirby party.
And lock this and religon, gogogo
Quote from: shadowkirby on September 06, 2012, 09:15:55 PMAnd lock this and religon, gogogo
QuoteCalm debates on politics, religion, etc will be tolerated, but if things get out of hand then consequences will follow
There is no need.
This is an election year however. I encourage all those here who are above the legal age (18) to get involved and get registered to vote. It's important that you get informed (visit your State's Secretary of State Website for more details) and make an informed decision of which party platform you would like to support.
Election year here as well. Well we've already voted and we know who our new Prime minister is, but still. I hate how it always become a shitfest and everyone just insults the other political parties u_u
Also the comments after the new Prime minister won were disgusting... Politics are really interesting, I wish people would read stuff about the political parties instead of just saying that they all suck.
Yea but isn't your PM this crazy lady that wants Quebec to be a separate nation
So Clint Eastwood's speech. Was it beautiful OR WAS IT FREAKING BEAUTIFUL?
I think that should sum things up pretty accurately.
Which political party do you associate yourselves with (if any)? Will you be voting for that candidate in November or making some rebellious one-of-a-kind switcheroo just to screw everybody?
I am Mashi-ist in both religion and party. Screw separation of church and state.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 07, 2012, 09:35:52 AMYea but isn't your PM this crazy lady that wants Quebec to be a separate nation
If you knew a little bit of stuff about politics here, you'd know this important fact
The only left party we have is that one. So the people who didn't want to vote for the Liberal party had to vote for that one. Also I am not a separatist by any means, but I know that becoming a country wouldn't be that bad. And the Parti Québécois knows the referendum is not an option so it's not gonna happen anyways.
Quote from: Roz~ on September 10, 2012, 05:08:35 PMIf you knew a little bit of stuff about politics here, you'd know this important fact
The only left party we have is that one. So the people who didn't want to vote for the Liberal party had to vote for that one. Also I am not a separatist by any means, but I know that becoming a country wouldn't be that bad. And the Parti Québécois knows the referendum is not an option so it's not gonna happen anyways.
lol Kefka was owned
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 10, 2012, 05:28:03 PMlol Kefka was owned
No. Stop that. Stop that this instant.
Don't make me get that spray bottle with water in it. ಠ_ಠ
I might vote for Theodore Roosevelt. Even being 90 years dead he could do a better job than the two clowns we have running.
Progressive Party ftw
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 10, 2012, 05:28:03 PMlol Kefka was owned
Quote from: Rules-No attacks on other users in the form of trolling, flaming, etc.
dont break rules kids
Huzzah for the canadian politick lesson from da roz though o:
Ya
Basically all of the Left parties in Quebec are separatists parties, and the Right parties are federalists parties. So if you don't want to become a country but you don't want to vote for the Liberals you're pretty much screwed. We need a Left Federalist party to balance things out I think.
Last time I checked, I associated myself the most with Venstre (meaning "left", but they're a right-centrist party). That, or Arbeiderpartiet (workers' party, slightly left). Would have been more centrist if I could, but the only true centrist party we have mostly caters to farmers ("let's subsidize the farmers even more, and rise the toll on all foreign food, so all the farmers can continue being farmers even though they hardly produce anything!").
I agree with Høyre ("Right") in some cases, but disagree with them too much otherwise to vote for them. They're supposed to be the moderate right-wing party (in other words, slightly to the left of the US Democrats).
We also have Fremskrittspartiet ("the Progress Party"), our resident populist party which sits slightly to the left of the US Republicans (Imagine Republicants without religion). Those are the guys who propose to lower taxes on alcohol, petrol and cars, make tobacco ads legal again and spend the entire Oil Fund on building motorways and subsidize roads, as well as closing the borders for immigrants. For some reason, they have got a relatively strong backing in the population (currently at about 15%, according to polls, they peaked at about 30% a couple years ago). The stereotypical idiot in Norwegian culture votes FrP. To their credit, they've never been in a position of government, so it's hard to tell how their wacky ideas would have worked in practise.
We also have a number of smaller parties, from communists to fundamental Christians and the Coastal Party (all three polling in at about 1.5%). And remarkably less poop-flinging than we see in the US. Such a level of lies and bashing as we see from both sides of the debate in the US, would probably lead to expulsion from the party in Norway, and the guy would probably plunge on the polls and forever be remembered as a grumpy whiner.
I think a two-party system allows for too much polarization of the debates. Everything boils down to "Us vs. Them", and if you're politically engaged, you're either for or against one of the big parties. No political alliances, no third voice to calm the debate, and too much dogmatically voting against everything (especially in Congress, where practically everybody vote according to either the Democrats or the Republicans based on which party they belong to themselves).
Though, with more parties, expect to see poop flying in more directions than ever. But at least there are smaller quantities of the stuff around, especially around election time.
Obama I hate that name!!!!! >:( >:(
Quote from: Cobraroll on September 11, 2012, 04:31:02 AMI think a two-party system allows for too much polarization of the debates. Everything boils down to "Us vs. Them", and if you're politically engaged, you're either for or against one of the big parties. No political alliances, no third voice to calm the debate, and too much dogmatically voting against everything.
Yes to everything in this paragraph. Yes yes yes.
The problem is that we have too many politicians that strictly align to one portion of their parties beliefs. There is barely any malleability and almost no desire for compromise. It's almost always an ALL OR NOTHING sort of attitude, which is why we have so many instances of things taking fucking forever and/or just not happening in Congress.
Can't find a lot of clips for that Simpsons THOH episode, Citizen Kang...thanks a lot, FOX -.- But I think everyone should watch it because it never gets old. Except Clinton and Dole aren't running for president.
Quote from: wariopiano on September 11, 2012, 08:45:10 AMObama I hate that name!!!!! >:( >:(
Yeah, that's one way to turn this thread into a flame war... >__>
If politicians figured out that the majority of voters are not radical morons, maybe their idea of compromise would actually change.
Something I've noticed in politics is that most Democrats strongly favour Democratic principles and Republicans strongly favour Republican principles. I know that sounds ridiculously obvious, but I don't think that there are many Democrats or Republicans that are only slightly aligned with their respective parties; it's often, as been stated before, a devoted and sometimes even passionate alignment. So whenever a Republican or Democratic candidate go up for a caucus or primary, he/she always seems more supportive of extreme and party-favoured ideas and actions, but when they finally win the caucus or primary, the candidates both race to appearing to be moderates. They don't do so in a manner to appear as if they're completely changing face (doing so would alienate their respective party members, after all), but to an extent in which a good deal of their policies are only slightly Democratic or slightly Republican to appeal to the Independents (which, if I'm correct, is 40% of the US population nowadays? Not sure). This is the only real explanation I have for why candidates always offer such extreme ideas (and also makes sense out of certain views on issues that certain candidates have, such as Willard Mitt Romney's (also, am I the only one who finds that his being referred to as Mitt, rather than Willard, is hilarious because of how rich Willard sounds?) opposition to gay marriage, to appeal to the religious voters in the Republican party. Of course, I don't keep up with politics anymore (and when I did, I had no clue what was going on!), so I'm probably completely wrong in my observations of all this, but oh well!
But anyhow, I concur with a lot that's been said in this thread involving the problems with a two party system. But with the Independents being on the rise, maybe we'll soon see a dominant 3rd party!
Nah, a lot of the candidates now are not only advocating for radical views, but they actually pursue them when appointed to office. They aren't always that successful, but many of them have been such as all the awful voting regulations meant to stifle low income and minority groups in certain states like Texas and Florida. Luckily the courts actually look at them and are like "rofl this is unconstitutional" as they should, but the amount of nuts in power is just frightening :|
Quote from: Mashi on September 11, 2012, 03:42:36 PMSomething I've noticed in politics is that most Democrats strongly favour Democratic principles and Republicans strongly favour Republican principles. I know that sounds ridiculously obvious, but I don't think that there are many Democrats or Republicans that are only slightly aligned with their respective parties; it's often, as been stated before, a devoted and sometimes even passionate alignment. So whenever a Republican or Democratic candidate go up for a caucus or primary, he/she always seems more supportive of extreme and party-favoured ideas and actions, but when they finally win the caucus or primary, the candidates both race to appearing to be moderates. They don't do so in a manner to appear as if they're completely changing face (doing so would alienate their respective party members, after all), but to an extent in which a good deal of their policies are only slightly Democratic or slightly Republican to appeal to the Independents (which, if I'm correct, is 40% of the US population nowadays? Not sure). This is the only real explanation I have for why candidates always offer such extreme ideas (and also makes sense out of certain views on issues that certain candidates have, such as Willard Mitt Romney's (also, am I the only one who finds that his being referred to as Mitt, rather than Willard, is hilarious because of how rich Willard sounds?) opposition to gay marriage, to appeal to the religious voters in the Republican party. Of course, I don't keep up with politics anymore (and when I did, I had no clue what was going on!), so I'm probably completely wrong in my observations of all this, but oh well!
But anyhow, I concur with a lot that's been said in this thread involving the problems with a two party system. But with the Independents being on the rise, maybe we'll soon see a dominant 3rd party!
Yes, a two-party system sucks. It's basically vote against the party you hate and not vote for the party you like.
And yes, I think you are somewhat right. Every politician as to follow their Party Line, so they have to agree with everything, even the most extreme ideas, their party offers. That's why you see some politicians strongly agree with certain ideas; but since they know that the public might not agree, they have to change their stance on said ideas a little bit, to make it look "less extreme" I guess.
So, Slow was banned for this?
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 10, 2012, 05:28:03 PMlol Kefka was owned
I don't see this "repeted warning" he supposedly had.
Hmmm...
Looks like someone was just looking for a reason to ban him...
Wait he was actually banned? :O I thought that was a joke... or a warning at the very worst. He didn't say anything insulting.
Quote from: spitllama on September 12, 2012, 08:16:04 AMWait he was actually banned? :O I thought that was a joke... or a warning at the very worst. He didn't say anything insulting.
Exactly.
What's up, Kefka?
He's done it multiple times.
Where have you people been.
He also constantly talks about disliking Kefka in the skype room, along with derp.
...There's a strike through the e, in case you can't tell.
Quote from: Dude on September 12, 2012, 09:37:36 AMHe's done it multiple times.
Where have you people been.
I can only think of one other time...
...but aside from that-this instance doesn't seem ban-worthy.
Quote from: Dude on September 12, 2012, 09:37:36 AMHe also constantly talks about disliking Kefka in the skype room, along with derp.
ok actually maybe not constantly, but whenever the topic of Kef comes up he gets all pissy for some reason.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 12, 2012, 08:11:29 AMSo, Slow was banned for this?I don't see this "repeted warning" he supposedly had.
Hmmm...
Looks like someone was just looking for a reason to ban him...
Most warnings are done through PM as they should be. He got more warnings than the standard rules would normally allow. No further discussion will be allowed as such things should be private matters.
:O Is he banned for how long?
Sorry. I always do that. :P
Anyways.... back to politics. I think we all agree two-party systems are rubbish. Well then,I think it's time for a good 'ol resurrection of the BULL MOOSE PARTY! AWWWWW YEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH LET'S BUST SOME TRUSTS
Technically we did get a bunch of a 3rd party into positions from the TEA PARTY but as they're just the nuttiest of nuts branching off from the radical side of Republicans we'll just ignore them.
I thought those people were still considered Republicans. Just far more stupid.
I think some of them actually ran against some of the republican candidates in their elections ._.
(Kang and Kodos on Capitol Hill, after their disguises as Clinton and Dole are ripped off)
Kang: It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!
Man: Well I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!
Kodos: Go ahead, throw your vote away! (evil laughter)
Man: (Takes off boater and punches through it)
Time skip to Inauguration Day: Kang is the president of the United States and the human race is enslaved, building a laser.
Pfft Tea Party...I'd vote for Kang.
Libya...
I think I'm going to vote for Romney.
I know I'll feel slightly bad about myself if I do though. ._.
wat do?
Well what state are you from? If you're in a blue state you could probably vote for Romney and not feel all that bad about it :P Are you voting for him for new fiscal policies?
Quote from: Dude on October 09, 2012, 02:09:15 AMI think I'm going to vote for Romney.
I know I'll feel slightly bad about myself if I do though. ._.
wat do?
What about voting for some other guy? Hahaha...
don't get me started on Romney -.- Don't you live in Ohio?
@FSM
I saw that in another thread not too long ago lol
Maybe it was on facebook...I don't actually remember, but I saw it XD
Quote from: Ruto on October 09, 2012, 06:28:04 AMDon't you live in Ohio?
Rural Ohio, so Republicans galore.
Probably doesn't matter who I vote for anyway, there's about an 80% chance Romney will win in my county.
Quote from: spitllama on October 09, 2012, 06:01:10 AMAre you voting for him for new fiscal policies?
Yes.
So.... what are Romney's fiscal policies? Because I literally haven't anything concerning what Romney actually plans on DOING if he becomes president. He just says stuff like "We're America and we need to get back on track by working hard and being free and cupcakes!". Sure, that's nice, but what the hell does this "get back on track" plan entail? He refuses to give details.
Oh, except for nice little part about how he doesn't give a shit about 47% of Americans. There was PLENTY of detail in that plan.
But seriously, I would actually consider voting for him if I had any idea of what the fuck he would do.
The 47% comment was referring to voters. He wasn't saying he didn't care about them as individuals, but that they're set on voting for Obama so he shouldn't try to sway their opinion. Granted he was very harsh about their opinions, but meh, it was red meat for potential donors.
Romney's plan is pretty typical actually- lower welfare, deny funding for new gov. programs, reduce federal workforce, reduce foreign aid, privatize gov. programs, repeal Obamacare, repeal Davis-Bacon act, etc. which he hopes will lower the budget by $500 billion.
While I like a lot of this, I'm honestly considering voting Gary Johnson just to make a statement. Not like Oregon's becoming red anytime soon anyhow. And Romney's still for taxes and foreign involvement... to which I say nay.
^and starting with the next tax year, the medical deduction will go from 7.5% to 10% floor, the inability to deduct state and local income taxes/sales taxes and the Long Term Capital Gains tax (currently at 0 and 15% depending on your tax bracket) will be taxed like ordinary income (wages)
So all this stuff that Romney says about reducing deductions and not raising taxes... it's already going to happen.
I just say, throw out the Internal Revenue Code and create a standard, flat 20% consumption tax with special "credits" to those who make less than $30,000 a year so that they can recapture the amount for purchasing food and stuff (hahaha Parks and Rec...)
And Gary Johnson... he's got New Mexico's vote...
But I'm still going Romney. It's hard to live in this dumb two party system... it's basically choosing the lesser of two evils.
We need another 1990s with a less sleazy Bill Clinton who is like Ayn Rand and Adam Smith combined... yeah, that'll fix out country...
Seeing a politics-topic on a forum with mostly Americans, this is the only opinion I got
Omg I've tried looking for that clip :(
I mentioned it before several times too xD
Obama has recruited God to narrate his commercials. Mitt Romney has lost the election.
Link plz
Oh my gosh.
What if Romney is the reason why the world will end? After he's the president, he goes psycho and nukes the whole planet!!!
The mayas knew it.
Quote from: FSM-Reapr on October 21, 2012, 12:05:42 PMOh my gosh.
What if Romney is the reason why the world will end? After he's the president, he goes psycho and nukes the whole planet!!!
The mayas knew it.
...and what if Romney isn't elected president? Who then will end the world? :P
justin bieber/a meteor
i'd prefer the meteor
FSM, YOU'RE SO STUPID. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT OBAMA IS THE ANTI-CHRIST/HITLER AND GOING TO END THE WORLD. GOSH.
:O totes didn't see that coming
*insert racist comment here*
-_- someone disliking Obama isn't racist.
Yes but saying that of course black people are the reason why the world ends is racist.
Putin, Chavez, and Castro have all endorsed Obama.
Excellent
Edit: I should probably clarify-- by Castro I mean Raul Castro's daughter, who is a proponent of the status quo in Cuba.
Well, if anyone this SEXY has endorsed Obama, I guess I'm kind of forced to vote for him.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01456%2Fhorse_1456083i.jpg&hash=cd44fad27f59d824348bc96e9b97ca6fab150a42)
I think I'm going to start trying to be an extreme moderate.
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on October 21, 2012, 06:05:49 PMWell, if anyone this SEXY has endorsed Obama, I guess I'm kind of forced to vote for him.
[pictograph]
AHHHH my eyes are bleeding
Quote from: Ruto on October 21, 2012, 06:31:50 PMAHHHH my eyes are bleeding
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheroast.com.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fputin-man-boobs-fishing.jpg&hash=8e50164ac90c1668c2fb8aeee20583a49ed9091a)
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psmag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fmmw_putin_081809_article.jpg&hash=313a36526816b1819ce51c19d9d1dd1aa3009c95)
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fputinistheman.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fhappy-fisher1.jpg&hash=35b8d25e64407213b22579180d8f7ec018bb89f6)
putin manliest of mans
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on October 22, 2012, 01:01:10 AMputin manliest of mans
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpub%2Fimages%2Fnorris_flag.jpg&hash=e642d2c4d9af8fab1744b043338e74c984a94a76)
Chuck Norris objects.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on October 22, 2012, 01:01:10 AM[pictographs]
putin manliest of mans
DDDD: eyebleach, plz
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on October 22, 2012, 08:52:11 AM(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpub%2Fimages%2Fnorris_flag.jpg&hash=e642d2c4d9af8fab1744b043338e74c984a94a76)
Chuck Norris objects.
This guy objects!
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Fchucknorris.png&hash=7e5d67b9e8807ac6754b7dc03e758c46543c2167)
Quote from: Ruto on October 22, 2012, 09:06:16 AMThis guy objects!
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Fchucknorris.png&hash=7e5d67b9e8807ac6754b7dc03e758c46543c2167)
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs271%2FChadillac5000%2FHe-manGif1.gif&hash=819722784e59f4e0c7aa1030d332bb6f99c153fe)
The most powerful man in the universe objects. Your arguement is invalid.
This is just another reason I'm confused about why people don't like Michael Moore. This is just so beautiful.
DRP better vote yes on Prop. 37 or I will throat punch him so hard.
Maybe I did, maybe I didn't... yeah, I did
On another note, I realize how more culturally liberal I am becoming... it's a departure from what I used to be for sure. That basically is a component of libertarianism.
And living in a blue state where I really don't like Obama or Romney, I can vote for whoever I want because the state will STILL go to Obama. It was quite nice.
According to that silly quiz thingy, my views are fairly libertarian as well, which is fun because I always regard libertarians as crazy people.
^^ same. I got like 96% Gary Johnson :o
i think everyone should vote for whomever taylor swift is voting for
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on November 04, 2012, 08:11:05 PMAccording to that silly quiz thingy, my views are fairly libertarian as well, which is fun because I always regard libertarians as crazy people.
if by regard you mean correctly identify then ok
Yes.
Why are libertarian's crazy people?
I'm not sure how many of these of factual in any way, but I sure got a kick out of it:
http://progressiveslogans.blogspot.com/2011/08/50-reasons-libertarians-are-crazy.html
There are so many splinters of libertarianism (anywhere from anarchy to constitutionalism) that that stuff hardly applies to the majority of libertarians imo.
In other news, I am getting so excited/nervous about the results. Today marks the end!! (or tomorrow for a recount)...
I'm still waiting to even get a chance to vote here. It's so disorganized here that even the police are getting involved o_O
Voted for Gary Johnson to give some more power to the third parties.
I told my mom to vote for Snoopy the Dog, but she said she couldn't find his name on the poll. :(
Write-in!
I voted for Taylor Swift.
I voted for FDR.
The best kind.
Y U NO VOTE FOR BEST ROOSEVELT?!?!
Welcome back Obama. Let's see f you can change things a bit more this time around.
does this mean people on FB are going to go back to relatively normal?
No, they'll be talking about this until Christmas.
Goddammit.
inorite. GARY JOHNSON 2016!!!
Paul Ryan 2016 memes are already popping up.
Lots of my friends were hoping for a 270 tie so that it'd be Romney/Biden... just for the hell of it.
It was awesome voting for Gary Johnson. I guess this wasn't like 1992 with Ross Perot (or 1996 with Bob Dole).
Some other friends said that they should let Obama have 2 years of no gridlock to get his shit done, and if it works, then so be it, but if it doesn't, kick his ass out of dat house.
In California, Prop 30 passed. So we now have 8% sales tax and those making over $200,000 are being taxed more. But the bright side for me is that I get a tuition reimbursement check in the mail! (Even though i voted no).
Prop 34 didn't pass, to the death penalty remains.
And for SFK, Prop 37 did not pass.
What's kinda cool, Puerto Rico voted for US Statehood, so it's up to Congress now on when to admit Puerto Rico to the Union and add the 51st state (crazy, huh) -- they might leave it up to us to vote or not.
And with Colorado... have fun getting stoned.
Everyone should have voted for Vermin Supreme
Quote from: blueflower999 on November 07, 2012, 01:02:13 PMEveryone should have voted for Vermin Supreme
I wonder what would have happened if he DID become president. :o
omg omg omg
Puerto Rico can be a state if Congress approves and omggg.
Quote from: Mashi on November 07, 2012, 01:27:54 PMomg omg omg
Puerto Rico can be a state if Congress approves and omggg.
Then we'd have to have a 52nd state to make it an even number. :P Some people might even want to bring it to 60... but what will we do about the stars on the flag? :P
EDIT: Solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state))
God damnit California, Colorado can get pot legalized but you couldn't even get your food labeled properly? Even fuckin China has that!
Yay Colorado. As if people are really going to go out and buy more because it's legalized. Nobody who doesn't do drugs is that way because it's illegal.
^It's still against Federal law.
I know, I just don't think it's going to end up being as big of a deal as people are making it.
Someone said drugs so here I am
I think USA's voting system sucks. It should be that all votes would count in the total amount, no state chose this president.
There were more than 100 million voters in the last election, couldn't really blame them if they want to simplify things a bit.
Obama still won the popular vote though.
I don't see how it would simplify things. ???
FSM, the purpose of the electoral college is exactly for the states to elect the President though. I prefer the electoral college systems and my reasons are as follows:
[5:55:47 PM] Daniel: I think it's better that way, for the most part.
[5:55:58 PM] Daniel: When popular vote is nearly always 50-50
[5:56:23 PM] Daniel: It's probably better to let the states decide, since no matter who's elected, 50% of the US will be mad.
And the reason that the states' opinions matter is because of federalism and state governments and stuff.
But the thing is, it would encourage people to vote meaning it could affect the results. Also if it's a close race like this one, the votes that didn't count should have because they effect in the final results.
Indeed. If 30% of the voters in every state voted for the same third party, that party still wouldn't get any electoral votes*. How silly is that?
*except from those two states which split the electoral vote. I forgot which, I should have better things to do than studying the electoral policy practised in four percent of a country half a world away.
Implicit political efficacy isn't generally the primary reason for low voter turnout (only among younger voters, who generally aren't as effected by politics as others. Though, this has changed somewhat with Obama's rallying them up); most voters don't vote either because they're lazy or due to scheduling conflicts.
Maine and Nebraska are the two states that base their electoral votes on proportional representation (I'm impressed that you were aware that we even had two states like that, so A+!). The example is an ideal argument, but chances are that it would never occur in that way. And even if it did, the minor party in question would receive federal funding for the following election and have an even stronger chance of winning most likely with the extra money. Not to mention that if a minor party could win 30% of the popular vote for a national election, it would have much easier time making local reform in district and state governments by earning positions there. National reform is often inevitable by both major parties once enough states have adopted a few views of particular minor parties or interest groups.
I feel like a lot of time would be saved if we just got rid of the Electoral College! I mean seriously, it had a purpose back then, but now it's a little outdated. If Congress would just be a little less afraid to make changes...
My sis watched C-Span because there was nothing else to do at work and she said these guys spend the whole time arguing about renaming post offices. Then they have crazy vacation times in the middle of politically important issues...they're just lazy.
It's sad, but that is the truth a lot of the time. Plus, in the last four years Congress barely did anything since most of them were republicans and rejected everything Obama tried to put out.
I have a question. I've been exploring it for a while now and can't seem to come to a conclusion. This is not USA specific either:
Since birth I have been an avid supporter of our troops and their sacrifices in other nations. They go above and beyond the call of any individual and place themselves in harms way. They give so much in protecting our security and freedom.
But that's just it. How is war, outside of that which directly protects our borders, protecting our security and freedom? I've only recently realized (~6 months ago) how silly it sounds to talk about how soldiers in Iraq are protecting American freedoms. They're fighting to establish an unwelcome democracy there, and the resistance is Iraqis who don't want foreigners invading in the first place.
I don't want to make this specific to the Iraqi war though. Pick any war a nation has engaged themselves in which was like a "monster to destroy." If the government endorses the killing of thousands of civilians (however inadvertent), I feel like I simply can't support the troops that were sent to do something like that!
To this I've heard people say "support the troops that have to do the work but don't support the government for sending them there in the first place." That seems silly though. Would I excuse a Nazi from killing Jews at camps simply because he was following orders?
I don't know. I've been wanting to talk with someone about this but I know I'd be choked out if I said anything of the sort at this college. A forum is enough anonymity for me :)
Quote from: spitllama on December 08, 2012, 11:51:58 PMWould I excuse a Nazi from killing Jews at camps simply because he was following orders?
That's... a bit... different...
I don't want to respond to the rest of your post, lest I spark another widespread debate. :P Like I've done before. O_O
War is almost always pointless. Vietnam, we killed a bunch of people, gave a bunch of people cancer and did nothing. WWI(aka one of the most pointless wars in history) happened because of a shitload of stupid alliances and one guy getting shot.
I can't actually answer most of your questions, except troops who have volunteered are 100% responsible for their actions. They chose to join up, they get the responsibility that comes with that decision, no matter whose orders or what they are fighting for, it is ultimately their choice. The reason we fight, for preventative causes. Because of what "may" happen if we don't intervene. We basically go in there, make a wreck of a country so no authority there can have the power to threaten us. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Turned into full-scale warzones so they'll be too busy trying to rebuild their country that they can't even think about screwing with us.
Well, Afghanistan was pretty much Al-Qaeda's playground before 2001. There was extreme oppression of civilians, human rights were completely overlooked, and the Taliban government supported and funded training for the 9/11 terrorists, among others. Extremists from all over the region went to Afghanistan to learn to make and use bombs, then went to some foreign place to "fight for the cause" (which usually involved blowing somebody up in Israel). I don't know how many refugees from Afghanistan and Somalia ever make it to America, but over here we've had them coming for some years, and the stories they tell are never pretty. There's a reason why NATO spent billions to remove them from power.
On the other hand, Afghanistan isn't exactly easy to govern. There has never been a proper national identity, and much of the population is illiterate. It took NATO several years of trying and failing before a basic structure was built.
As for Iraq, well, it was a mess. They didn't have nuclear weapons, it turned out, but there was quite a bit of biological and chemical nastiness in Saddam's storages. And the biggest mistake the US did was apparently to dissolve the Iraqi armed forces after the invasion. Suddenly you have thousands of unemployed young men with weapons training, and with a deep hate for the Americans who took away their jobs and some of their friends (war isn't pretty in that regard). The militias that were formed have troubled the troops in the country ever since. Meanwhile, the Iraqi had to build a new army from the ground up, establish a new command structure, and trying to keep down all the disgruntled factions that were held in check when Saddam ruled.
The war in Iraq ended up breaking the country, removing one of Israel's enemies, which by the way also was one of Iran's enemies (the two Ira-countries have a history of fighting each other for some reason). And a lot of oil ended up in American hands. Among other things.
War is pointless but unfortuantely it eventually becomes unavoidable, it should just be the absolute last option when all diplomacy fails. That said, war should be as fast and effective as possible, to minimize needless casualties and keep expenses down to a minimum. The longer a war drags on (like Iraq), the more it becomes pointless, with the price tag increasing exponentially with every passing day.
I can't tell if these are responses to my post or just generic discussions on war.
I was mainly trying to figure out why we boast about how our soldiers are protecting our freedom and security... in other nations. I don't see how that's appropriate justification. Pursuing our nation's self-interest is of course another point, but you also don't hear anyone saying that. It's always "they're our knights in shining armor and they protect my freedoms and yah!"
I find that normally, in the middle of a war, America drops out, leaving other countries stuck in the middle of the battlefield, and the death toll rises.
Just some food for thought.
Nah man, it's usually the other way around. We join the war half-way into it and fuck everyone's shit up until the end.
Thats exactly what I thought when I went through basic US History XD
It's because we are the rich, successful younger brother that thinks his success gives him the right to get in everybody's business to try and "improve" their lives.
Nevermind that we've been cheating on our wife and embezzling money like a cheap crack addict trying to pay for our next fix, and have shot ourselves in the foot with this last war and are bleeding out like a french whore on Bastille Day.
I wouldn't necessarily say "rich"
But good metaphor :P
Oh we have money, we just spend it very poorly.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on December 10, 2012, 04:47:10 PMIt's because we are the rich, successful younger brother that thinks his success gives him the right to get in everybody's business to try and "improve" their lives.
Nevermind that we've been cheating on our wife and embezzling money like a cheap crack addict trying to pay for our next fix, and have shot ourselves in the foot with this last war and a bleeding out like a french whore on Bastille Day.
You have won. But God, how I wish what you're saying wasn't true.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on December 10, 2012, 04:50:06 PMOh we have money, we just spend it very poorly.
I was thinking about that today. If the government just took one single day and collected $3 or so from everyone in the country and tried not to spend any money at all just on that one day, that would give them almost a billion dollars. I just dont get how they could possibly spend that much money a day, since Im sure they take more than $3 a person for whatever they do
Well war is expensive, and we've been at war for 10 years now. That's why whenever war breaks out, you should try to move fast and hard to bring the conflict to a speedy close.
Or just not get involved in the first place
That's ideal, but let's face it, human nature won't be changing any time soon.
Anarchists scare the crap out of me. How can anyone believe that human nature is well and good enough to respect others' rights?
Quote from: spitllama on December 12, 2012, 09:18:33 PMAnarchists scare the crap out of me. How can anyone believe that human nature is well and good enough to respect others' rights?
It may very well be because of the people's hatred for the government. Anarchists, in my opinion, really don't think about what life would be like with no government, and their views aren't based on respecting each others' rights, so much as being independent. The government, as, what's the word...wrong in their choices they are sometimes, keeps society from breaking down. Without the government, civilized order would no longer exist (or be drastically diminished). Then war would
really be inevitable. It's either that, or I have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm just ranting blindly like an idiot.
If humanity wasn't filled with so many terrible people, a lack of government would be fine. But unfortunately, humans are greedy pigs who will do as they please unless a giant looms over them ready to crush them if they step out of line. Scratch that, I'm insulting pigs by comparing us to them.
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on December 29, 2012, 10:18:23 PMIf humanity wasn't filled with so many terrible people, a lack of government would be fine. But unfortunately, humans are greedy pigs who will do as they please unless a giant looms over them ready to crush them if they step out of line. Scratch that, I'm insulting pigs by comparing us to them.
I completely agree. At least pigs don't betray their fellow companions for their own personal gain, unless there's some big pig rebellion that I haven't heard of.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.writeawriting.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2Fwriting-why-write-george-orwell-animal-farm.jpg&hash=290d4a4e1629c33bab2b7dd39ccba5d058400459)
Mashi, you just made my day. :D
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
commies, commies errwhere
Quote from: BonusPwnage on December 31, 2012, 09:54:55 AMI completely agree. At least pigs don't betray their fellow companions for their own personal gain, unless there's some big pig rebellion that I haven't heard of.
This could not have been set up better.
Quote from: BonusPwnage on December 31, 2012, 09:54:55 AMunless there's some big pig rebellion that I haven't heard of.
Reminds me of a certain game ::)
Oh hey me too
Has anyone read Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Earth's Holocaust (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gutenberg.org%2Ffiles%2F9231%2F9231-h%2F9231-h.htm&ei=qTbiUJzqH-TwigLqpYDACg&usg=AFQjCNHL2UWEDUi82akP4ST28MXAMwJC3w&sig2=ROVt1rOdYhTBVUQ22DATsQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE)?" It's a really interesting read, and it's really short (~15 pages of a regular book). I love the story.
Quote from: blueflower999 on December 31, 2012, 02:59:10 PMReminds me of a certain game ::)
I know what you're talking about, there :)
Did they actually just have a meeting on the dangers of violent video games
"Wayne LaPierre, president of the NRA, criticized the media for ignoring 'a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people'"
I cant even anymore
What.
I'm pretty sure murder and rape predates the video game industry, by millenia. In fact, I'm also pretty sure that those were the first things man did after we figured out how to walk upright.
And it's not videogame violence that makes people violent, it's apparantly the compeditive nature of videogames, according to a study.
I don't even know anymore.
I don't think it's either.
'a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people'
whyyyyy
I think Cobraroll brought up something similar to this when he was talking about a culture that treats violence as a source of entertainment (please correct me if I'm wrong).
What I think is hilarious is the recent "Demand a Plan" campaign video where Hollywood stars talk about how there needs to be changes etc. And yet, 75% of the individuals in the video make millions off of the use of guns in their movies. They are the vessels for the perpetuity of this "violent culture." How hypocritical.
Fun fact: The Dutch play a shit ton of more video games, including the violent ones, than us. Their violent crime rate is far lower than the US. Japan allows much more violent games to be sold there than the USA, they have a much lower violent crime rate than the US.
How the fuck this is even an issue, I don't even know.
So how can we lower our violent crime rate?
1. Certain gun laws need to be stricter. Such as there should be stricter penalties for buying someone a gun that is then used for violent crime.
2. Ban assault weapons. Civilians have ABSOLUTELY no fucking need for that shit.
3. Control that media. The media fucking exploits tragedy like no ones business, but that's not the problem. They focus so much attention on the killer and turn them into someone who people will remember. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT APPEALS TO PSYCHOPATHS. We need to stop focusing on the god damn killer and pay way more attention to the victims.
4. Mental health. Ours sucks. There are people dealing with terrible mental illnesses, some of which can be violent and lead to murder or worse. We need to provide these people with the help they need before these terrible things happen. Reopen the institutions.
5. Ask some other countries how they've managed to keep their violent crime rates so low. Seriously, America is the guy who is completely lost but still refuses to ask for fucking directions, no matter how much all the passengers complain. Just call up ol' Britain, whose murder rate is only 35 versus over 11,000. I'm sure he'd be happy to help. Or she. Britain COULD be a woman after all.
There.
Literally every videogame has some form of violence in it, so idk where they're even trying to go with this. Even Pong. How would you like to be the ball that constantly gets hit back and forth? You are one of three beings in your entire universe and all the other two do is smack you around endlessly
Also all this stuff about a task force makes me think of Tarrlok and his task force, purely because I like Avatar. We all know what happened with that (go watch When Extremes Meet :P [/promoting])
Quote from: SocialFox on January 11, 2013, 09:18:17 PMAnd it's not videogame violence that makes people violent, it's apparantly the compeditive nature of videogames, according to a study.
I don't even know anymore.
Quote from: SocialFox on January 11, 2013, 09:18:17 PMit's apparantly the compeditive nature of videogames, according to a study.
Quote from: SocialFox on January 11, 2013, 09:18:17 PMCompeditive nature
Quote from: SocialFox on January 11, 2013, 09:18:17 PMCOMPEDATIVE NATURE
WHY DOES NOBODY LISTEN TO ME
Quote from: Bubbles7689 on January 11, 2013, 10:26:17 PMLiterally every videogame has some form of violence in it, so idk where they're even trying to go with this. Even Pong. How would you like to be the ball that constantly gets hit back and forth? You are one of three beings in your entire universe and all the other two do is smack you around endlessly
Also all this stuff about a task force makes me think of Tarrlok and his task force, purely because I like Avatar. We all know what happened with that (go watch When Extremes Meet :P [/promoting])
XD This is awesthum.
Quote from: SocialFox on January 11, 2013, 10:35:23 PMWHY DOES NOBODY LISTEN TO ME
I'm sorry. I realize English isn't your first language so I'm going to sound like a dick when I say this--
Usually when people spell competitive as "compedative," I instinctively stop reading and discount their argument entirely.
You've got to appreciate the fact that the guy brought so much attention to his spelling mistake.
It's not compeditive, either, he spelled it multiple ways....
Quote from: spitllama on January 11, 2013, 10:39:59 PMI'm sorry. I realize English isn't your first language so I'm going to sound like a dick when I say this--
Isn't he from Australia? ???
Quote from: Waddle Bro on January 12, 2013, 01:30:37 AMIsn't he from Australia? ???
I am.
My First thought was, How does being Australian instantly mean I'm speaking a different language.
So then you admit you have no excuse. I mean really, if you want to say something important, it's not hard to make sure it's spelled correctly.
Haha sorry. I could have sworn you were from the Netherlands. But regardless, Maestro rests my case :P
Quote from: spitllama on January 11, 2013, 09:52:15 PMI think Cobraroll brought up something similar to this when he was talking about a culture that treats violence as a source of entertainment (please correct me if I'm wrong).
The point I was trying to make, penned beautifully by Robert Brockway of Cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-truth-about-guns-video-games/)
Why the fuck are all these gun enthusiasts comparing assault weapons to hammers? Seriously, this is turning into complete bullshit.
Let's imitate Homer Simpson and use a gun to open a can of beer, turn on the TV and turn off the lights...no way. Guns are gun and they're meant to kill.
I'm not convinced a lot of gun nuts are sane. The same gun nut that posts on my Facebook comes across to me as a pot smoking, misogynist pig that is barely able to converse in English (grammar/capitalization errors) but tries to sound sophisticated and says things like liberals are idiots and that everyone who wants gun control should be deported. I'd like to see how they can run a country >__>
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 01:01:06 PMLet's imitate Homer Simpson and use a gun to open a can of beer, turn on the TV and turn off the lights...no way. Guns are gun and they're meant to kill.
I'm not convinced a lot of gun nuts are sane. The same gun nut that posts on my Facebook comes across to me as a pot smoking, misogynist pig that is barely able to converse in English (grammar/capitalization errors) but tries to sound sophisticated and says things like liberals are idiots and that everyone who wants gun control should be deported. I'd like to see how they can run a country >__>
You seem to be on the whole other end of the spectrum. It depends what you define "gun nut" as.
Owning a gun does not make a person insane; it depends on who you are already and how you use it (for example, keeping a gun in the car just in case somebody tries to attack; taking a gun on a hiking trip just in case we encounter any mountain lions or coyotes). Those people are not pot smokers, misogynists, or non-sophisticated because they own a gun; often, it is the other way around.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 16, 2013, 01:25:46 PM(for example, keeping a gun in the car just in case somebody tries to attack
I'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
Quote from: Cobraroll on January 16, 2013, 01:49:40 PMI'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
Nowadays, no, it's not that weird or "paranoid" at all. Muggers, people who kill "just to see what it feels like," serial killers... there are too many of those people just roaming the streets.
Quote from: Cobraroll on January 16, 2013, 01:49:40 PMI'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
Yeah.
Idk. My mom listens to this crazy lady on siruis radio who thinks that every school, even day cares or whatever should have armed security guards like in airports. Thats ridiculous, I dont think little kids should be growing up thinking its normal to constantly be surrounded by armed officials. Apparently murders are alot more common in America than everywhere else, but what Americans care about any other country? cmon guise srsly
Gun nuts like Alex Jones or Kent Hovind and how they say they have a right to do that to stand up to the government. Alex Jones was the guy trying to get the White House to deport Piers Morgan for insulting the Second Amendment. There was a video of the two *debating* somewhere. It's really an embarrassment. Kent Hovind is this religious nutcase that finally got arrested for cheating his taxes despite all the other crap he should have been arrested for. His house got raided and they found rifles/etc there too. That, with his anti-government statements doesn't convince me he's sane.
These people aren't keeping weapons to hunt deer or protect themselves while camping, they really do take the Second Amendment to mean "arming themselves against the government." There are sane people who own guns, but it doesn't stop an insane person from getting them either. Most of these weapons in the shooting sprees were acquired legally and that's a problem. The other problem is that this culture lets people think it's okay to solve problems with violence.
@BDS
Exactly what do you mean by "it is the other way around"?
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 02:02:55 PMGun nuts like Alex Jones or Kent Hovind and how they say they have a right to do that to stand up to the government. Alex Jones was the guy trying to get the White House to deport Piers Morgan for insulting the Second Amendment. There was a video of the two *debating* somewhere. It's really an embarrassment. Kent Hovind is this religious nutcase that finally got arrested for cheating his taxes despite all the other crap he should have been arrested for. His house got raided and they found rifles/etc there too. That, with his anti-government statements doesn't convince me he's sane.
These people aren't keeping weapons to hunt deer or protect themselves while camping, they really do take the Second Amendment to mean "arming themselves against the government." There are sane people who own guns, but it doesn't stop an insane person from getting them either. Most of these weapons in the shooting sprees were acquired legally and that's a problem. The other problem is that this culture lets people think it's okay to solve problems with violence.
@BDS
Exactly what do you mean by "it is the other way around"?
"Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses... are they still in operation?" :P
People who are that extreme (like true-anarchists) need mental help... of course, a majority of people I've seen- and known- are not that extreme.
People, obviously, have all rights to defend their constitutional rights, but going beyond them (and using them as a "shield," as in your example) is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
What I mean is that those people aren't insane and violent (etc.)
because they own guns; they own guns partly because they are already insane and violent (etc.).
Quote from: Cobraroll on January 16, 2013, 01:49:40 PMI'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
I do carry around a wooden staff around everywhere just in case I need it... XD
Hahaha that's great for suggesting these people have some kind of mental problem xD Generally convincing them otherwise is useless in that case, but the least we could do is to stop them from hurting others.
A quote from the Simpsons:
Akira: We learn karate, so that we need never use it.
Bart: Um, excuse me, sir. I already know how not to hit a guy. Can we break out the nunchucks?
Akira: Ah yes, the impetuousness of youth. For now, let us read...[The Art of War by Sun Tzu]
Bart: Akira, my good man, when do we break block of ice with our heads?
Akira: First, you must fill you head with wisdom, then you can hit ice with it.
Bart: Yo, sensei. Can I go to the bathroom?
Akira: You can if you believe you can.
Bart: [leaving] Pay money to read books, pffft. The hell with this!
I really think this country should be like Akira when it comes to guns xD
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 04:39:11 PMHahaha that's great for suggesting these people have some kind of mental problem xD Generally convincing them otherwise is useless in that case, but the least we could do is to stop them from hurting others.
A quote from the Simpsons:
Akira: We learn karate, so that we need never use it.
Bart: Um, excuse me, sir. I already know how not to hit a guy. Can we break out the nunchucks?
Akira: Ah yes, the impetuousness of youth. For now, let us read...[The Art of War by Sun Tzu]
Bart: Akira, my good man, when do we break block of ice with our heads?
Akira: First, you must fill you head with wisdom, then you can hit ice with it.
Bart: Yo, sensei. Can I go to the bathroom?
Akira: You can if you believe you can.
Bart: [leaving] Pay money to read books, pffft. The hell with this!
I really think this country should be like Akira when it comes to guns xD
A+++++++++
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 16, 2013, 02:22:39 PMPeople, obviously, have all rights to defend their constitutional rights, but going beyond them (and using them as a "shield," as in your example) is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The problem is that people don't realize that the US Constitution is grossly antiquated and much of the intent of amendments such as the 2nd doesn't apply in even close to the same fashion in present times.
Yet they still run around screaming CONSTITUTION SAYS SO U TAKEN AWAY OUR GUNS POLICE STATE etc etc
Quote from: Cobraroll on January 16, 2013, 01:49:40 PMI'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
You can also find these cases on local news sites. These things actually do happen. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be prepared. My dad has his concealed carry license and there are places where carries regularly:
Movies
Malls
Camping
Downtown
Etc.
Actually, he has it on right now while eating at a local restaurant.
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 02:02:55 PMThe other problem is that this culture lets people think it's okay to solve problems with violence.
So if I have a firearm and a man begins shooting in a mall, is it culture's fault and my belief in violence that I would shoot him immediately? What is the proper solution?
I also think it's funny that everyone mocks at the idea of "arming yourself against the government." Governments have AWFUL track records. Enslavement? Mass murder? War? The only difference between a collection of selfish individuals and the government is that the government can legalize its own plunder. And quite frankly, time hasn't changed this. Government is not an institution of rainbows and morality. It is a method of security that citizens keep their guns.
George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment said: "Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
Quote from: spitllama on January 16, 2013, 06:09:23 PMhttp://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
You can also find these cases on local news sites. These things actually do happen. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be prepared. My dad has his concealed carry license and there are places where carries regularly:
Movies
Malls
Camping
Downtown
Etc.
Actually, he has it on right now while eating at a local restaurant.
Good God! We don't live in that kind of world and we shouldn't try to make one. The older folk in America were raised on things like bomb shelter drills and half of Congress would likely remember these when they grew up. But the Russians never invaded America and we had a nuclear war and everyone just lived in a state of fear. How is that better than letting people live without thinking that they could die the next day because of some lunatic?
QuoteSo if I have a firearm and a man begins shooting in a mall, is it culture's fault and my belief in violence that I would shoot him immediately? What is the proper solution?
Try to avoid getting shot and let the police handle it? Before you complain about a slow response, think about how playing the hero would likely involve more people trying to get out of a second set of bullets. What if you get hurt? The gunman's already a step ahead of you---he's planned the attack and probably prepared more than you are. The gunman will probably have armor, multiple weapons, more ammunition...this isn't a movie.
QuoteI also think it's funny that everyone mocks at the idea of "arming yourself against the government." Governments have AWFUL track records. Enslavement? Mass murder? War? The only difference between a collection of selfish individuals and the government is that the government can legalize its own plunder. And quite frankly, time hasn't changed this. Government is not an institution of rainbows and morality. It is a method of security that citizens keep their guns.
George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment said: "Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
If the government could kill us all and put us in a worse state than helots, they would have done so already? There's not a chance in hell some guy or a bunch of guys from a town wielding sticks, rifles or handguns could deal with the US Army and their weapons. There isn't a sinister plot here, like these gun nuts I talk about actually suggest. Modern society doesn't have much in common with colonial times like you think.
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 06:52:55 PMGood God! We don't live in that kind of world and we shouldn't try to make one. The older folk in America were raised on things like bomb shelter drills and half of Congress would likely remember these when they grew up. But the Russians never invaded America and we had a nuclear war and everyone just lived in a state of fear. How is that better than letting people live without thinking that they could die the next day because of some lunatic?
Try to avoid getting shot and let the police handle it? Before you complain about a slow response, think about how playing the hero would likely involve more people trying to get out of a second set of bullets. What if you get hurt? The gunman's already a step ahead of you---he's planned the attack and probably prepared more than you are. The gunman will probably have armor, multiple weapons, more ammunition...this isn't a movie.
1: But the thing is, the threat is real; it isn't just some fear (which, although partially justified during the Cold War, was somewhat blown out of proportion) crawling at our feet. There is a big difference between living in
2: The gunman is a step ahead of you; unless you get OUT of the building, which isn't likely because of his "planning" (blocking off the entrance, positioning himself at a semi-central location), you are likely to get shot.
But really... most likely, not all gunmen are always so prepared; the people you'll often encounter (if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time) are just robbers (although spitllama specifically mentioned a full scale shooting).
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 16, 2013, 07:11:05 PM1: But the thing is, the threat is real; it isn't just some fear (which, although partially justified during the Cold War, was somewhat blown out of proportion) crawling at our feet. There is a big difference between living in
I think I'm missing something here. What's the difference between preparing for the nuclear war (which never happened) and preparing for a situation where someone would shoot you when you're eating a cheeseburger? It's a fear! How many people have been shot at restaurants, and how many people have actually eaten at a restaurant without being shot? There isn't any certainty in the world but if you let something that has a 0.0001% chance of happening get in the way of your life or cheeseburger, then it's not really normal. Like Cobraroll said...paranoia.
Quote2: The gunman is a step ahead of you; unless you get OUT of the building, which isn't likely because of his "planning" (blocking off the entrance, positioning himself at a semi-central location), you are likely to get shot.
But really... most likely, not all gunmen are always so prepared; the people you'll often encounter (if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time) are just robbers (although spitllama specifically mentioned a full scale shooting).
Right, but you're less likely to get shot if you just get out of the way, hide and not be the hero. It isn't as black and white as you think. Not having been in an armed robbery I couldn't tell you how carefully planned they are. I think they must have planned something if they wanted their plan to be successful.
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 07:32:07 PMI think I'm missing something here. What's the difference between preparing for the nuclear war (which never happened) and preparing for a situation where someone would shoot you when you're eating a cheeseburger? It's a fear! How many people have been shot at restaurants, and how many people have actually eaten at a restaurant without being shot? There isn't any certainty in the world but if you let something that has a 0.0001% chance of happening get in the way of your life or cheeseburger, then it's not really normal. Like Cobraroll said...paranoia.
Point 1 still remains relevant. There's a difference between a nuclear war, which has never even happened (ever), and a mugging/shooting/stabbing on the street, thing that happen all the time. There is a difference between paranoia and caution; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I can argue that prevention involves stopping these guys from getting guns xD
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 06:52:55 PMGood God! We don't live in that kind of world and we shouldn't try to make one. The older folk in America were raised on things like bomb shelter drills and half of Congress would likely remember these when they grew up. But the Russians never invaded America and we had a nuclear war and everyone just lived in a state of fear. How is that better than letting people live without thinking that they could die the next day because of some lunatic?
Actually, we DO live in that kind of world! There are those with aggressive tendencies, there are those who invade others' homes and kill for the most simple things like green paper. These cases SHOW that.
I think you just compared nuclear weapons to handguns o_o Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons are completely different. It's literally impossible to use them tactically, defensively, or protectively. They are indiscriminate and any use would mean collateral murder or manslaughter. Nobody can make any credible argument that they possess nukes to defend anyone from anything, because they're solely aggressive. You can't engage in sport or protect others with its use.
QuoteTry to avoid getting shot and let the police handle it? Before you complain about a slow response, think about how playing the hero would likely involve more people trying to get out of a second set of bullets. What if you get hurt? The gunman's already a step ahead of you---he's planned the attack and probably prepared more than you are. The gunman will probably have armor, multiple weapons, more ammunition...this isn't a movie.
Check out how many news sources have published this (https://www.google.com/search?q=mall+shooting+stopped+by+armed+citizen&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS430US430&aq=f&oq=mall+shooting+stopped+by+armed+citizen&aqs=chrome.0.57j0j62.4806&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=mall+shooting+stopped+by+armed+citizen&hl=en&tbo=d&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS430US430&ei=cnz3UL6RF6X02wXagoGYBw&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=dfe86ec64229ab6&biw=1366&bih=643) story. This citizen reportedly caused the shooter to commit suicide. When do shooters stop? Only when they encounter resistance. In fact, this man actually considered the fact that other people may be behind the shooter when making his decision to wait and
not fire.
And before you claim that "that's just one person others won't be as responsible," gun-regulation proponents are using that
exact argument in claiming that enough irresponsible people have gained access to firearms to make it illegal for everyone else.
QuoteIf the government could kill us all and put us in a worse state than helots, they would have done so already?
Obviously the intention of every elected official is not to make the nation worse. I would not accurately say that our state today is currently trying to overtake us. But how did Stalin and Hitler come to power? They entered their places of power legitimately, and slowly solidified a place of power as a dictator. So what is there against this? Other politicians? Both of these men used bribery to silence political opposition. The army? Owned by the state. The populus? Only if they have a method of defending themselves! If there is no resistance or incentive to do otherwise, what reason is there to be fair and just?
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
QuoteThere's not a chance in hell some guy or a bunch of guys from a town wielding sticks, rifles or handguns could deal with the US Army and their weapons.
Soooo then do nothing, right? That's pretty much what you're saying. You seem to have a very submissive response to offenses.
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 08:38:44 PMI can argue that prevention involves stopping these guys from getting guns xD
It will only stop the petty "common criminals." And the general public.
I am heavily enjoying the amount of DA FEDS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS GONNA TAKE OUR FREEDOMS that is actually occurring in this thread and is somehow not a joke, but for srs...
Plz read your own posts before you make even greater fools of yourselves.
Though to be fair I guess this really is the only retort you need
Quote from: spitllama on January 16, 2013, 08:53:05 PMHitler
Because that's exactly how I said it. Thank you Kefka. Just as immature and ignorant as you how you said it.
And I fail to see how referencing historical individuals and events makes my argument WORSE.
But really, I appreciate your sass.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on January 16, 2013, 09:03:56 PMI am heavily enjoying the amount of DA FEDS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS GONNA TAKE OUR FREEDOMS that is actually occurring in this thread and is somehow not a joke, but for srs...
Plz read your own posts before you make even greater fools of yourselves.
Though to be fair I guess this really is the only retort you need
Quote from: spitllama on January 16, 2013, 09:07:29 PMBecause that's exactly how I said it. Thank you Kefka. Just as immature and ignorant as you how you said it.
And I fail to see how referencing historical individuals and events makes my argument WORSE.
But really, I appreciate your sass.
As I recall, none of us have actually stated that as our opinion or even suggested that that is our mindless opinion.
Spit, I find myself disagreeing with you. While there are certain scenarios in which people who happen to be armed were able to stop an assailant, I think that quite a few of them could have been prevented with stricter gun control, and quite a few of them might have been solvable without using guns. By making it more difficult to acquire a gun, it ensures that there are much fewer in distribution and decreases the likelihood that someone does something stupid.
Another issue I haven't seen discussed with regard to guns is the potential for false diagnosis of government tyranny. What if the birthers decided Obama shouldn't be president and marched on the White House armed? I think insane people declaring war on the government is much more likely than the government becoming so tyrannical that we need to use guns to stop it.
Regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, it's pretty clear that government officials fear falling out of favor with us. If they didn't fear popular opinion of them, then there wouldn't be so much partisan politics.
Personally, I'd prefer strict gun control (as in, no Second Amendment beyond like hunting rifles) but realize that quick and drastic changes aren't the best way to achieve that because there are still people currently with assault rifles and the like.
I'll take some time to reply to your other points but first of all...
Quote from: spitllama on January 16, 2013, 08:53:05 PMHitler
I doubt that guns would have prevented this guy from being Chancellor. There were so many other reasons, such as misinformation, desperation, poverty. More guns would not have solved these problems, it had nothing at all to do with it. If the peasants didn't have guns, they'd use farm equipment and the same thing with less casualties might have happened.The people placed these guys in power, and then they abused their power. That's all. Active resistance to these groups didn't involve guns, did they? Yeah there was a war, but I recall ordinary (unarmed!) citizens smuggling prisoners from camps, college students organizing meetings and distributing information about Hitler's evil regime...no guns at all.
Quote from: spitllama on January 16, 2013, 08:53:05 PMSoooo then do nothing, right? That's pretty much what you're saying. You seem to have a very submissive response to offenses.
I didn't say to do nothing! I said you should do whatever to save yourself, and immediate others if possible. Hide, run, play dead...and let people who are trained in these situations deal with it. Just not play the hero and cover the place with the gunman's shredded remains, and then finish off with a smartass remark. Believe me, these things don't actually happen in real life. The likely scenario is that the gunman notices your movement and shoots you before you can.
(see I didn't bring up submissiveness, that's really the wrong kind of thing to say to women)
Also you should stop it with that fear crap...I mean seriously. It doesn't sound convincing at all.
Hey, ummmmm Spit? Yeahhhhhhh Hitler didn't come to power because he of gun control. Neither did Stalin. Nor is that the primary reason(or even A reason, really) they were able to stay in power(until Hitler "committed suicide" but come on, we all know the Russians probably found him in his compound alive, and wrecked his shit until their was nothing left of him). Read up on some history, getsome sense, or go join the Alex Jones brigade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JwRrmH39n00#t=123s
Quote from: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 09:56:56 PMThe likely scenario is that the gunman notices your movement and shoots you before you can.
...of course, you're not just going to walk halfway across the plaza and belt out a loud battle cry... :P
@SFK, I think Spitllama's point is that Hitler didn't rise to power because of gun control but was able to more effectively oppress because of it.
I think gun lowers public safety monstrously. The weapon of choice for an Australian ruffian (e.g someone who hasn't access to a gun) is a knife, which is useless for hurting people in public. The moment they bring it out, people run in all directions and they're in the back of a paddy wagon in minutes.
And don't give me this, "It's to protect myself!" shit. You have legs. USE THEM. And if you haven't the sense to hide, then you're too stupid to live. Get security installed and move to a nicer area. Problem is solved.
This is fun to watch.
Continue.
Quote from: vermilionvermin on January 16, 2013, 10:44:46 PM@SFK, I think Spitllama's point is that Hitler didn't rise to power because of gun control but was able to more effectively oppress because of it.
Too bad for that argument that the gun laws in Nazi Germany were more liberal than in any European nation today (http://rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm). Sure, guns had to be registered, but most citizens were free to own one. It was the Allied troops who disarmed the civilian German population.
As for protecting yourself against an oppressive government with handguns... no chance in hell. Sorry to say, if the government wanted to get you, there's no way you could protect yourself on a household budget. A modern Armoured Personnel Carrier can comfortably kill targets at ranges exceeding two kilometres. The heaviest guns in civilian use (.50 calibre machine guns) would
maybe scratch its armour to the point it would need a new paint job.
This, of course, is assuming the oppressive government is generous enough to send a slow-moving, big target into the oppression zone and give the civilians a chance to return fire. If the government really wanted a civilian dead, they could send an artillery shell from some 30 kilometres away. The civilian could have spent millions on the fanciest home protection equipment on the market, but a $500 shell would still ruin his day, and probably take parts of the neighbourhood with it. With a good artillery hunting radar he would learn about the shell about a minute before it hit his house.
In short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.
[ur borked tags, i fixed them]
Quote from: Clanker37 on January 17, 2013, 07:46:20 AMAnd don't give me this, "It's to protect myself!" shit. You have legs. USE THEM. And if you haven't the sense to hide, then you're too stupid to live. Get security installed and move to a nicer area. Problem is solved.
If it were that easy, don't you think people would be doing that already?
Oh hey posts. And a lot of them..
Quote from: vermilionvermin on January 16, 2013, 09:33:47 PMI think that quite a few of them could have been prevented with stricter gun control, and quite a few of them might have been solvable without using guns. By making it more difficult to acquire a gun, it ensures that there are much fewer in distribution and decreases the likelihood that someone does something stupid.
Currently, in the US, there are over 250 million firearms. Limiting production would hardly touch the fact that disturbed individuals are finding firearms.
Which brings me to another point-- the focus of the current gun arguments is really off the real point. Nancy Lanza, the mother of Adam Lanza, was irresponsible in allowing her mentally disturbed son (which news sources are beginning to report that she knew about ahead of time) to use her firearms. The fact that she makes a bad decision means everyone else has to lose their right? Consider this conversation:
"It's wrong to try to take my guns"
"Why do you need them?"
"In case the government comes after me."
"That's ridiculous, the government isn't going to come after you."
"So you're not going to try to take my guns?"
"Of course we are, you don't need them."
"But I'm innocent."
"Too bad, hand them over or we will come after you."
QuoteAnother issue I haven't seen discussed with regard to guns is the potential for false diagnosis of government tyranny. What if the birthers decided Obama shouldn't be president and marched on the White House armed? I think insane people declaring war on the government is much more likely than the government becoming so tyrannical that we need to use guns to stop it.
This is absolutely a concern... But it's getting off topic. The Federalist papers claim that the cause must be morally and politically right. Governments which do not protect personal freedoms and securities of its citizens lose their legitimacy in failing to protect them. Getting angry because Obama was reelected would be unjustified, because no rights were invaded upon.
But again, it's getting off topic. The part I'm arguing is the right to do so (which is impossible without allowing the mass population to be armed), not when.
QuoteRegarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, it's pretty clear that government officials fear falling out of favor with us. If they didn't fear popular opinion of them, then there wouldn't be so much partisan politics.
That's extremely relative, so again I won't spend much time on it. I would argue that businesses buying out votes and logrolling means that politicians are more concerned with bettering themselves and their party than actually remaining in favor with the population or protecting the nation. In fact, the entire argument over the debt ceiling shows their irresponsibility-- give more and more free stuff to more of the population to garner additional votes? Or actually decide that we cannot spend more than we have and bring it down.
Quote from: Clanker37 on January 17, 2013, 07:46:20 AMStuff
There have been three break-ins on my home street in the last month, and I live in an effing resort. One of the home-owners was threatened
with a knife when the thieves didn't realize he was home. I'm pretty sure we're justified in having a gun in our home or on our person while staying in our neighborhood. Honestly, I think it's absurd to solely leave your life in the hands of other people (i.e. police). They do their jobs better than any of us, but they respond
after crises have already started. They are evidently an insufficient preventative in keeping crime down.
This addresses Ruto's comments.
Quote from: Cobraroll on January 17, 2013, 09:42:53 AMToo bad for that argument that the gun laws in Nazi Germany were more liberal than in any European nation today (http://rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm).
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
Apparently we need a historian of our own to settle the dispute. This document, of the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, describes growing gun restrictions in Nazi Germany from post WWI to his solidified place of power in 1933.
QuoteIn short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.
"It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the Guerrilla has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/17/syrian-army/1775669/
Beyond these points of argument though, I'm surprised that your argument would not be to give citizens
more weapons. If there's no chance, then we're on our knees and at our feet right? What's the solution then?
EDIT: Agh formatting.
We should also listen to Cobraroll, he was actually in the military.
Quote from: Cobraroll on January 17, 2013, 09:42:53 AMIn short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.
Yahhh.
@Spit
Hate to say this, but what you're saying about the government worries quite a few of us here. I think you can remove the fear aspect altogether and still have liberty and all that stuff. The last thing we need is for everyone to live in a state of fear, citizens or politicians...Cobraroll talked about Hitler already so I don't really need to say any more, other than guns don't prevent Hitler. The other moral issue you mentioned is discussed in intro philosophy, so that's slightly off topic and would lead to another boring discussion on why people should be just. The real issue here is how to prevent potentially dangerous people from getting weapons to kill other innocent people. BDS said before that one of the gun nuts (such as Kent Hovind) might need counseling, yet the police had found a SKS semiautomatic rifle and a bunch of other guns in his house. This is the same guy who was so anti-government, anti-taxation that he actually prepared for something. I'm sure that he isn't the only one.
For the responsibility thing, you really have to think that having guns around, it's just a disaster waiting to happen. She could have been the most responsible gun owner ever and her son could still have beaten the crap out of her with a chair and taken them by force. There are even cases where kids find guns in the house and it accidentally goes off and hurts someone.
I think people have made an excuse to use any sort of weapon if they wanted to. Definitely for defense or protection. Nevermind if someone gets hurt killed? >__>
I think you really need to move somewhere else...
I feel that a few of you are being a bit harsh on gun ownership (or a bit too adamant in support of it!). I also believe that it's a problem that must be combatted, however, through stricter regulation. A straight out gun ban probably wouldn't be so effective; the black market still exists and more vigilante/bad cops would most likely emerge. Furthermore, the psychological effect would probably create more gun violence in consideration to gangs, mob lords, or what have you who would feel that they need to fear nothing when committing felons.
Guns aren't the problem, people are. So there are two main remedies, excluding the gun ban:
Educate People - People who commit crimes through gun violence often fall into two categories; criminals of low intelligence and (very rarely) slightly above adequate (or even significantly) intelligence, sociopathic masterminds. The criminals of low intelligence don't often commit crimes out of evil or greed or anything (if my memory of Criminal Justice serves me correct, I don't remember for sure).
Gun Restrictions + Gun Down the Black Market (that was totes punintentional) - I would recommend following the stringent European Model gun restrictions, but alas, America is significantly different from Europe. One solution there won't necessarily work here for complicated reasons. I have no knowledge of how the black market works (as far as you all know!!! ;) ), but I would imagine the government to be more than capable to deal with it or start dealing with it more effectively.
I wrote the above yesterday and am too lazy to continue that train of thought, so I'll make a different one instead!!!
In regard to the Second Amendment and gun ownership being a right, here it is for reference: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, let me give some background on the Second Amendment. During the time of the French and Indian/Seven Years' War
and American Revolution, there was no legitimate national militia. Under Washington's Continental Army, he was merely leading a pack of inexperienced men. Even under the Articles had we no national militia (ergo, the disaster of Shays' Rebellion). The Second Amendment hoped to amend that problem by instilling the right to own guns to the people to act as a military. The people had the right to bear arms because they were the military; they're not the general public, they're soldiers who are, more often than not, drafted with no other options. During the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington was able to organise the national army quickly and efficiently to deal with the insurgents because that's what the Second Amendment facilitated. The Second Amendment protects the government from mob rule, not the other way around. During the War of 1812, the government wasn't the primary source of soldiers and training, it was privateers and (mostly) fervent Westerners. We had a militia of the people for the national government.
In regard to the quote by George Mason, if the quote is dissected correctly, America (the government) is the object in regard to the British foreign rule. It clearly states that the militia (the American military of the people who support and constituents of the American government) is being weakened through the American people. The reason the British did so was to be rid of American resistance against colonial rule, not of government rule. That quote in particular is against colonialism, not a corrupt America government. A better quote could probably have been found for that purpose!
Anyhow, many Framers were paranoid and proponents (Mason especially) of gun ownership to protect the people, but only as an extreme precaution. The point of bearing arms is to give people the right to revolt against the government if the representatives of the people betray them and the government begins to act as Great Britain did under colonial rule. In fact, however, the ability to bear arms is even more complicated than that; the idea is that if the state government becomes corrupt, the federal government will take action. And if the federal government becomes corrupt, the state governments will take action (hence the existence of state militias that most closely relate to the people). The idea of both becoming corrupt was never feared, since the state and federal governments are rivals, so we don't need to worry about that. Of course, in a modern time, gun ownership would probably be useless, but in that same regard, I highly doubt a tyranny of the government will occur any time soon or ever, for that matter. The government has infringed on people's rights all the time through history anyhow, so I don't see why so much passion is maintained in keeping the Second Amendment. I'm lecturing now, but all of you shouldn't be controlled by the party. You shape your own rights, not the Republican or Democratic Party.
Quote from: Mashi on January 17, 2013, 02:24:57 PMGuns aren't the problem, people are. So there are two main remedies, excluding the gun ban:
Educate People - People who commit crimes through gun violence often fall into two categories; criminals of low intelligence and (very rarely) slightly above adequate (or even significantly) intelligence, sociopathic masterminds. The criminals of low intelligence don't often commit crimes out of evil or greed or anything (if my memory of Criminal Justice serves me correct, I don't remember for sure).
Is that not what I have said in the times previous to this one? :P
The problem is how to educate them. Recidivism is quite bad in America. Americans hardly understand the political system, so will they have the patience to learn of proper gun usage?
And that doesn't defeat the purpose of gun regulation. A combination of both methods I mentioned would be most effective.
Quote from: AkiraWe learn karate, so that we need never use it.
Quote from: AkiraFirst you must fill your head with wisdom, then you can hit ice with it.
Doesn't seem like a lot of people can do either. It's a shame that most people are like Bart and would rather have the nunchucks already. Just an accident waiting to happen -.-
I like a lot of what you said Mashi. Your facts are in order. Don't necessarily agree with your analysis, given Mason's quotes just days apart and 10 USC Sec. 311, but regardless--
Yes to education. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"Well-regulated" entails proper discipline and training. So until the "militia" is adequately trained (meaning potential gun owners are taught safe techniques and investigated with background checks), their right to keep and bear arms must be infringed.
And for clarification's sake @ Ruto, Nancy Lanza actually taught her son how to shoot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/nancy-lanza-adam-lanza-taught-to-shoot_n_2311539.html). She was evidently handling the situation and the fact that she owned firearms very ignorantly.
I'm sorry if I'm worrying "quite a few" of the members here. I do want to clarify that I am not a conspiracy theorist or right-wing nutjob :P The government is a necessary institution and secures the ability, when structured correctly, for a nation to be successful. However, I don't think that worrying about what big government means for America should be reason enough to call me a fool or suggest joining "the Alex Jones brigade." It's pretty disrespectful (not to mention immature).
Anyhow, I'm done unless anyone really wants to continue.
Quote from: spitllama on January 17, 2013, 12:21:50 PMThere have been three break-ins on my home street in the last month, and I live in an effing resort. One of the home-owners was threatened with a knife when the thieves didn't realize he was home.
Umm... I'd be packed and out of there straight after the first break in.
Quote from: spitllama on January 17, 2013, 12:21:50 PMHonestly, I think it's absurd to solely leave your life in the hands of other people (i.e. police).
But it's OK to take matters that you have no training in, into your own hands and kill someone?
Quote from: spitllama on January 17, 2013, 12:21:50 PMThey do their jobs better than any of us, but they respond after crises have already started.
Well of course. If there was a police person present in ever crisis that ever happened, we'd have to many police!
Quote from: spitllama on January 17, 2013, 12:21:50 PMThey are evidently an insufficient preventative in keeping crime down.
Now that's just wrong. They are the only preventative we have of keeping crime down. There isn't a magical machine that can lock someone away the moment they think of killing someone. Another way of keeping crime down is to make guns illegal. This will greatly reduce the number of murders, and will make society a safer place. Trust me, in Australia, it just doesn't happen.
I am also finished, I cannot be bothered arguing any more. (lol I made 2 posts :P) I respectfully disagree with your opinions, Spitllama and Black Dragon Slayer, but I do not think ill of you.
Quote from: Clanker37 on January 18, 2013, 01:54:49 AMUmm... I'd be packed and out of there straight after the first break in.
That's the thing:
1: Not everybody can afford to move.
2: Not everybody WANTS to move.
3: Now THAT is paranoid. :P You can't just jump up and leave at the slightest sign of trouble... if you did that, you'd have a new home every week.
I think some of you aren't reading all the arguments so I'm not going to bother with super long posts again -.- I think Clanker really brought up some good points too.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 12:15:12 PMThat's the thing:
1: Not everybody can afford to move.
2: Not everybody WANTS to move.
3: Now THAT is paranoid. :P You can't just jump up and leave at the slightest sign of trouble... if you did that, you'd have a new home every week.
I don't see how you'd risk your family by staying in a place like that, or want to move when your house has been broken into multiple times. How can you think of money being an issue when you move, if by staying, you'd get robbed or someone gets hurt in a burglary? It's not being paranoid at all to think about safety and it's not what you'd call "a slightest bit of trouble."
Having your house broken into doesn't justify carrying a gun in public. It is paranoia to think you'd always need one...and just delusional to think you'd be able to play a hero and stop a crime with it someday.
As for the Sandy Hook shooter (no names please), it's another example of a careless gun owner. You might not be one, but the fact is there are many more careless gun owners like that, selling their guns to some stranger on eBay, not securing them, or are just plain crazy. Politicians are trying to prevent another tragedy from happening and you're crying about them taking your guns away? That's really selfish.
Another thing is that you should cite recent sources. Quotes from 200-300 years ago don't necessarily reflect the modern views. Does anyone remember what the 3/5 compromise was? Is that a little racist by today's standards or what?
*repeats Clanker* I don't have anything against Spit or BDS personally but I don't agree with your views on guns.
Here's my opinion, short and strong:
Guns should not have been invented, no one should even have them. Guns bring NOTHING but harm.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on January 18, 2013, 01:31:00 PMHere's my opinion, short and strong:
Guns should not have been invented, no one should even have them. Guns bring NOTHING but harm.
Say that again when the aliens attack.
Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
Quote from: Ruto on January 18, 2013, 01:23:08 PMI don't see how you'd risk your family by staying in a place like that, or want to move when your house has been broken into multiple times. How can you think of money being an issue when you move, if by staying, you'd get robbed or someone gets hurt in a burglary? It's not being paranoid at all to think about safety and it's not what you'd call "a slightest bit of trouble."
Having your house broken into doesn't justify carrying a gun in public. It is paranoia to think you'd always need one...and just delusional to think you'd be able to play a hero and stop a crime with it someday.
Hmmm... let's take an example from my own life...
The neighborhood we used to live (when I was really young) in was rather violent (e.g. we found bullets lodged in our walls, as my father has said several times), although the neighbors were friendly. Although we were somewhat-eager to leave, we couldn't at the time.
However, now, the neighborhood we live in is peaceful, except for a few break-ins that have been happening in the past year (when people aren't at home, though; even in the gated communities around here).
To sum it all up, the reason we are still here is because there's no reason to move; it isn't paranoia to carry a gun: it's paranoia to constantly be hopping around just because of some little threat, which could be easily handled some other way. Unless there was a mass invasion of robbers (a dozen people breaking in through the roof, windows, and doors :P), there is more than one way to take care of them (whether it be guns or fists >:D).
If you think of stopping crime as a delusion, then there is no way you can: you must take action whenever it is needed, and within your boundaries. Doubt and inaction are, obviously, worse solutions, in most cases, unless justified.
Quote from: Shadoninja on January 18, 2013, 01:33:49 PMSay that again when the aliens attack.
Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
Exactly; you might as well amputate people's hands and feet and replace them with mechanical ones that resist when you try to use them for violence. :P
Quote from: Shadoninja on January 18, 2013, 01:33:49 PMSay that again when the aliens attack.
Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
So you disagree with me, eh?
YOU MUST DIE
Quote from: Waddle Bro on January 18, 2013, 01:46:16 PMSo you disagree with me, eh?
YOU MUST DIE
I didn't say I disagreed with you but it would be pointless to magically unexist guns because we humans will just find some other way to kill each other.
Don't be pessimistic. You'll make Mikuru cry. :(
Quote from: Waddle Bro on January 18, 2013, 02:00:32 PMDon't be pessimistic. You'll make Mikuru cry. :(
Being pessimistic is different from being honest, though in some cases honesty can hurt (like Mikuru :P).
Quote from: Shadoninja on January 18, 2013, 01:33:49 PMSay that again when the aliens attack.
Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
For instance, when I get a fairly long paint brush and a springy clothes-hanger from backstage theater and go around shooting people. XD
Quote from: Shadoninja on January 18, 2013, 01:33:49 PMBesides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
That's true. But handguns make it a lot easier to kill a bunch of people at one time.
- They are easily concealable, without a specific security check you can get one with you almost everywhere.
- They are extremely mobile. A pistol and ammunition to kill dozens of people can easily be carried in pockets. Neither do they weigh you down while running, for instance.
- They can be used at range, not requiring you to expose yourself to the victim or get into close combat in order to hurt him.
- They require very little preparation to use. Acquire gun and ammo, put ammo in gun, pull trigger, that's it.
- They can be used repeatedly very fast. If you miss a shot or two, you can just pull the trigger again.
- You can ready one, shoot, scramble around for a time interval of your choice and still be ready to shoot again at a moment's notice.
- The amount of force required to operate the weapon is minuscule compared to the amount of force it transfers to the target.
- The amount of skill required to kill somebody with them is laughably small. As long as your victim is in the path of the bullet, he will get severely injured.
- They can be used (somewhat less reliably) whilst drunk, drugged, half-asleep, child or in panic and still be incredibly lethal.
- They (currently) don't require much effort or money to acquire and operate.
- The probability of collateral damage is high. The bullet will keep going until it hits something.
- They are just as dangerous to accidental victims as to intentional. A speeding bullet does not care if the person it hits is your target or an innocent bystander.
- You can (legally or illegally) acquire all the components (gun and ammo) and practising with the weapon without raising too much suspicion. Not before you kill somebody with it.
Had killing people been a competitive metagame ruled by somebody, guns would have been banned to Ubers. No other items can claim the same efficiency when it comes to homicide. They are either unwieldy, cumbersome, expensive or unreliable, put the user in a risky situation, or require a great amount of power and skill to kill with.
Tl;dr: Guns don't necessarily kill people. People kill people. But guns make it a hell of a lot easier.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on January 18, 2013, 02:00:32 PMYou'll make Mikuru cry. :(
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 02:07:25 PM(like Mikuru :P).
And all of the sudden, I want to uncontrollably punch you both and I have no idea why.
Here in Australia, we don't see why you would have the need to use guns. I don't know why Americans see having a gun as a right. Phht! :P
Quote from: fingerz on January 18, 2013, 04:11:59 PMHere in Australia, we don't see why you would have the need to use guns. I don't know why Americans see having a gun as a right. Phht! :P
Population of Australia: 22,620,600
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 1.0
Population of US: 311,591,917
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 4.8
The United States alone (don't make me find the statistics of the whole continent of North America) has about 13 times the population of Australia, yet the murder rate is only (a bit ironic to say "only", I should add...) 4.8 times it.
"The study (undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development) estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004."
"For the year 2010 UNODC made a similar study. It presumed a number of 468,000 intentional homicides for this year. That would correspond to a worldwide rate of 6.9."
Honduras has the highest rate:
Population: 8,249,574
Homicide per 100,000 people: 91.6
Now, for a minute, let's look at Spain:
Population: 47,265,321
Homicide per 100,000 people: 0.8
Gun laws in Spain, according to this (http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/03/gun-laws-in-spain.html):
"Gun owners must be licensed and undergo strict medical and psychological tests. No one is permitted to own more than six hunting rifles and one handgun."
"Firearms must be registered and inspected annually."
"Machine guns and submachine guns are banned, as are imitation pistols."
According to this (http://belegal.com/questions/showQuestion/70-What-are-the-gun-laws-like-in-Spain-), gun laws are more restrictive.
Also somewhat relevant, but providing less information (and thus, probably not the best source): this (http://www.ehow.com/how_6589552_gun-license-spain.html)
I'm not sure if this (and Spain :P) has been mentioned before in this thread, but a balance of strict and "right-to-bear-arms" would help reduce homicide rate in a country as large as the United States.
If that is the only alternative that people will agee on, I'll go with that at least.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 04:38:12 PMPopulation of Australia: 22,620,600
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 1.0
Population of US: 311,591,917
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 4.8
The United States alone (don't make me find the statistics of the whole continent of North America) has about 13 times the population of Australia, yet the murder rate is only (a bit ironic to say "only", I should add...) 4.8 times it.
I don't think you're interpreting those statistics right. If it's per 100,000 people, the population should be irrelevant, which means that we're doing something wrong.
Quote from: vermilionvermin on January 18, 2013, 04:47:36 PMI don't think you're interpreting those statistics right. If it's per 100,000 people, the population should be irrelevant, which means that we're doing something wrong.
The larger a population, the greater number, one would assume, of individuals that are likely to commit a crime of any degree (including homicides). I not not merely interpreting numbers, but also putting other points in conjunction with them.
Whoa whoa let me get this straight:
Moving every time there's a break-in on your street is not paranoia.
Having a concealed firearm is.
wat
Quote from: spitllama on January 18, 2013, 06:14:09 PMWhoa whoa let me get this straight:
Moving every time there's a break-in on your street is not paranoia.
Having a concealed firearm is.
wat
That's exactly what I mentioned previously, more than once. Easier solutions to problems are (obviously) a lot more sensible.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 04:38:12 PMGun laws in Spain, according to this (http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/03/gun-laws-in-spain.html):
"Gun owners must be licensed and undergo strict medical and psychological tests. No one is permitted to own more than six hunting rifles and one handgun."
"Firearms must be registered and inspected annually."
"Machine guns and submachine guns are banned, as are imitation pistols."
Australia has similar laws. In fact I think you have to pay tax to own a gun. And every time Labor's in Parliament it goes up :P
Quote from: spitllama on January 18, 2013, 06:14:09 PMWhoa whoa let me get this straight:
Moving every time there's a break-in on your street is not paranoia.
Having a concealed firearm is.
wat
OK, so I over exaggerated a bit. Of course I wouldn't move out every time there was a break in. But, if there was a significant amount or an event which was severe enough I would move out. If there was a person which put me or my family at risk, I would be out of there like a jack rabbit.
It maybe different in the US, but in Australia (Well, Perth at least) you have very defined areas where certain people hang out. If you're poor and rowdy (AKA a bogan) you live in Rockingham or Armadale. If you're part of the middle class, you live in say Claremont or East Victoria Park. If you're rich and high class, Subiaco or Cottesloe. I doubt anyone knows or cares about what I just said, but I don't care. :P It makes my point clear to Perth people.
Anyways, so I lied. But I'm not going to argue with you guys any more! It makes me sad and I don't know why :(
Quote from: Clanker37 on January 18, 2013, 10:52:02 PMAustralia has similar laws. In fact I think you have to pay tax to own a gun. And every time Labor's in Parliament it goes up :P
Wikipedia: "State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.
Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.
Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."
Pest control is a worse reason than self-defense... unless you have a history of giant snakes (a shovel might do for smaller ones) or really really big... raccoons... :P Or have a garden/are a farmer...
Quote from: Clanker37 on January 18, 2013, 10:52:02 PMBut I'm not going to argue with you guys any more! It makes me sad and I don't know why :(
As long as it doesn't get out of control, arguing (or "discussion") can be a rather good brain exercise. :P
Quote from: Clanker37 on January 18, 2013, 10:52:02 PMAustralia has similar laws. In fact I think you have to pay tax to own a gun. And every time Labor's in Parliament it goes up :P
OK, so I over exaggerated a bit. Of course I wouldn't move out every time there was a break in. But, if there was a significant amount or an event which was severe enough I would move out. If there was a person which put me or my family at risk, I would be out of there like a jack rabbit.
;D My thoughts exactly^^
Quote from: Clanker37 on January 18, 2013, 10:52:02 PMBut I'm not going to argue with you guys any more! It makes me sad and I don't know why :(
Hahaha same. And a bit like playing chess with a pigeon sorta.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 11:30:51 PMPest control is a worse reason than self-defense... unless you have a history of giant snakes (a shovel might do for smaller ones) or really really big... raccoons... :P Or have a garden/are a farmer...
Have you seen the fauna in Australia? They have those giant tarantulas in their backyards that can jump and burrow. Deadly ones. There are also more deadly snakes, platypuses...in summary, a lot of weird animals live in Australia. Since humans sometimes can't outrun, outsmart or hide from animals...yeah.
Quote from: Ruto on January 19, 2013, 12:24:04 AMHave you seen the fauna in Australia? They have those giant tarantulas in their backyards that can jump and burrow. Deadly ones. There are also more deadly snakes, platypuses...in summary, a lot of weird animals live in Australia. Since humans sometimes can't outrun, outsmart or hide from animals...yeah.
Here, we only have scorpions, snakes, and spiders (as well as more common household pests; nothing should be a problem unless you're near the hiking areas :P)... but I would assume, unless you were trigger happy (I don't think you'd want to use a gun on a Redback Spider... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redback_spider)) out of those you listed, you might only need to shoot the platypuses... (also cane toads, if you encounter them; some invasive species are listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia))
Also, as seen here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100831120423AARN02S), are (I assume) other Australians talking about pests in cities. To quote one person: "We do have some hurtful and deadly animals and spiders but most of us never see them. The snakes I have seen wanted to run away from me, as fast as I ran from them. You will get some which are aggressive." (when we were hiking once, we literally walked past a snake without even knowing it until we were really close...)
Although, since I have never been to Australia, I can tell that that certainly does not represent the entire country. However, I can't find much more about common pests (and other animals) in Australia, aside from the above/below.
Platypus (http://www.australianfauna.com/platypus.php)
I hate spiders (http://www.australianfauna.com/huntsmanspider.php)
Snakes (http://www.australianfauna.com/australiansnakes.php)
Wolf spiders, but I think we have these in California too... (http://www.australianfauna.com/wolfspider.php)
Jellyfish, but if you're close enough to shoot it, it might be too late... (http://www.australianfauna.com/boxjellyfish.php)
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 11:30:51 PMAs long as it doesn't get out of control, arguing (or "discussion") can be a rather good brain exercise. :P
Going on this basis:
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 11:30:51 PMPest control is a worse reason than self-defense... unless you have a history of giant snakes (a shovel might do for smaller ones) or really really big... raccoons... :P Or have a garden/are a farmer...
The only reason that anyone has a gun in Australia is because they're a farmer and have to keep kangaroos, cats and foxes from attacking their flocks and harvests. It's actually a legitimate reason, imo. Also, we have to many kangaroos so we need to cull them. Anyone else who asks gets rejected.
Quote from: Ruto on January 19, 2013, 12:24:04 AMHave you seen the fauna in Australia? They have those giant tarantulas in their backyards that can jump and burrow. Deadly ones. There are also more deadly snakes, platypuses...in summary, a lot of weird animals live in Australia. Since humans sometimes can't outrun, outsmart or hide from animals...yeah.
This is kinda wrong as well. Platypuses are herbivores and if you're attacked by one it's probably retarded or you're standing on it's nest. Snakes will escape from anyone who stomps and they just don't appear in Winter. Just don't touch the spiders. If there's a messy web it means that the spider is venomous. Neat, circular webs are that of nice spiders, but it's easier just to stay away. Plus they keep the flies and mozzies down :) You're more likely to be killed if you're in between a bogan and his Jack Daniel's.
I think we've gone a bit off topic. But I like edumacating you guys on Australia. :D
That is also the only legitimate reason people still have a gun in the US. There are still people that live out in the middle of nowhere and need some way to deal with a bear or cougar etc etc. I suppose you could call hunting legitimate, but that's really the extent of it.
It simply boils down to the fact that there is no good reason for gun ownership to be as widespread as it is. Most of the rest of the world has moved past such primitive behavior.
Also, don't make bigger fools of yourselves by throwing around statistics like the nut of the day on whatever radio show... they prove nothing at all. There are far more variables to those than just gun ownership among other serious problems that any researcher would laugh at...
Most people have guns simply because they like collecting them. I hate to pan collectors of anything but I think there are safer hobbies they could have.
Quote from: Clanker37 on January 19, 2013, 08:01:16 AMPlatypuses are herbivores and if you're attacked by one it's probably retarded or you're standing on it's nest. Snakes will escape from anyone who stomps and they just don't appear in Winter. Just don't touch the spiders. If there's a messy web it means that the spider is venomous. Neat, circular webs are that of nice spiders, but it's easier just to stay away. Plus they keep the flies and mozzies down :) You're more likely to be killed if you're in between a bogan and his Jack Daniel's.
I think we've gone a bit off topic. But I like edumacating you guys on Australia. :D
Haha xD The platypus example was to show how weird the animals are in Australia compared to the ones we see here. IIRC British scientists had a field day when they first saw one. Some thought it was a joke and the beak was sewn on, etc. That's some good advice about spiders xD Unless you live in the Southwest you won't even see anything but household ones here.
Quote from: Ruto on January 19, 2013, 10:56:15 AMhow weird the animals are in Australia
have you ever seen a cassowary
i was killed by one once
Quote from: Ruto on January 19, 2013, 10:56:15 AMHaha xD The platypus example was to show how weird the animals are in Australia compared to the ones we see here. IIRC British scientists had a field day when they first saw one. Some thought it was a joke and the beak was sewn on, etc. That's some good advice about spiders xD Unless you live in the Southwest you won't even see anything but household ones here.
xD Sorry! I knew you weren't that stupid! And the spider advice doesn't always apply. But it usually does :D
Quote from: SocialFox on January 19, 2013, 04:03:23 PMhave you ever seen a cassowary
i was killed by one once
I haven't, but those drop bears... They'll rip your arms off!
drop bears, not even once
also, everything in australia will kill you I will never go there mah gawd
Currently trying to convince a group of redneck Facebook friends that the Confederate flag does not represent a love for cornbread and Nascar -.-
mahgawd
I live in the South, so I can't say that guns should be banned entirely. :P
A background check is required to purchase a gun from a store, but when you are buying it from anywhere else (garage sell, etc.), the need for a background check suddenly disappears.
Rifle shooting and shot gun shooting at clay pigeons make for good sport, and it'd be kind of sad if I was suddenly not allowed to do that anymore.
Yes, a little bit more gun control, but nothing too strict.
I'd argue that I need them for the zombie apocalypse but they're only helpful if you have a silencer, otherwise you just attract more zombies!!!!
This is why I prefer close range weapons like my quarter staff that I carry around everywhere and yeah
if life became like highschool of the dead would that really be so bad
Zombies are attacking the world but BOOBS. BOOBS EVERYWHERE.
And in conclusion...politics. Good night, everybody.
Don't raise that minimum wage Congress -_-
They're actually trying to? >.<
Obama said last night that he wants to up it to $9/hr :-\
yay no summer job for me
Sorry Obama, but I'd like to keep my job.
also my aunt raised the price of everything and now i don't know the price of anything
and speaking of guns
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F535435_464898503565521_1831910966_n.jpg&hash=dabc6f618a290d81c90c4deea2bd23f279f13f64)
Quote from: Jub3r7 on February 15, 2013, 11:07:52 PMalso my aunt raised the price of everything and now i don't know the price of anything
and speaking of guns
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F535435_464898503565521_1831910966_n.jpg&hash=dabc6f618a290d81c90c4deea2bd23f279f13f64)
LOL; that's so true... I guess you can't really use that signpost to defend yourself... :o
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on February 16, 2013, 12:06:06 AMLOL; that's so true... I guess you can't really use that signpost to defend yourself... :o
Well, a signpost could take a bullet or two, but you're right, it'll snap fairly quickly. In a hypothetical way.
California Congresswoman Rep. Jackie Speier CA is trying to get a bill passed that prohibits counseling to change someone's sexual orientation.
Problem? She's including pedophilia as an orientation. And Democrats defeated a proposed amendment that would say that pedophilia isn't included.
Ummmm...
Quote from: spitllama on April 03, 2013, 07:30:12 PMCalifornia Congresswoman Rep. Jackie Speier CA is trying to get a bill passed that prohibits counseling to change someone's sexual orientation.
Problem? She's including pedophilia as an orientation. And Democrats defeated a proposed amendment that would say that pedophilia isn't included.
Ummmm...
Oh...that's not what I was expecting to hear.
Quote from: BonusPwnage on February 19, 2013, 12:51:00 PMWell, a signpost could take a bullet or two, but you're right, it'll snap fairly quickly. In a hypothetical way.
No, the bullets would go through the signpost. It couldn't stop even one.
IN A HYPOTHETICAL WAY YOU MEAN PERSON
Thank you for correcting me, friend.
By "defend yourself" I meant attacking the person with the signpost... :P But I guess both meanings could apply (self-defense or just defense).
Attacking with a signpost is like attacking with a blanket. Take the stick from the signpost and beat them to death with it. Works much better.
Quote from: FSM-Reapr on April 03, 2013, 08:01:54 PMAttacking with a signpost is like attacking with a blanket. Take the stick from the signpost and beat them to death with it. Works much better.
Yes, the stick is part of the signpost...
Quote from: spitllama on April 03, 2013, 07:30:12 PMCalifornia Congresswoman Rep. Jackie Speier CA is trying to get a bill passed that prohibits counseling to change someone's sexual orientation.
Problem? She's including pedophilia as an orientation. And Democrats defeated a proposed amendment that would say that pedophilia isn't included.
Is there another bill or is it SB 1172? That one was introduced by Jackie Speier but it's talking specifically about children, at which point pedophilia shouldn't be an issue. I did about 10 minutes of research and couldn't find anything conclusive.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on April 03, 2013, 08:12:23 PMYes, the stick is part of the signpost...
That's why I said to take it off from one...
Nah I'm referring to the same bill. My interpretation is that a teenager can very well be a pedophile and need psychiatric help. The term "pedophilia" doesn't have anything to do with the age of consent since it's a medical and not a legal term.
You can't fix someone's sexual fetishes -.- you just need to make sure they don't act on them if they're of that nature.
A couple students from my college apparently entered a contest, in which they created a video regarding GPA redistribution. The proposal would take points from the top 10% of students, and distribute them to seniors who weren't going to meet the grade requirements for graduation. I'd be interested to hear opinions/rebuttals!
I would disagree with the proposed notion. GPA isn't something like a tax that the government takes for utilising resources in the country. Not to mention that GPA isn't like money to be spent; it's a marker of academic success that's important for analysis in college/graduate school applications; a failing doctor can't be allowed to pass simply to be nice. If we wanted to help those failing, it's probably better to give equal opportunity (eg. review sessions, extra credit assignments, and other things that would be open to everyone) to pass than an easy pass.
In school, for the most part, the playing field is mostly equal; although inequality of opportunity is always present (some parents may be able to afford tutors, some students may be able to afford better study supplies, etc.), such things can't be helped (like how an affluent engineer is much ahead of a new immigrant despite social efforts to create equality of opportunity) and academic intelligence, I feel, is something that mostly requires independent hard work than through social interactions and dependency on circumstances that may be beyond us. Chances are, if someone has a low GPA, it's not out of inequality of education; people have the same teachers and materials in school, so equality of opportunity certainly at least exists within the parameters of a public school.
Of course, if we were to include other institutions such as private schools and the like, the notion of equal opportunity becomes a bit skewed, but I don't think such things can really be helped. Not to mention that I feel that intelligence is something worth most when learnt independently, anyhow. Quite a number of geniuses in the past have come from poor backgrounds, after all (such as Tesla and Faraday, for example).
I agree, and so do the creators of the video :D
It's surprising how many people at MSU were all for the idea. What, in someone's head, says it's okay to just take from those who have worked for their GPA to give it to others?
Like Mashi said, tax isn't really the same as a GPA.
There's always going to be complaints about taxes but the fact is, without taxes, everything will be more expensive for everyone. If you go to Switzerland, you'd get the idea. Lowest sales taxes in the European Union but expect to pay at least double for groceries (Friend said half a dozen eggs cost $3?!! Even a basket of basic grocery items cost $50. She ended buying groceries in France to save money and actually be able to afford fish and meat). In Austria, sales tax is nearly double but on average, food costs less than half as much.
It's just wrong to assume taxes go into welfare/useless social programs/disability and then blame people for being lazy. I'm sure a lot of other things wouldn't exist without taxes.
...I'm also using sales tax rates because I can't seem to find the average tax rate.
I'm not even referring to taxes. We could argue about that for days. Just consider the mindset of these students-- that this is okay. It seems like an extremely perverted interpretation of what equality means.
Well, equality is a matter of perspetive. Different people are on different extremes of the spectrum.
So Abott is our new prime minister.
Fuck.
Quote from: Yugi on September 07, 2013, 04:18:07 AMSo Abott is our new prime minister.
Fuck.
Hurray! I missed being in the shithole! :D
In politics, there are sides to take, but Politicians just choose the one that sounds best to the public.
Actual stated policies and opinions are usually fabricated to appeal to people. Whether or not they actually agree with the policy or even have those opinions is an entirely different matter.
The government needs reform. And the only way that is going to happen is if we destroy the status quo...
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjub3r7.appspot.com%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m1nnrffEvJ1r6zob3o1_500.gif&hash=c3253f498a9572b71ff973f5793bea58ed2cd485)
*insert dr. horrible song here*
So the Finnish government has been overspending by 7 billion euros, and they had to make budget cuts.
One of those cuts will make me work 2,5 years more before I retire. It's so easy to let the future generation save us, until they realise they were screw'd over.
Hahaha things aren't that great here either. Hmm...what can I say but get a job that would make you so useful, everyone would just call you for advice while you just sit at an office chair all day?
Ruto, when you make your company of tutoring services worth billions of dollars, I want in, okay???
Australia's trying not to go to war with Indonesia, so we might need your help on this one, America...
Again...
Oh and apparently my generation will move out at 25 -30's and work till we're 80. >_>
You're not getting my help, America has enough problems to be engaging in another conflict.
Oh! But we may have accidentally, unintentionally spied on the Indonesian president, by mistake! But we didn't mean too! And he won't stop saying things at us! He called us a bunch of silly sausages and made my mummy cry! Please, America! We promise we won't do it again!
Quote from: Mashi on December 01, 2013, 03:08:15 PMRuto, when you make your company of tutoring services worth billions of dollars, I want in, okay???
Yeah! And if this science thing doesn't work out, we'll run that restaurant, right???
Quote from: Clanker37 on December 01, 2013, 11:41:45 PMOh! But we may have accidentally, unintentionally spied on the Indonesian president, by mistake! But we didn't mean too! And he won't stop saying things at us! He called us a bunch of silly sausages and made my mummy cry! Please, America! We promise we won't do it again!
America got away with more crap than that and didn't go to war for it (yet).
Quote from: Clanker37 on December 01, 2013, 11:41:45 PMOh! But we may have accidentally, unintentionally spied on the Indonesian president, by mistake! But we didn't mean too! And he won't stop saying things at us! He called us a bunch of silly sausages and made my mummy cry! Please, America! We promise we won't do it again!
Look, at of you not-Americas need to get your s*** together; it's our job to get in everybody's businness and f*** everything up 10x worse than it was, but it's also our right to just let you f*** up on your own.
'Mericuh.
But the Prime Minister hasn't apologized! He's not being politically correct! What shall we do? The Indonesian's have cows! We only have kangaroos! Powerless against their cows! Particularly if they've been trained in Indonesia! Please protect us from their cows! They're smelly and look funny!
Oh no, we're not dealing with cows ever again, not since The Great Moo-vasion of 1897, where our beloved Secretary of Dairy-tary Bessie McCow-Pun betrayed us to the evil Benito Moosolini.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on December 01, 2013, 11:56:58 PMOh no, we're not dealing with cows ever again, not since The Great Moo-vasion of 1897, where our beloved Secretary of Dairy-tary Bessie McCow-Pun betrayed us to the evil Benito Moosolini.
Moorica
We'll just have to ask New Zealand for some sheep then. They have very ewenique war strategies. One involves a sheep-shape lamborgini. I just hope they're wooling
We'd use koalas, but we don't have the koalafictions.
Quote from: Clanker37 on December 02, 2013, 12:04:40 AMWe'd use koalas, but we don't have the koalafictions.
That animal joke was un
bearably bad. I just got dumber for reading it.
...shit, this one's even worse.
Man, that is some criminally bad punning you two have there.
Quote from: MasterProX on December 02, 2013, 12:07:06 AMThat animal joke was unbearably bad. I just got dumber for reading it.
...shit, this one's even worse.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpub%2Fimages%2Fhurricane_of_bears.PNG&hash=ee86df31c09f609e4e1860b73a4e0bd161673564)
Leave bears out of your bad jokes D:
It's OK. I'm under a rest.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg19.imageshack.us%2Fimg19%2F1104%2Fo9cd.jpg&hash=7f2ab51dac7fb8543f42e248b2d17182fca30131)
I'm in real treble now.
Do I need to repeat any of that?
Pun's aren't your forte, are they?
I'm kinda flat when it comes to jokes in general actually.
Perhaps you should get sharper, then? I'm sure you can be quite clef-er
It's kinda hard to be clefer when you're still A minor.
I'm oboe to lose it with you guys. Music puns are the root and fifth of all things evil. I expect no more of this, as it always leads to sax and violins, and members tend to get band for that kind of staff. Do I make mezzo-f clear?
No, I don't, the bad puns are too loud to understand you.
This conversation has struck a chord with me for some reason.
I honestly don't like the tone of this whole conversation. I mean, everyone knows I'm the dominant pun maker on NSM. So y'all need to get in the rhythm or just give it a rest.
you guys are terrible at this politics thing
Yeah, well the politicians set that bar pretty low.
Ugh.
oh no maestro not you too
99% sure Maestro started this whole thing
Not the puns (which I'm pretty sure were all taken off a tumblr post that I'm too lazy to find)
I didn't start with the puns, besides these people aren't even clever with them. Amatuer rank punning going on here.
Lol maestro I thought your bar one was the laziest/lamest one. Almost no effort went into it. :P
Yes, but it was actually relevant to the conversation at hand, because lawyers, who often become politicians, have to pass the Bar exam before they are allowed to practiced.
See, a good pun has layers.
You remain unexcused.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on December 02, 2013, 07:07:24 PMYes, but it was actually relevant to the conversation at hand, because lawyers, who often become politicians, have to pass the Bar exam before they are allowed to practiced.
See, a good pun has layers.
I think u mean a good pun has
lawyers
And the award for worst pun of the century goes to...
Wait, I thought we were purposely making bad puns that were so stupid they were funny again.
Yes, that is what the politics topic is for now.
Well, that's only fitting, considering politics is something of a joke these days.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkidzshowz.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2Ftumblr_lw5pcgcane1qahbsb.jpg%3Fw%3D640&hash=8b017910ffd3db3e9ec90a7f5ea30468150f38a4)
So I was watching CNN and they had this guy named Larry Klayman.
He's so annoying it's not even funny.
So I was reading this article today about how MSNBC sacked a staff member for tweeting/strongly implying the right wing will be offended by a Cheerios ad. The article was okay but the comments were funny. Yes, the person shouldn't have used an MSNBC company account for that but then I notice that they tend to take action for this kind of offensive crap unlike the other side and defend themselves by the First Amendment. Chick-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty, anyone?
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Frightwing_asshats_zpsaa1a9c91.png&hash=082654fd83dc7a6eab1ce9e6618a5d737bf59a2d)
I think if the right wants to make sense to everyone, they should really work on their image. First, know whether something is offensive.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Foffensiveerikson_zps9c66266b.png&hash=29e5ac8a7b8f5a20bea891c414dcfbe23c5074e7)
Second, name calling is the lowest in any form of argument.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/s526x395/644519_313277398799009_1831031695_n.jpg)
Third, work on bad logic and bad science.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-NcDCU4ZWAB8%2FUJ0wHVAfK0I%2FAAAAAAAADR8%2FuUedSBGap60%2Fs1600%2FToddAkin-rape.jpeg&hash=ec1b5f38774d897ca423e424099882c265dd9e4f)
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Fpwned_zps98db5ae0.png&hash=5b1afd3f21612dae97324b768595ff967b0bcd95)
Fourth, don't use science to back up your unscientific comments or things that have nothing to do with science whatsover. Biology is soooo cruel from anyone who's ever studied biology. Didn't 98+% percent of everything that once lived on Earth become extinct?
(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/p480x480/1533929_648368708555918_848763371_n.jpg)
Fifth, fact check. Always fact check. (This one also has snark to it! As expected from a misguided and misinformed champion of teh righteous Bristol Palin)
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1546360_653627538030035_978587031_n.jpg)
There's more but I can't loaf around all day.
Ohh I'm still loafing but while looking for something else I found this.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Ffundieteacher_zps813af630.png&hash=aa1e9fba5319c586ef12cc8062b2323c0ed973ef)
From: http://gawker.com/bible-thumping-bumpkins-make-buddhists-life-hell-at-la-1510067222
Quote from: Ruto on February 01, 2014, 12:50:47 PMOhh I'm still loafing but while looking for something else I found this.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Ffundieteacher_zps813af630.png&hash=aa1e9fba5319c586ef12cc8062b2323c0ed973ef)
From: http://gawker.com/bible-thumping-bumpkins-make-buddhists-life-hell-at-la-1510067222
Quote from: Ruto on February 01, 2014, 11:43:08 AMSo I was reading this article today about how MSNBC sacked a staff member for tweeting/strongly implying the right wing will be offended by a Cheerios ad. The article was okay but the comments were funny. Yes, the person shouldn't have used an MSNBC company account for that but then I notice that they tend to take action for this kind of offensive crap unlike the other side and defend themselves by the First Amendment. Chick-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty, anyone?
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Frightwing_asshats_zpsaa1a9c91.png&hash=082654fd83dc7a6eab1ce9e6618a5d737bf59a2d)
I think if the right wants to make sense to everyone, they should really work on their image. First, know whether something is offensive.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Foffensiveerikson_zps9c66266b.png&hash=29e5ac8a7b8f5a20bea891c414dcfbe23c5074e7)
Second, name calling is the lowest in any form of argument.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/s526x395/644519_313277398799009_1831031695_n.jpg)
Third, work on bad logic and bad science.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-NcDCU4ZWAB8%2FUJ0wHVAfK0I%2FAAAAAAAADR8%2FuUedSBGap60%2Fs1600%2FToddAkin-rape.jpeg&hash=ec1b5f38774d897ca423e424099882c265dd9e4f)
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Fpwned_zps98db5ae0.png&hash=5b1afd3f21612dae97324b768595ff967b0bcd95)
Fourth, don't use science to back up your unscientific comments or things that have nothing to do with science whatsover. Biology is soooo cruel from anyone who's ever studied biology. Didn't 98+% percent of everything that once lived on Earth become extinct?
(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/p480x480/1533929_648368708555918_848763371_n.jpg)
Fifth, fact check. Always fact check. (This one also has snark to it! As expected from a misguided and misinformed champion of teh righteous Bristol Palin)
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1546360_653627538030035_978587031_n.jpg)
There's more but I can't loaf around all day.
Do you agree with this stuff?
I'm not stupid and I usually follow my advice. It's not so much a set of beliefs as it is a set of observations.
Also next time don't quote pictures from the previous post.
(It's not obvious?)
So....you do?
First of all look at the difference between my comments and the picture.
Second, the pictures don't express all the same views. (Especially the article screencap)
THIRD IT IS OBVIOUS I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT THE RIGHT WING. SO NO I DON'T.
Quote from: Ruto on February 01, 2014, 01:15:55 PMAlso next time don't quote pictures from the previous post.
Or, use spoiler tags if you're going to quote posts with large images.
oh boy ruto shittalking someone
Quote from: Ruto on February 01, 2014, 01:20:06 PMFirst of all look at the difference between my comments and the picture.
Second, the pictures don't express all the same views. (Especially the article screencap)
THIRD IT IS OBVIOUS I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT THE RIGHT WING. SO NO I DON'T.
Ok
Quote from: Yugi on February 01, 2014, 01:26:57 PMoh boy ruto shittalking someone
Dont mean to snap....but you dont need to butt in on things like that all the time
Quote from: mariolegofan on February 01, 2014, 01:30:25 PMDont mean to snap....but you dont need to butt in on things like that all the time
Well excuse me if I want to speak what's on my mind.
Well, it does get a little old
Quote from: mariolegofan on February 01, 2014, 01:39:54 PMWell, it does get a little old
Psst...you know what else gets old? Pointless bickering.
Quote from: BonusPwnage on February 01, 2014, 02:04:59 PMPsst...you know what else gets old? Pointless bickering.
Your right :)
That is a weakness of mine.
How are you doing? Havent seen you in a while :)
Quote from: mariolegofan on February 01, 2014, 02:09:31 PMHow are you doing? Havent seen you in a while :)
Good. Just busy with school, family stuff, music.
Btw we should take this somewhere else (unless we're talking about politics).
heh. That was an intense facebook debate. I decided to stay out of it.
Since no one is going to change their opinion on the matter, I suggest we leave it here.
If I learned anything from speech class, other than how to make speeches, it was that you can't convince anyone who's already taken a side on an argument. You can only convince people who are on the fence. Note: one side is usually better at their argument than another. Particularly if one has statistics and scientific, not anecdotal, examples to match up. Here's why:
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistslayers.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FArgument_Pyramid.jpg&hash=8fd114ec4ae75560873780ac58f1ec3cd9e06103)
I pulled most of those from Bristol Palin's facebook page. She should also stop trashing Wendy Davis for being a teenage mom and a success. Not a boring TV personality.
Quote from: spitllama on February 01, 2014, 06:26:05 PMFixed. Hehe.
Not the right term but more like pointing out fallacies and bad logic of an entire group.
Honestly it seemed pretty tepid to me. There was no name-calling like in a lot of FB discussions. I actually really appreciated that. Granted Ruto and I were getting snippy with our tone, but conflicting opinions do that.
As of winter last year I actually left the Republican Party, for many of the reasons that Ruto illustrated. My conservative college has ironically been a catalyst for that switch. Figured that was worth noting.
So many young people are leaving the norm of being a part of one of the big parties and remaining unaffiliated or choosing a third party.
One of the many reasons that I voted for Ron Johnson and the fact that I am no longer a Republican allows me to not adhere to a party's beliefs if not all of them are mine own.
Quote from: spitllama on February 01, 2014, 07:49:31 PMHonestly it seemed pretty tepid to me. There was no name-calling like in a lot of FB discussions. I actually really appreciated that. Granted Ruto and I were getting snippy with our tone, but conflicting opinions do that.
Oh no, it was really tame compared to most political debates on facebook. I just meant it's a touchy issue.
Opinions about abortion are like nipples. Everyone has them, but womens' are significantly more relevant. It's easy for men to say abortion is right or wrong when they don't have to deal with the consequences of it. So I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either side. I just try to stay out of arguments about the subject.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on February 01, 2014, 08:49:18 PMOh no, it was really tame compared to most political debates on facebook. I just meant it's a touchy issue.
Opinions about abortion are like nipples. Everyone has them, but womens' are significantly more relevant.
Except if you're James.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYpOCyv3.jpg&hash=ab7858324c876be97a025ddc1c360ed3f9c97963)
And omg Slow cannot unread.
Anyone realize this existed? (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/16/watch-live-operation-american-spring-warns-of-fema-roundup-civil-war-chemtrails/) More info here (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/13/operation-american-spring-promises-to-drive-obama-from-office-this-friday/#.U3JS6Mxm1V0.twitter).
It seems like those angry trolls online are really the minority, most likely using multiple accounts...
Are there any conservatives on here who can explain how suing the president isn't the most childish thing in existence? Because, like, I get it if you disagree with his policies and all, but what the actual fuck
It's another check on separate powers, something progressives have hated since the Wilson Era (or at least, when it's against their own party). Bush, Clinton, and Reagan were all sued by members of Congress during their time in office. If anything, it's much less childish than threats of impeachment.
So can I tell you how much our prime minister sucks?
Quote from: spitllama on July 22, 2014, 02:12:09 PMIt's another check on separate powers, something progressives have hated since the Wilson Era (or at least, when it's against their own party). Bush, Clinton, and Reagan were all sued by members of Congress during their time in office. If anything, it's much less childish than threats of impeachment.
Yeah, but what does it actually accomplish? I won't defend members of my own party who've done it in the past, it still seems rather silly to me. If a president is actually breaking the law or willingly acting against the better interest of the country (not that I think any president has ever done the latter), wouldn't impeachment be the more reasonable venue to deal with it? Like, at least impeachment actually got Nixon to resign (albeit under an absurdly more clear-cut scenario). What has suing a president accomplished in the past?
Quote from: Yugi on July 22, 2014, 02:16:46 PMSo can I tell you how much our prime minister sucks?
Go right ahead
Guys. You have motherfuckin' Barack Obama. We're stuck with Stephen Harper. We can trade any day
Quote from: Roz~ on July 22, 2014, 02:57:04 PMMotherfuckin' Barack Obama.
I vote official title change from "President" to this.
If that happened, I would actually be excited for the 2016 Motherfuckin' election
Quote from: Yugi on July 22, 2014, 02:16:46 PMSo can I tell you how much our prime minister sucks?
I have a friend who's really vocal about Australian politics. She agrees. She thinks he's the most backwards guy ever and thinks he's the Australian equivalent of the (American) Tea Party. I feel bad for Aussies but at the same time, at least they've had some sane policies before.
Quote from: Roz~ on July 22, 2014, 02:57:04 PMGuys. You have motherfuckin' Barack Obama. We're stuck with Stephen Harper. We can trade any day
The Aussie friend also said this but used the PM's name instead of Stephen Harper.
Quote from: spitllama on July 22, 2014, 02:12:09 PMIt's another check on separate powers, something progressives have hated since the Wilson Era (or at least, when it's against their own party). Bush, Clinton, and Reagan were all sued by members of Congress during their time in office. If anything, it's much less childish than threats of impeachment.
You must have phrased that badly. After all, you don't actually think that things were better if nothing changed right? I think environmental protection and food safety is a good thing, for starters. And a safety net. Tactics could always be better, but in some cases, you really need to order things. There's no problem with that. What the problem is, is that there are people that know better but are purposely hindering progress or improvements. Also Bush declared a war (some people call him and Cheney war criminals, can you imagine?) and it's cost so much money and Iraq is not really much better off today, with the useless army and militants running things.
10 fucking years in Iraq, 100,000 civilian casualties, god knows how much money and they're as close as ever to an all-out civil war as ever. 'Murica
Also Obama isn't all that bad for America(except for the whole "complete invasion of privacy" thing. And the whole "can use drone strikes on our own citizens" thing. And the whole "our health system wasn't really all that well planned despite the 3 years it took to pass the goddamn bill that we totally could have used to make sure it was functioning correctly"...thing)
But he seems to be doing an excellent job at pissing off Germany's prime minister.
Quote from: Yugi on July 22, 2014, 02:16:46 PMSo can I tell you how much our prime minister sucks?
Ugh... Fucking Tony...
But I like Julie Bishop. Particularly after how she handled the MH17 thing. A politician that actually did something for a change.
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS AND MAKE A STUPID JOKE
^^^
Lol why are you asking for jokes in a politics thread?
That makes no sense to me.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on December 02, 2013, 11:16:32 PMWell, that's only fitting, considering politics is something of a joke these days.
How about 3 1/2 minutes of Kim Jong-Un dancing and kung-fu fighting?
I like how his face keeps changing color
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 23, 2014, 07:12:24 AMSTOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS AND MAKE A STUPID JOKE
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Fmerkeltweet_zps3b4de0ce.png&hash=54413daad630805d2c9bce7c745300988c00f353)
The other caption was "Angela Merkel did Nazi this coming"
Quote from: Ruto on July 23, 2014, 01:27:29 PMSpoiler
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2Fmerkeltweet_zps3b4de0ce.png&hash=54413daad630805d2c9bce7c745300988c00f353)
The other caption was "Angela Merkel did Nazi this coming"
Now I can use this
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkidzshowz.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2Ftumblr_lw5pcgcane1qahbsb.jpg%3Fw%3D640&hash=8b017910ffd3db3e9ec90a7f5ea30468150f38a4)
Quote from: Ruto on July 22, 2014, 08:26:04 PMYou must have phrased that badly. After all, you don't actually think that things were better if nothing changed right? I think environmental protection and food safety is a good thing, for starters. And a safety net. Tactics could always be better, but in some cases, you really need to order things. There's no problem with that. What the problem is, is that there are people that know better but are purposely hindering progress or improvements. Also Bush declared a war (some people call him and Cheney war criminals, can you imagine?) and it's cost so much money and Iraq is not really much better off today, with the useless army and militants running things.
He asked "how suing the president isn't the most childish thing in existence," and that's what I'm addressing. If anything, the lawsuit is a broad statement about the need to rein in presidential power rather than about the employer mandate (which Republicans really don't want implemented anyhow, and will probably already be implemented by the time a decision is reached on the lawsuit).
I'm definitely not going to argue that this lawsuit is a wise decision, because it isn't. It's a waste of time. However, the ability to sue the president retains its value-- to challenge the Constitutionality of an act and draw public attention. @Fierce, the lawsuits against Clinton and Reagan were actually both successful.
But to open the can of worms that you're talking about Ruto, executive orders are 100% unconstitutional. All legislative powers reside in Congress, and the most the executive branch can do is enforce and order the enforcement of preexisting laws. The President's "We Can't Wait" policy initiative is read literally as an intent to bypass Congress. Have past presidents used executive orders? Absolutely. Have some of them been helpful in the end? I would say so. But there are currently no limits on what can be ordered, because
the law allowing for it doesn't exist. The necessary steps to make executive orders Constitutional have been ignored, and presidents have taken creative liberties in reading Article II.
I think I'm going to bump this thread because we need someplace to discuss the 2016 election (and our leading Republican friend) without spamming the other thread with political posts.
My friend had a good theory
Donald Trump is actually rooting for the democrats, and is appealing exclusively to the most vocal Republican base in order to win the nomination but not the general election
I really want to believe that tbh
Either that or he's going to run as a 3rd party, split the vote, guarantee a Democratic win, and then receive "compensation" from the party as a result. Or maybe he'll ask the Republican party to pay him off not to run as a 3rd party.
No matter what, I don't see this situation ending well.
Just to be clear I was joking about my conspiracy theory
And kinda really hope you are as well
From Gawker:
Spoiler
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi662.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu347%2Fdeku_nut%2FUntitled-1_zpsgtiw0wir.jpg&hash=81bfe08e28500beb54b03f4b742471dce8ecc1fc)
From Dude's article:
Spoiler
"The real estate mogul elaborated in a statement later Saturday morning, claiming he said "'blood coming out of her eyes and whatever,' meaning nose."
He added: "Only a deviant would think anything else.""
See, he's blaming everyone else for being deviants!
I can't find the comment with the guy saying he wants Trump to hire him for a job as a Mexican rapist/drug dealer.
Knowing Trump, he might even sue if he doesn't win the presidency xD What's disturbing are all the people still sticking up for this guy. Women are really humorless about those sort of comments...
It's probably good to have a republican in office so that they don't mess with the economy and just let it fix itself
The problem with that is Trump, but we'll see what happens.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 08, 2015, 07:40:03 PMIt's probably good to have a republican in office so that they don't mess with the economy and just let it fix itself
The economy that the Republicans largely crashed by repealing Glass Steagle.....
I'm just going to assume Nocturne's comment was sarcastic.
Guys, how do I stop this topic from showing up on my Recent Unread Topics? I'm not American and I already have to deal with Tony Abbott.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on August 08, 2015, 10:32:18 PMI'm just going to assume Nocturne's comment was sarcastic.
I don't think he was being sarcastic :p
I watched the republican debate and man was it hard to watch
i hear shit like "we need to build a wall" but nothing concerning the actual problems in your society .-.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on August 08, 2015, 10:32:18 PMI'm just going to assume Nocturne's comment was sarcastic.
though that's the exact view of the right-liberitarianistic folk that tend to appear in the US
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 08, 2015, 07:40:03 PMIt's probably good to have a republican in office so that they don't mess with the economy and just let it fix itself
[/Swanson]
Some major parts of the goverment's job include(besides providing services such as national security) balancing the difference in income, protecting the environment and creating peace within the society. In general, creating well-being. These
do not go hand to hand with the mindset of classic liberalism!! The rightists would argue with me about how balancing the difference in income is the government's duty.
But let me explain, as the difference in income becomes larger, it essentially results in more people suffering from poverty. And as long as the people who suffer from poverty remain a minority, they can't do anything about it, they can't make a change. The social mobility would pretty much be at a standstill, meaning in general the lower class wouldn't have a chance to rise to a higher class, as they are struggling to even be able to support themselves. In general, those people are more likely to be desperate enough to break the law in order to try to make their lives and situation better. And as you might deduce from all that, the difference in income is also in correlation with the severity of the criminal law. "The more severe the criminal law is, the less crime is likely to occur."
It's also notable how corrupted your justice system could become (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/30/baltimore-rioters-parents-500000-bail-allen-bullock), for example in this case favouring the upper class(instead of whites).
I would agree that relying on creative destruction would work flawlessly in theory, but the thing is that it could take
generations for injustice(=like monopolies that'd break the law) to be corrected, and the higher class could easily corrupt the public sector with their wealth. Exactly what Donald Trump has been doing, "donating" to certain people's campaigns and such and getting political favours in return. Free-market and individualism is exactly like socialism, good on paper but not irl.
It's a matter of perspective. The rightist perspective is incredibly egoistic and just shows how you care about yourself. And the leftist perspective is altruistic and utilitarianistic in the sense that it wants what is best for the most amount of people. I'm no saint, but I personally would much rather have everyone have a chance to be on the same level and the social status would only be ultimately defined by how hard they are willing to work for it, instead of being born rich and then rewarded for it. You can't say that either socialism or capitalism is "wrong", but neither of them works when taken to the extreme.
Not to show you anything like "we have the best system look at us you all suck", but to show you why I'm really satisfied and think that the Nordic model works well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model) Like read the wiki article, and I found a great Reddit page while trying to find flaws in our system (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2k6r90/cmv_i_consider_the_nordic_model_the_best/). I don't really agree with all of that criticism with my moral views, and I find that the pros outweigh the cons. Again, not doing this to "rub it in your face", but to show you how things could be.
How things could be, since my homie my bro
Bernie Sanders (https://twitter.com/sensanders) is running for president and I'm completely behind him, and I've promoted him as much as I could have so far!! Bernie Sanders is trying to bring the Nordic model to US, and I think he could very well make United States the land of opportunities it once was!! I also came across this article which is my homie Bernie talkin about what you could learn from Denmark (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html).
All you 18+, remember to register in order to vote in the preliminaries!!! Also check out Bernie Sanders, imo the best candidate :]
also I'm interested if anyone here is more willing to vote for Clinton instead of Sanders, like I don't get it why?
I'm going to a Bernie Sanders Rally today in Portland!
Hahaha Waddle makes such a good point :P
Quote from: Waddle Bro on August 09, 2015, 08:51:00 AMAll you 18+, remember to register in order to vote in the preliminaries!!! Also check out Bernie Sanders, imo the best candidate :]
also I'm interested if anyone here is more willing to vote for Clinton instead of Sanders, like I don't get it why?
I would vote for Sanders over Clinton, but from what I've heard, people want her because they think she has a better chance against the Republican candidate and that Sanders was too radical (which turns off some people). Clinton also has more experience with the government since she's been First Lady, a senator, Secretary of State...Right now the Republicans are really expecting her to be nominated, so you won't believe the slander they're dishing out against a single person.
I think the people that happily eat up any sort of garbage posted by these sites have a lot of personal problems. These same people are more willing to blame some Mexicans for their misery, rather than realize the person they voted for, is screwing them over. I saw someone defend George Bush with "he's not perfect, but at least he believes in God." Someone is too senile to remember what he did in office!
So, I ended up having to go back from the Bernie rally- because it was full before the show nearly an hour before the rally started.
Nearly 20K people attended.
If anyone still thinks he's a fringe candidate, consider the poll out today that shows he's only 5% or so behind Hillary, even accounting for margin of error.
my friends call him a socialist xD
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 09, 2015, 08:32:39 PMmy friends call him a socialist xD
i call you a libertarian xDDD
He even calls himself a democratic socialist. It's not an insult or dirty,
if you'd know what democratic socialism means. We have the Scandinavian countries and other European countries which have had social-democratic governments and labour goverments, and we have free healthcare and education and they are basic civil rights. Childcare, strong retirement benefits, we're often pro-environment, just in general our countries the government works for the middle class instead of the billionaire and rich industrialists. (x (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFAq-4Vv5c0))
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 09, 2015, 08:32:39 PMmy friends call him a socialist xD
He calls himself a socialist- and more specifically, a democratic socialist.
Same form of government that Canada, the UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Spain have.
Oh yeah politics are so much fun. I really enjoy discussing the trade-off between equality and equity. Or is that economics?
Hm, all these issues that they argue over. Are they issues? Are they non issues? Didn't they already decide that some time ago? Are they going to make radical changes that affect your personal life or minor changes that don't personally affect you so you secretly don't care?
Well the important thing is family and friendship, honesty values, and no one got arrested. *spoken guitar riff*
Would be very interesting if Sanders won the primary. I feel some of his stances are a bit radical, but I think most of his stances have the right idea for a progressive nation. Haven't really been keeping up too much with the political sphere, however, so I'm a bit ignorant on specifics.
srsly tho, when will the usa enter a socialist states like its european buddies so that i can win election of president and slowly aggrandize power on my path to world dictator
ill hire jub3r7 and ruto as assistant dictators. applications for assistant assistant dictators are also on file.
He seems radical, but in all actuality, his stances reside with the majority of americans.
Getting money out of politics- American people support.
Heavier taxes on the rich- American people support
Minimum wage to 15 an hour- American people HUGELY support (in fact, most republicans also support this- around 60% or so in the last poll I saw)
The list goes on. Probably the most dubious on his thing is a single payer healthcare system, which many ignorant kool-aid drinkers will hate because it's an extension of the Affordable Care act.
a higher minimum wage seems like it might be a problem
Random thoughts, but I feel like saying them:
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 11, 2015, 10:49:46 AMHeavier taxes on the rich- American people support
But it won't change anything. Anyone making over 1mil a year can just pay to exploit loopholes and this would have little effect on them
QuoteMinimum wage to 15 an hour- American people HUGELY support (in fact, most republicans also support this- around 60% or so in the last poll I saw)
Raising the minimum wage is one of the worst things that could happen, imo. People just think it would mean more money for those working minimum wage jobs. But, all it would do is drive up the cost of living proportionately, as everyone making above minimum wage would demand a proportionate increase in wages, and, after a year or two, those making minimum wage are no better off than before the wage rise. It may even be worse off, in fact. As soon as the wage increase is announced, every place that employs minimum wage people is going to invest heavily in automated systems. Granted, this may not benefit the companies that much after the market fully shifts, but, by that time, many minimum wage jobs will have been replaced by robots with a single person hired to maintain them. I see no benefit in the long term for this in the least.
edit: Ninja'd by a tl;dr
heh
If you look at how much inflation has occurred, the minimum wage is awful.
Tell your talking points to NYC, Seattle, and several other places that already have.
If you're concerned about businesses losing money, take a look at how much the CEO's make- thousands of dollars an hour.
Wait, I said that wrong.
Quote from: Dude on August 11, 2015, 12:18:14 PMIf you look at how much inflation has occurred, the current minimum wage amount needs to go up.
there we go. The wording was bad.
I'm more worried about unemployment going up because of companies refusing to pay more than x amount
If the federal minimum wage is $15, a living wage, as it should be, and companies start protesting and hiring less, the CEO's should also realize they're giving themselves thousands of dollars an hour and complaining about an 8 dollar increase.
Quote from: Maelstrom on August 11, 2015, 11:27:51 AMRandom thoughts, but I feel like saying them:But it won't change anything. Anyone making over 1mil a year can just pay to exploit loopholes and this would have little effect on them
Close the loopholes.
Quote from: Maelstrom on August 11, 2015, 11:27:51 AMRaising the minimum wage is one of the worst things that could happen, imo. People just think it would mean more money for those working minimum wage jobs. But, all it would do is drive up the cost of living proportionately, as everyone making above minimum wage would demand a proportionate increase in wages, and, after a year or two, those making minimum wage are no better off than before the wage rise. It may even be worse off, in fact. As soon as the wage increase is announced, every place that employs minimum wage people is going to invest heavily in automated systems. Granted, this may not benefit the companies that much after the market fully shifts, but, by that time, many minimum wage jobs will have been replaced by robots with a single person hired to maintain them. I see no benefit in the long term for this in the least.
I've heard these arguments before, but a lot of them don't actually hold. I see you're using a slippery slope argument (if wages go up, EVERYTHING else will go up). It's possible that a burger might cost more but it won't double if McDonald's wants to stay in business. Don't forget the fight for the wage increase is to give workers a living wage. Otherwise, they'd all apply for welfare and suck up tax money that everyone else has to pay.
I can tell you that unless robots can cook as well, McDonald's and Subways can't be fully automated. Most of the time, people are just pissed off because they don't want to be the bottom rung of society. What also doesn't make sense is why you're complaining about a lowly fast food worker's wage and not the CEO's, which is about 400x the worker's.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 11, 2015, 01:39:19 PMIf the federal minimum wage is $15, a living wage, as it should be, and companies start protesting and hiring less, the CEO's should also realize they're giving themselves thousands of dollars an hour and complaining about an 8 dollar increase.
A company's goal is to maximize profit. If they have to spend more money on workers then they have to decrease the number of workers until it reaches equilibrium.
Or cut the the higher up's salaries
^ Which would make much more sense, considering they make absurd amounts of money. Say a CEO makes 2,000 dollars an hour (which isn't that high for a CEO), and he works a normal day (we'll say 8 hours), he makes 16,000 dollars that day.
If a minimum wage worker wants to make that much in a year (which is hardly anything for a yearly salary) with the current federal minimum wage (7.25 an hour), he/she has to work 2206.9 hours that year.
Consider that there are a maximum of 251 work days a year. Say you get sick for two weeks throughout the entire year (10 days), and take 6 days off. You have to work about 9.5 hours a day for 235 days to make a living wage with the current federal income.
I love the philosophy of punishing those who get rich with extremely high tax rates when they already pay a much larger percentage of government revenue than they should proportionate to their income.
You are aware that the top 400 in the US last year paid 18% in income tax, right?
Some of this can be accounted by investments being taxed at a lower rate, but there are still plenty of other factors that come into play.
Read about it more here (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/its-good-to-be-rich-you-get-a-lower-tax-rate/?_r=0).
I'm more concerned about taxing huge corporations, 20% of which aren't paying anything in taxes.
Minimum wage SHOULD be raised, maybe not necessarily to $15 an hour. I read this article that explained how Seattle (one of the states that made minimum wage $15 an hour) is seeing a trend in their minimum wage employees: they are requesting to work fewer hours so they can keep their government subsidies for food, child care, and rent. So even switching to $15 an hour (which is more than I've EVER made, at age 24) still hasn't actually helped people get out of poverty and their reliance on the government.
Plus, wouldn't small businesses pretty much HAVE to close down? No way they could afford to pay employees that high of a wage and still keep all of them.
Minimum wage in Utah is $7.25. That's bullshit. NO ONE can live off of that wage, even working full time. And don't even THINK about going to school to get a higher-paying job without accruing thousands in debt:
Spoiler
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsY0IG5u.jpg&hash=e1b91b74ea2449078db89af1e59f66746a9dba8d)
the solution is simple
lower the minimum wage in 1970
You're assuming they actually report their income and assets like everyone else. They don't (always).
The money stashed overseas don't get taxed. Some forms of income aren't taxed or they do at a much lower rate, and people put their money in things like property rather than let it sit in a bank. I'm saying that if you want to live in a country with an army, coast guard and highways, you should really pay for it. It's not a punishment. Otherwise, spend your billions on a private army, plane, roads, defense/intelligence and see if you're better off paying it yourself or pooling your money together with 300 million other people for it.
In NY, the $15/hour wage is actually only for fast food workers because they fought for it. One of the reasons was so they don't have to be dependent on welfare to live. I guess we'll have to wait to see how that works. Personally I don't think $15 is even enough for childcare (how much is a daycare per hour? I get paid about $10-$12 per hour babysitting ._.) so maybe that's why they still want government assistance for that.
Quote from: Dude on August 11, 2015, 02:02:49 PMOr cut the the higher up's salaries
This is easier said than done. Do you really think the CEO of a massive company would cut his salary? He'd say, "why should I? I'm the CEO, after all," and nothing would change. Since it's the higher ups who decide their own salaries, there's now way they'd change them.
And, besides, say a company has 500,000 employees, and the CEO cuts his wage by 2 million and gives that two mill to the lower downs. They would only see a wage increase of $4.00
per year. I am against CEOs taking massive portions of the profits. But you have to remember, when it gets spread around, it thins out. This isn't to say that the CEO's wages shouldn't be cut, but that cutting them may not have as big of an impact as you may think. In fact, that extra 2 mill would probably just go toward more R and D, possibly by an outside company, rather than to the employees.
Then due to the massive amounts of people leaving company "Wedontpayenough" for company "Wepaywell" I'm sure "Wedontpayenough" will probably go out of business, and it serves them right.
Quote from: Maelstrom on August 11, 2015, 05:13:39 PMAnd, besides, say a company has 500,000 employees, and the CEO cuts his wage by 2 million and gives that two mill to the lower downs.
Lmao 500,000 is 1/6E3 of the population of the US. There aren't that many workers! There are 90,000 in the US, and it took a bit of digging but I'm seeing the CEO's salary was $27 million in 2012? This is just the CEO (and 2012), not counting the entire board of executives, each with a salary of tens of millions...and how much did McDonald's profit last year? In the billions? The workers at the bottom would notice an increase.
No one would vote for their own pay cut, but 1) fire half the staff and lose business/productivity/raise prices which would be bad for business 2) move of of the US and do business without labor laws (bad idea, most people probably can't afford to eat at McDonald's often enough in those countries). It's so much easier to stay in the US and pay taxes. People will actually eat fast food here.
I really, truly belive that McDonald's will be fully automated by robots in the next 10-15 years. Even with the minimum wage as it is labor is still one of the biggest costs. Eliminating thst makes number 1 a viable option.
McDonald's is already beginning to install touchscreens instead of cashiers taking orders (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/12/09/mcdonalds-to-install-touch-screens-in-2015/).
Quote from: Ruto on August 11, 2015, 05:37:43 PMLmao 500,000 is 1/6 of the population of the US.
Um...
Quote from: Bubbles on August 11, 2015, 07:27:08 PMMcDonald's is already beginning to install touchscreens instead of cashiers taking orders (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/12/09/mcdonalds-to-install-touch-screens-in-2015/).
That's pretty cool. A lot of shops in our downtown area which is really fancy have recently updated to those IPad thingys.
Quote from: Ruto on August 11, 2015, 05:37:43 PMLmao 500,000 is 1/6 of the population of the US. There aren't that many workers! There are 90,000 in the US, and it took a bit of digging but I'm seeing the CEO's salary was $27 million in 2012?
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on August 11, 2015, 07:44:16 PMUm...
Yeah sorry, maybe it was a typo... Your point made sense but 500,000 is more like 1/635 of the US
The US is quite populated. Current population is around 320 million IIRC.
Though MLF would have you believe it's underpopulated and that people just want you to get abortions ::)
jk mlf it was a joke
Plenty of people believe abortion is wrong without it having anything to do with population. Don't bring it up
I was making a joke, in reference to a joke that MLF made in the debate thread.
I even wrote, albeit in small text,
Quotejk mlf it was a joke
Do you have a sensor or filter for what is acceptable to say or joke about tho
I have one, just not super restrictive.
And I wouldn't normally just attack MLF like that, even though I disagree with him. I was referencing a joke he made.
Quote from: ZeldaFan on August 11, 2015, 08:30:04 PMYeah sorry, maybe it was a typo... Your point made sense but 500,000 is more like 1/635 of the US
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on August 11, 2015, 07:44:16 PMUm...
Yeah I fixed it, I forgot to type the E2.
Edit: Don't make stuff political, and like I said, you can't really replace people cooking yet. Although I would like a robotic burger flipper to avoid grease burns. One more thing, don't mess with people who make your food. Or BAM! Diarrhea.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 11, 2015, 09:26:15 PMDo you have a sensor or filter for what is acceptable to say or joke about tho
Remember back during the time when the now "over 20s" were on the forum and we got along swimmingly? It's not just because dahans is a bear, but because the smart asshat posts and ego trips are out of control.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 11, 2015, 09:32:24 PMAnd I wouldn't normally just attack MLF like that, even though I disagree with him.
He doesn't feel the same way about a lot of us, me in particular. So, I banned him for making those remarks and he has to bombard me with PMs here, expecting me to change my mind or accusing me of XYZ. And can't get over it. I'm over it and once again, my PM box is only for bears.
ironically Deez Nuts is a better candidate than donald trump
He's the worst candidate in the entire GOP honestly, I just can't get behind how obnoxious and arrogant he is.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on August 20, 2015, 10:48:19 AMironically Deez Nuts is a better candidate than donald trump
wasn't that jimmy fallon
If I have to choose one GOP candidate..... I'd shoot myself.
No, I would go out and start supporting Trump so everyone would see how stupid he is.
Go with John Kasich, I think even a lot of the liberals in Ohio like what he's done. Plus balancing the federal budget sounds nice to me.
why do all the internet and news pictures of Donald Trump have him with the most ridiculous faces
they make me ill
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 29, 2015, 01:43:25 PMwhy do all the internet and news pictures of Donald Trump have him with the most ridiculous faces
they make me ill
Because he's a ridiculous man.
I just don't get how someone who acts like a petty third grader can get as much support as he does lol
Because people keep talking about him instead of ignoring him.
And because as arrogant and annoying as he is, he's ridiculously entertaining. Plus people know that he's not going to lie to the American people over and over again like the *coughs* current administration does. He's going to speak his mind like he always has.
At least are current administration is actually trying to come up with legitimate solutions. "Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is just so uneducated and stupid. A sincere idiot is still an idiot. He can go down with Sarah Palin in the hall of "people to use as ammunition against the conservatives."
Quote from: FireArrow on August 29, 2015, 02:30:51 PMAt least are current administration is actually trying to come up with legitimate solutions.
No, not really. They're ignoring the entire immigration problem.
Quote"Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is just so uneducated and stupid. A sincere idiot is still an idiot.
I agree, I didn't say that I liked him.
QuoteHe can go down with Sarah Palin in the hall of "people to use as ammunition against the conservatives."
As long as I can still use Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Jonathan Gruber as ammuniation against liberals!
Don't worry, I'm still planning to run in 2028.
Seeing as how you actually went through with your plan to become a moderator I'm honestly planning on you actually running.
Quote from: blueflower999 on August 29, 2015, 02:39:28 PMAs long as I can still use Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Jonathan Gruber as ammuniation against liberals!
And I'll use your spelling against you.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on August 29, 2015, 02:40:25 PMDon't worry, I'm still planning to run in 2028.
What will your platform be?
"Don't vote for stupid. Interpret that however you wish."
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 29, 2015, 03:55:49 PMAnd I'll use your spelling against you.
Seeing as how you had to edit your post I'm going to guess that I'm not the only one ;)
Quote from: blueflower999 on August 29, 2015, 04:41:28 PMSeeing as how you had to edit your post I'm going to guess that I'm not the only one ;)
All I did was remove "all".
Quote from: MaestroUGC on August 29, 2015, 02:40:25 PMDon't worry, I'm still planning to run in 2028.
*sigh*
Why can't it be 2028 already... why do we have to sit through all these
boring elections?!
Don't worry, I'll be running and campaigning constantly on the web starting next year.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on August 29, 2015, 04:51:01 PMDon't worry, I'll be running and campaigning constantly on the web starting next year.
Z for president! Oh wait. My story...maybe not Z for president...
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on August 29, 2015, 05:46:02 PMZ for president! Oh wait. My story...maybe not Z for president...
WHAT A TEASER
http://cirno99.tumblr.com/post/128512446116/rebelyeen-a-real-movie-i-held-in-my-real
I don't know whether to laugh at the people who believe this or feel sorry for them
Why can't both parties just agree that neither of them are terrorists or the spawn of Hell and then just go from there
Good question, you tell me.
Well yeah I get that negatively attacking your opponents is a way to be successful, but there's pointing out flaws and there's making baseless and extreme accusations. Obama isn't a demon-spawn, he isn't a terrorist, and he isn't a Muslim.
Similarly George Bush isn't a demon-spawn, terrorist, or the devil. You can like or dislike whatever you want but baseless accusations are just childish.
I love how it says "copy and share this disc" in the corner instead of some anti-copyright thing.
While not demonspawn literally, there are certain groups that I would personally deem to hold incredibly dangerous ideologies and whose proliferation is detrimental to not just the US, but global society.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 06, 2015, 03:51:52 PMWhile not demonspawn literally, there are certain groups that I would personally deem to hold incredibly dangerous ideologies and whose proliferation is detrimental to not just the US, but global society.
Of course. Both sides are going to think that about the other side always and forever. And that's okay.
Interesting finds by the Violence Policy Center. See here: http://www.vpc.org/press/1506self.htm
The studies done here show that guns are actually rarely used in self defense. But go ahead and read it for yourself.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 06, 2015, 03:31:58 PMWell yeah I get that negatively attacking your opponents is a way to be successful, but there's pointing out flaws and there's making baseless and extreme accusations. Obama isn't a demon-spawn, he isn't a terrorist, and he isn't a Muslim.
Similarly George Bush isn't a demon-spawn, terrorist, or the devil. You can like or dislike whatever you want but baseless accusations are just childish.
Why is the word Muslim being used in the same sentence as "demon-spawn" and "terrorist"? Even if Obama was Muslim it should be a non-factor given freedom of religion and and separation of church and state.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 06, 2015, 07:25:37 PMInteresting finds by the Violence Policy Center. See here: http://www.vpc.org/press/1506self.htm
The studies done here show that guns are actually rarely used in self defense. But go ahead and read it for yourself.
The real question is:
a) How much would banning guns affect unjustified homicides? Is reducing the number of justified homicides to zero worth the potentially nonexistent drop in unjustified ones.
b) Would criminals be more likely to kill if they can be certain their victims won't be able to defend themselves, thus increasing unjustified homocides.
I agree with outlawing modern guns, but that statistic alone does not address the majority of the pro-gun argument. You'd have to dive into homocide rates in countries without guns, which proves your point and is pretty much checkmate... so yeah.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 06, 2015, 08:11:31 PMThe real question is:
a) How much would banning guns affect unjustified homicides? Is reducing the number of justified homicides to zero worth the potentially nonexistent drop in unjustified ones.
b) Would criminals be more likely to kill if they can be certain their victims won't be able to defend themselves, thus increasing unjustified homocides.
I agree with outlawing modern guns, but that statistic alone does not address the majority of the pro-gun argument. You'd have to dive into homocide rates in countries without guns, which proves your point and is pretty much checkmate... so yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 06, 2015, 08:11:31 PMWhy is the word Muslim being used in the same sentence as "demon-spawn" and "terrorist"? Even if Obama was Muslim it should be a non-factor given freedom of religion and and separation of church and state.
It's just another spurious accusation that I often hear regarding him. Sorry, didn't mean to equate the three in that sense.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 06, 2015, 08:40:53 PMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.
I don't mind people owning muskets and hunting rifles, the more potent modern guns we have though should stay in the military.
EDIT: Basically japan gun control.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 06, 2015, 09:22:32 PMIt's just another spurious accusation that I often hear regarding him. Sorry, didn't mean to equate the three in that sense.
I understand, but it still kinda falls into the same line as "I don't hate gays or anything, but don't ever call me gay." Why would you need to defend him from something that shouldn't even be offensive. Sorry, the laws of the FireArrow say I must get butthurt about this.
I still love you blue <3
Quote from: FireArrow on September 06, 2015, 09:36:18 PMI understand, but it still kinda falls into the same line as "I don't hate gays or anything, but don't ever call me gay." Why would you need to defend him from something that shouldn't even be offensive. Sorry, the laws of the FireArrow say I must get butthurt about this.
Because it is kind of offensive to call someone something that they're clearly not and/or have stated that they're not.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 06, 2015, 09:42:41 PMBecause it is kind of offensive to call someone something that they're clearly not and/or have stated that they're not.
Bob: "you're so tall"
Short person: "eh not really"
Bob: "you're straight"
Gay person: "nah I'm not"
No, it's because of society subconsciously favoring one over the other.
FA you don't know what it's like to have everyone assume you're straight when you aren't and I personally hate it but I can't do anything because nw ohio so don't use that argument
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 06, 2015, 08:40:53 PMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.
imo there's no legitimate reason for anyone to own lethal weaponry outside of purely recreational hunting, or property defense from like bears and shit when you're way in the wilderness. The second amendment is an antiquated establishment that served its purpose long, long ago, and should now be put to rest.
Quote from: Dude on September 07, 2015, 10:03:37 AMFA you don't know what it's like to have everyone assume you're straight when you aren't and I personally hate it but I can't do anything because nw ohio so don't use that argument
Spoiler
Did you not know I was gay or am I missing something? I'm gay, everyone assumes I'm straight unless I go around wearing pink skinny jeans, the adjective used to denote my sexuality is also a general term for anything undesirable. When talking about someone who was super sensitive about being called gay, my friend said "Well I can't blame him, that would be horrible if anyone thought I was gay... (sees my expression) ...unless you are gay, then it's fine of course." Homecoming freshman year, even though my friend knew I was gay, I was expected to take a girl on a date "as friends" and I was supposed to be perfectly comfortable about it. Hell, I'll be comfortable with that as soon as I see two straight guys take each other on as prom dates "as friends." I know what it's like to live in a redneck community because I went to an entirely Mormon (the bad kind of mormon, for any mormon folks here who aren't like that) private school around the same time they were petitioning prop 8 (ban gay marriage.) It was kind of an odd feeling knowing that if I tried to come out now, everyone would hate me and the staff wouldn't be on my side.
/rant
For those of you who read that and thought for any of those things "You're just being sensitive" "There's nothing wrong with that" etc., try to respect the fact that these things make it extremely difficult for gay youth and you lose nothing by trying to be less condescending to a minority.
Oh.
I was thinking someone else was on that list in place of you. Oops.
Still I'd rather be recognized as what I am than what everyone thinks I should be.
Quote from: Dude on September 07, 2015, 12:09:39 PMOh.
I was thinking someone else was on that list in place of you. Oops.
Still I'd rather be recognized as what I am than what everyone thinks I should be.
But there's a difference between someone thinking you're straight and society assuming and expecting you to be straight. I find it extremely insulting when straight people, whom already are usually assumed to be straight, flip their shits whenever someone suggests they might not be, even in jest or out of curiosity.
In America at least, this "I'm insulted you called me that because I'm not that" is only true of any non-christian religion/lack there of and homosexuality (for some reason if you call someone bi or asexual, they'll just politely correct you and not care). When you take offense to words like that, you're insulting everyone who may belong to that group.
I'm not saying I "flip my shit" when someone asks if I have a girlfriend or not, but I'd rather they keep their noses out of it in case I may or may not be gay.
Quote from: Dude on September 07, 2015, 12:57:11 PMI'm not saying I "flip my shit" when someone asks if I have a girlfriend or not, but I'd rather they keep their noses out of it in case I may or may not be gay.
I'm saying some straight people flip their shit when someone asks if they have a same sex significant other or not. Yes, I agree with you.
I thought you were saying it the other way around lol
I mean from that second paragraph it seemed like you were talking about everybody
...what were we arguing about again?
Are we arguing about gays?
Quote from: Dude on September 07, 2015, 01:03:32 PMI thought you were saying it the other way around lol
I mean from that second paragraph it seemed like you were talking about everybody
...what were we arguing about again?
It's insulting to a group of people when you get overly butthurt about being associated with them or really any situation where you give the word a negative connotation. People incorrectly assume that it isn't offensive because they're the ones being "offended."
i.e.
I totally ship you with *insert same gender person here*.
WTF is your problem I'm not gay ship me with a girl or something!
By other way around, I meant switch the homosexual person and the heterosexual person.
I.e.
I totally ship you with *insert opposite gender person here*.
WTF is your problem I'm not straight ship me with a guy or something!
I was confused at this (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4829.msg308565#msg308565) point in my posting but I got it after here (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4829.msg308570#msg308570) so there's no need to continue telling me your pov when I agree with you
Yeah, apologies, I have a lot of problems trying to get my thoughts into comprehensible words.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 02:05:06 PMYeah, apologies, I have a lot of problems trying to get my thoughts into comprehensible words.
You'd make a great politician
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 02:11:20 PMYou'd make a great politician
The only politician who clearly states what he wants is Donald Trump. What a sad world we live in.
I don't really understand...what are we arguing about?...
Quote from: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 02:49:42 PMI don't really understand...what are we arguing about?...
Nothing. Don't worry about it.
Quote from: Latios212 on September 07, 2015, 02:53:33 PMNothing. Don't worry about it.
I wanna be part of the argument though...
Quote from: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 02:59:05 PMI wanna be part of the argument though...
In that case, just say something that isn't politically correct and watch the fireworks.
That sounds like something Hitler would say...
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 03:02:26 PMIn that case, just say something that isn't politically correct and watch the fireworks.
*holds up swastika*
Heil Hitler
Distracting from the anti semite, here's an interesting site and an interesting article.
The site is conservapedia, created because wikipedia "had too much of a liberal bias" (y'know, with all those facts and all that data).
The page on climate change (http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming) is especially interesting.
"The global warming theory is the liberal hoax that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Liberals have used the theory of man-made global warming to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption."
Quote from: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 03:05:09 PM*holds up swastika*
Heil Hitler
fyi, this is bannable, so don't do that.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 07, 2015, 03:32:35 PMfyi, this is bannable, so don't do that.
Well blue's the one that told me to start an argument...
Just out of curiosity, even if I was being serious(which i wasn't), why can't we have our own religions\beliefs? I mean, surely someone here likes hitler...
Quote from: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 03:36:02 PMJust out of curiosity, even if I was being serious(which i wasn't), why can't we have our own religions\beliefs? I mean, surely someone here likes hitler...
You can. But saying you support a man who caused the murder of innocent millions just because of their race/religious beliefs is not acceptable in any way.
You can, but there's no freedom of speech on a private web forum. We won't be harboring that kind of scum here.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 07, 2015, 03:07:37 PMDistracting from the anti semite, here's an interesting site and an interesting article.
The site is conservapedia, created because wikipedia "had too much of a liberal bias" (y'know, with all those facts and all that data).
The page on climate change (http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming) is especially interesting.
"The global warming theory is the liberal hoax that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Liberals have used the theory of man-made global warming to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption."
If anything uses the word conservative or liberal in its argument, you know it probably isn't legit.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 03:02:26 PMIn that case, just say something that isn't politically correct and watch the fireworks.
Political correctness can be taken too far, but it exists for a reason. We don't want to end up like this:
Spoiler
(https://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/multiculturalism-poster-denigration.jpg?w=420&h=315)
EDIT: The lovely source. (https://cpnagasaki.wordpress.com/tag/political-correctness/)
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 07, 2015, 03:43:46 PMYou can, but there's no freedom of speech on a private web forum. We won't be harboring that kind of scum here.
I see. Well good thing I'm agnostic\protestant and not...Hitlerist? Or whatever the hell it is...
Quote from: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 04:02:58 PMI see. Well good thing I'm agnostic\protestant and not...Hitlerist? Or whatever the hell it is...
... Hitler is not a religion wtf
@Altissimo and @ThatGamer: Although, Hitler might be Christian. No one is exactly sure, though I highly doubt it.
what does hitler's religion have to do with anything
what does hitler have to do with anything
Quote from: Oasis on September 07, 2015, 04:13:50 PM@Altissimo and @ThatGamer: Although, Hitler might be Christian. No one is exactly sure, though I highly doubt it.
Doubt it. Pretty sure hitler was Satist.
Quote from: Altissimo on September 07, 2015, 04:15:24 PMwhat does hitler's religion have to do with anything
what does hitler have to do with anything
i don't know lolol
☭
Just for the record, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, mentioned God multiples time in Mein Kampf (including saying that he believed "by fighting the jews I'm doing the lord's work"), and had the german phrase of "God be with us" on every Nazi knife and belt. Most of Nazi Germany was Catholic (something like 90% of Nazi officers were), so this isn't surprising, nor does it make Catholicism bad for that reason (I still take issue with Catholicism for other reasons but not because Hitler was catholic).
Also, TG, you're agnostic and Protestant at the same time? How exactly does that work?
@Altissimo: Pretty sure she meant sadist.
Quote from: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 04:22:15 PMBelieving in Satan...
Don't all Christians believe in Satan. :/
@FireArrow: She means Satanism. Like devoting one's life to Satan.
@ThatGamer: Right?
Satanism, which is what you're thinking of, has two very distinct branches. LaVeyan Satanism actually doesn't believe it Satan but rather idolizes his character of taking what he wants and fulfilling your own desires (which is something opposed by many religions) and stuff. But they don't believe in him as an entity.
Theistic satanism is what you're thinking of, which is the cliche satanic ceremonies involving the use of magic and stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism
this topic went to shit really quick and i don't know why
@Pianist: Would any of them have a direct correlation with the Illuminati or is the Illuminati another topic?
Quote from: Oasis on September 07, 2015, 04:29:02 PM@Pianist: Would any of them have a direct correlation with the Illuminati or is the Illuminati another topic?
Look it up
@Dude: I feel that
doesn't that have to do with the american secrets or some stupid shit like that?
also please don't feel me i'm delicate
The Illuminati was just a secret organization to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power.
You can read about them here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati)
I know I didn't need a link but idk if anyone else did but thanks anyway
an explanation was good enough for me
@Pianist @Dude: I agree. thanks for that information! Cause some people claim it's false and others say it's true. But hey! I don't really give anymore. Thanks again!
It's not the link was super in your face, it was embedded into a word for christ sake.
Quote from: Oasis on September 07, 2015, 04:24:24 PM@FireArrow: She means Satanism. Like devoting one's life to Satan.
@ThatGamer: Right?
Satanism isn't really all that bad, they don't actually devote their life to Satan because they want to be evil, infact, they don't even believe he exists. They just use him as a symbol. I'll give it to you that they make it extremely creepy and cultist though.
http://www.churchofsatan.com/ (http://www.churchofsatan.com/)
Ninja'd ignore me
Quote from: Dude on September 07, 2015, 04:31:01 PMdoesn't that have to do with the american secrets or some stupid shit like that?
also please don't feel me i'm delicate
:( sorry
@FireArrow: Ninja? Thanks for that information though! It helped and every piece of knowledge (no matter how small) is extremely important.
Quote from: Oasis on September 07, 2015, 04:43:38 PM@FireArrow: Ninja? Thanks for that information though! It helped and every piece of knowledge (no matter how small) is extremely important.
Ninja'd means someone posted something you were gonna say while you were typing it. In this case, while I was researching it, Pianist already came through and said everything that needed to be said.
I like the way you think. It's always a good idea to be educated about things, even if you disagree with them. :]
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 07, 2015, 04:38:39 PMIt's not the link was super in your face, it was embedded into a word for christ sake.
I see.
SEARCH MORE ABOUT THINGS HERE (http://www.google.com)
@Fire Arrow: Ah. Thanks for clearing that up and thank you for agreeing. In my house, we go by a lot of proverbs so it's kinda embedded in my head.
I really really want to post the "Heil Hitler" scene from the Captain America movie but I'm not going to.
Or any episode of south park really. ;3
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 05:02:44 PMI really really want to post the "Heil Hitler" scene from the Captain America movie but I'm not going to.
Yup good choice.
Past me woulda done that though
Honestly TG you're still not past your grace period, you posted "Heil Hitler" less than 2 hours ago and now you're saying "Good job not posting Hitler".
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 07, 2015, 05:08:47 PMHonestly TG you're still not past your grace period, you posted "Heil Hitler" less than 2 hours ago and now you're saying "Good job not posting Hitler".
Yeah.....
Well i'm trying. Not my fault i can't grow up. Just trying hard to fit in...
Trying to fit in on NSM is like trying to get Maestro to drop his ego; it simply won't happen
jk maestro ily
I don't think NSM really has a status quo to fit into.
Quote from: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 05:13:15 PMYeah.....
Well i'm trying. Not my fault i can't grow up. Just trying hard to fit in...
The best way is to closely observe the ways other people talk and interact. Like the fact that people have gotten on your case for posting a lot: by observation you will see that others do not post as often and are not bothered for it.
I'm observing very closely and trying to do all i can to fit in!
Am I doing any well?
Quote from: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 02:59:05 PMI wanna be part of the argument though...
not the best way to make friends
Huh I didn't know people younger than 50 used the term "politically correct/incorrect." Most of the time I see people use that term to describe how offended they are when other people tell them that what they said is offensive. Like using queer/retarded to describe people.
The other time I see it is when people can't stomach the idea that people are different.
Quote from: Ruto on September 07, 2015, 06:36:15 PMHuh I didn't know people younger than 50 used the term "politically correct/incorrect." Most of the time I see people use that term to describe how offended they are when other people tell them that what they said is offensive. Like using queer/retarded to describe people.
The other time I see it is when people can't stomach the idea that people are different.
Well, that's why the term was invented, to criticize anti discrimination movements without looking like a bigot. If you're using it in a way that's reasonable, you're probably using it wrong.
Political incorrectness just doesn't make sense to me. Why would you take pride in not treating people equally?
I think being too PC can be annoying, for instance even with things like feminism I get a bit pissed when everyone gets all outraged over something a comedian says.
In other news, I'm assembling my cabinet for my bid for Presidency in 2028.
Who're your optimal choices?
I avoid this thread so I had no idea it had accumulated six pages so quickly but I got to read about gays, satanists, and hitler in the span of a few minutes so I'm satisfied
Also Ruto's got a pretty good point, the only time I hear the phrase "politically correct" is people being butthurt that they can't use words like f*g or n****r like they could back in the Good Ole Days
The good 'ole days, when Hitler was in power, when blacks had no rights, and when being gay was one of the worst possible things you could come out as.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 07, 2015, 11:43:44 PMand when being gay was one of the worst possible things you could come out as.
when was that exactly
homosexuality's been around for EVER
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 07, 2015, 10:58:43 PMAlso Ruto's got a pretty good point, the only time I hear the phrase "politically correct" is people being butthurt that they can't use words like f*g or n****r like they could back in the Good Ole Days
Really? I've only heard it used that way (in a genuine situation) rarely... two different types of people, I guess.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 07, 2015, 11:46:59 PMwhen was that exactly
homosexuality's been around for EVER
It's been around forever, but hasn't been accepted forever.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on September 08, 2015, 02:19:13 AMReally? I've only heard it used that way (in a genuine situation) rarely... two different types of people, I guess.
The only way people use that word is in a derogatory way. "Blinded by political correctness," etc. When something is offensive, it's not politically incorrect, it's just incorrect.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 07, 2015, 11:46:59 PMwhen was that exactly
homosexuality's been around for EVER
Homosexuality was pretty much nonexistent in western Christian societies until stonewall.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 10:16:37 AMHomosexuality was pretty much nonexistent in western Christian societies until stonewall.
Much of our western culture came from Greece and Rome, yes?
Because,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
In Rome, you were allowed to have gay sex as long as you took the dominant position :o Acceptable partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers.
In Greece, instead of sexuality being limited to the sexuality in and of itself, it was assigned to dominant and submissive roles, dominant roles being associated with masculinity and submissive roles being associated with femininity.
inb4 someone says "down with the patriarchy"
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 08, 2015, 09:02:43 AMWhen something is offensive, it's not politically incorrect, it's just incorrect.
I read this line a while ago and it's really been bothering me, but admittedly it does offer a nice transition into one of my countless problems with modern-day leftist thinking.
I'm trying to understand exactly what this line was intended to mean, but it doesn't really hold no matter how I look at it. Labeling something as "offensive" doesn't automatically make it incorrect. That makes absolutely no sense. This notion of "Everyone has to think the same way as I do or else I'm going to get offended!!!" is really silly and is against both pluralism (which is a value that the left holds near and dear!) and all common sense.
Secondly, political correctness is not supposed to be objectively correct or incorrect. If politically correct was synonymous with correct, then why even add the politically in front? I Googled "politically correct" definition, and essentially it means neutral and unoffensive. Not right and not wrong, but intended to not insult anyone. And that's fine. The problem arises when people start calling others "politically incorrect" for holding different viewpoints than them, and then the left becomes the Spanish Inquisition or the lynch mob with torches and pitchforks to burn the heretic.
Speaking of this, it's also interesting to me how the left is all about "rights" this and "rights" that, and yet the rights that are
actually in the law of the land (the Constitution) are an inconvenience to them. For instance, I can see why they'd have objections against the Second Amendment, and you could make the argument that it's outdated. Sure. I can't, however, see why we need to restrict freedom of speech. Colleges and Universities now across the country have "speech codes" to prevent "politically incorrectness" from being expressed, essentially teaching students that they have a fundamental right to not hear things that offend them, that they should be challenged in no way by other ways of thinking, and that they
don't have a right to freely express their individual ideas, only the ideas that the college deems appropriate.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 12:58:22 PMI'm trying to understand exactly what this line was intended to mean, but it doesn't really hold no matter how I look at it. Labeling something as "offensive" doesn't automatically make it incorrect. That makes absolutely no sense. This notion of "Everyone has to think the same way as I do or else I'm going to get offended!!!" is really silly and is against both pluralism (which is a value that the left holds near and dear!) and all common sense.
Secondly, political correctness is not supposed to be objectively correct or incorrect. If politically correct was synonymous with correct, then why even add the politically in front? I Googled "politically correct" definition, and essentially it means neutral and unoffensive.
You're right here, that objectivity and neutrality are not one and the same, which is a problem I also have with the left, specifically journalism in that regard.
Quote(Describing political correctness)Not right and not wrong, but intended to not insult anyone. And that's fine. The problem arises when people start calling others "politically incorrect" for holding different viewpoints than them, and then the left becomes the Spanish Inquisition or the lynch mob with torches and pitchforks to burn the heretic
Well it would depend on what exactly the viewpoint is; if it's hate speech then that's where that comes into play. Which I think personally the left should calm down about somewhat but I think the right has a tendency to let anything slide, especially when under the grounds of "religious liberty", but had a Muslim said it it would've been jail time.
QuoteSpeaking of this, it's also interesting to me how the left is all about "rights" this and "rights" that, and yet the rights that are actually in the law of the land (the Constitution) are an inconvenience to them. For instance, I can see why they'd have objections against the Second Amendment, and you could make the argument that it's outdated. Sure. I can't, however, see why we need to restrict freedom of speech. Colleges and Universities now across the country have "speech codes" to prevent "politically incorrectness" from being expressed, essentially teaching students that they have a fundamental right to not hear things that offend them, that they should be challenged in no way by other ways of thinking, and that they don't have a right to freely express their individual ideas, only the ideas that the college deems appropriate.
I'm pretty sure the speech codes you're referring to are designed to stop hate speech, not any contrasting ideas.
For instance, in most parts of the US, if you put a swastika on a synagogue (jewish temple) you can get charged with a hate crime. You won't get charged with a hate crime by flying it on your car, though, as that's freedom of expression with your
own property.
Also keep in mind that any publicly funded university is taking tax dollars and does have to remain somewhat neutral.
An example of neutrality vs objectivity is Kim Davis. She, under secular law, had to give out marriage licenses to gays, after the Supreme Court ruling, citing religious freedom. Unfortunately for her, religious liberty does not override secular law so she got jail time (IIRC because there was some other offense as well, but don't quote me). There were other people in her position who left their jobs and are free to be homophobic as they wish; but this case is objectively unconstitutional. Person violates updated secular law after a SC ruling, they can't do that.
Hate crime is another issue, one we recently dealt with on this forum with another member, in fact. Here's the definition, and then some things that fall under it; "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."
Thus, the N word is technically hate speech (
but only when used in a derogatory way), just as most other racial slurs.
Technically the term "four-eyes" could be considered hate speech, if you're visually impaired ::)
Anyways I'll shut up now
pls stop using the word homophobe to describe people who view homosexuality as morally wrong. Thanks.
What do you suggest we call them then? Technically they oppress homosexuals because of that with their "religious freedom" so they can't get married ie that bitch in Kentucky so should we call them sexualitists?
Should we call gay people heterophobes for similar reasons?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 08, 2015, 01:47:07 PMpls stop using the word homophobe to describe people who view homosexuality as morally wrong. Thanks.
Alright, what word would you prefer? Because, I apologize in advanced, but the only other word that comes to mind is "bigotry".
Quote from: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 02:10:19 PMShould we call gay people heterophobes for similar reasons?
since when are gay people against people getting married?
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 02:14:22 PMAlright, what word would you prefer? Because, I apologize in advanced, but the only other word that comes to mind is "bigotry".
How about "people who prefer homosexuality" and "people who prefer heterosexuality"? Anything wrong with those terms?
I was mainly referring to NoS.
But those terms don't fit into a personal attack very well the same way "homophobe!" does ;)
In all seriousness, it's a bit clunky and someone could probably make a latin version of it that flows off the tongue better ::)
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 02:20:14 PMBut those terms don't fit into a personal attack very well the same way "homophobe!" does ;)
I just find it funny that there isn't an equivalent term from the straight side of things.
Quote from: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 02:10:19 PMShould we call gay people heterophobes for similar reasons?
wait I keep reading this and get more and more confused
What possible reasons could there be?
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 12:58:22 PMI'm trying to understand exactly what this line was intended to mean, but it doesn't really hold no matter how I look at it. Labeling something as "offensive" doesn't automatically make it incorrect. That makes absolutely no sense. This notion of "Everyone has to think the same way as I do or else I'm going to get offended!!!" is really silly and is against both pluralism (which is a value that the left holds near and dear!) and all common sense.
Actually considering how the definition of offensive is subjective, so there is no universal definition for what can be defined as offensive. So it's technically perfectly okay for someone to label just things that happens to be incorrect as offensive, meaning it'd be justified for the person to view everything that's offensive as incorrect.
You worded it poorly, but the leftist view sees that everyone has the right to be upset about anything at any time. You shouldn't ever question the person who is offended by anything but rather the thing the person is offended about, when trying to define "should that person be offended by that?".
With all due respect, it's arrogant try to raise your argument's point with "it makes no sense" or "it defies all common sense", especially when your point is questionable. Humble alternatives for it are fe. "it makes no sense to me" or "i just don't get it", instead of speaking as if you'd represent the entire universe.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 12:58:22 PMSecondly, political correctness is not supposed to be objectively correct or incorrect. If politically correct was synonymous with correct, then why even add the politically in front? I Googled "politically correct" definition, and essentially it means neutral and unoffensive. Not right and not wrong, but intended to not insult anyone. And that's fine. The problem arises when people start calling others "politically incorrect" for holding different viewpoints than them, and then the left becomes the Spanish Inquisition or the lynch mob with torches and pitchforks to burn the heretic.
But should you be offended in the first place if someone is correct?
also you are close-mindedly implying that the left becomes a lynch mob only because some one sees things differently, which is against the left message. Just because someone sees things differently, doesn't make the other viewpoint wrong,
or justified just because people have a right to have different viewpoints.
which gets me to my next point
The reason the "freedom" of speech is and should be restricted, is because it can be abused to undermine an individual's other rights, like equality. Like people use it to justify racism, which would allow people to be seen unequally. It should be restricted like any other "freedoms" that contradict other rights. like they restricted the "freedom of stabbing people to death".
Though it's still notable how these "human rights" are just there to keep up the society and actually are still questionable. for example, the freedom of taking someone else's life can still be ethically arguable.
ninja'd
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 08, 2015, 01:47:07 PMpls stop using the word homophobe to describe people who view homosexuality as morally wrong. Thanks.
except it's the definition of a homophobe, because it discrimination if you see heterosexuality as right and homosexuality as wrong.
Quote from: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 02:10:19 PMShould we call gay people heterophobes for similar reasons?
do you see gay people discriminating straights, because i'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.
Quotei'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.
You're just talking about sexuality, right?
If not,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
I promised myself I wouldn't be involved in anything controversial on NSM again but I just wanna answer this question.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on September 08, 2015, 02:23:17 PMdo you see gay people discriminating straights, because i'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.
Yes. My parents know some gay people and they have a cow about heterosexuality all the time.
Have you see this firsthand or just heard it from your insanely Christian parents?
Yes. I've seen this first hand.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 02:26:40 PMYou're just talking about sexuality, right?
If not,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
You forgot this sooty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment
Christians are being killed in China for what they believe. Btw, Christians are killed and discriminated against just as much if not more than Atheists.
I don't agree with Islams but I don't kill them either.
(https://africathisday.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/biblqua.jpg)
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 08, 2015, 02:28:01 PMYes. My parents know some gay people and they have a cow about heterosexuality all the time.
Yeah I bet those gay people are those same ones that are keeping you from getting married and having children all the time!!!
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 08, 2015, 02:34:11 PMYou forgot this sooty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment
Christians are being killed in China for what they believe. Btw, Christians are killed and discriminated against just as much if not more than Atheists.
I don't agree with Islams but I don't kill them either.
As are atheists in the middle east.
You're also cherry picking verses, and forgetting verses like Psalms 137:9;
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them upon the rocks."
And you'd be interested to know that had you kept going, the quote you referenced happens to refer to when Muslims (and not Islams as you called them) are at war.
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 08, 2015, 02:34:11 PMYes. I've seen this first hand.
You forgot this sooty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment
Christians are being killed in China for what they believe.
did you even read that link
Yes, I did, and if you read the section of the US, there is one attack. A guy who committed arson on churches and vandalized them.
An american atheist campaign was tagged on but that didn't do any harm, and was an expression of atheism.
Waddle, sweetie, I've seen you make some good posts arguing your points before but this one just doesn't do it for me.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on September 08, 2015, 02:23:17 PMActually considering how the definition of offensive is subjective, so there is no universal definition for what can be defined as offensive. So it's technically perfectly okay for someone to label just things that happens to be incorrect as offensive, meaning it'd be justified for the person to view everything that's offensive as incorrect.
I'm trying really hard to understand this but I can't. I realize that the definition of offensive is subjective, but what's factual is, obviously, not subjective. Whether something is offensive or not has no bearing on whether something is factual or not. That's why Slow's post that essentially said "everything that's offensive is wrong" set me off. :P
QuoteYou worded it poorly, but the leftist view sees that everyone has the right to be upset about anything at any time. You shouldn't ever question the person who is offended by anything but rather the thing the person is offended about, when trying to define "should that person be offended by that?".
With all due respect, it's arrogant try to raise your argument's point with "it makes no sense" or "it defies all common sense", especially when your point is questionable. Humble alternatives for it are fe. "it makes no sense to me" or "i just don't get it", instead of speaking as if you'd represent the entire universe.
What are you talking about? I never word things poorly. 8)
Nah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.
QuoteBut should you be offended in the first place if someone is correct?
Oh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.
Quotealso you are close-mindedly implying that the left becomes a lynch mob only because some one sees things differently, which is against the left message. Just because someone sees things differently, doesn't make the other viewpoint wrong, or justified just because people have a right to have different viewpoints.
As far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda. :P
Quotewhich gets me to my next point
The reason the "freedom" of speech is and should be restricted, is because it can be abused to undermine an individual's other rights, like equality. Like people use it to justify racism, which would allow people to be seen unequally. It should be restricted like any other "freedoms" that contradict other rights. like they restricted the "freedom of stabbing people to death".
Though it's still notable how these "human rights" are just there to keep up the society and actually are still questionable. for example, the freedom of taking someone else's life can still be ethically arguable.
Freedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level. I also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?
Quoteninja'dexcept it's the definition of a homophobe, because it discrimination if you see heterosexuality as right and homosexuality as wrong.do you see gay people discriminating straights, because i'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.
Not even going to respond to this because I don't think I have to.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 02:41:29 PMYes, I did, and if you read the section of the US, there is one attack. A guy who committed arson on churches and vandalized them.
An american atheist campaign was tagged on but that didn't do any harm, and was an expression of atheism.
noooot you
yo before this gets any more out of hand, I'm gonna say this- I was referring to people who DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, but homosexuality is not in line with their personal morals or beliefs. You can go ahead and call people who make fun of homosexuals homophobes if you want (although anti-gay would probably be more accurate), just don't mindlessly include those people who treat people with different sexualities no differently than they would treat ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING. You're doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing.
Quit arguing about it, because you all have no clue what I mean apparently. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, really. I don't care what's going on with whoever kim what's her face is. If someone's sexuality is different than mine, cool, if I don't believe homosexuality is a "good thing", THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HATE THAT PERSON. I WOULD TREAT THEM THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SEXUALITY, ok?
Please, just stop. Dishing dirt on "homophobes" is not ok, and is just as bad as dishing dirt on homosexuals or any PERSON IN THE WORLD.
merrrrr political incorrectness
You're all missing the point.
You should be theorizing how I'm going to campaign for presidency in 2028.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PMNah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.
Because the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots.
QuoteOh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.
As far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda. :P
It's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that.
QuoteFreedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level.
Which is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it.
QuoteI also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start attacking people for speaking out against the government?
It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 08, 2015, 02:45:21 PMyo before this gets any more out of hand, I'm gonna say this- I was referring to people who DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, but homosexuality is not in line with their personal morals or beliefs. You can go ahead and call people who make fun of homosexuals homophobes if you want (although anti-gay would probably be more accurate), just don't mindlessly include those people who treat people with different sexualities no differently than they would treat ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING. You're doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing.
Quit arguing about it, because you all have no clue what I mean apparently. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, really. I don't care what's going on with whoever kim what's her face is. If someone's sexuality is different than mine, cool, if I don't believe homosexuality is a "good thing", THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HATE THAT PERSON. I WOULD TREAT THEM THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SEXUALITY, ok?
Please, just stop. Dishing dirt on "homophobes" is not ok, and is just as bad as dishing dirt on homosexuals or any PERSON IN THE WORLD.
So, don't make fun of bigots?
Quote from: Dude on September 08, 2015, 02:43:43 PMnoooot you
What do you take issue with? The content in the US section was waaaay less extreme. And the atheist campaigns were literally just billboards. Hell, there were more arsons in Norway than America, not to mention the other crimes.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 02:49:23 PMBecause the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots. It's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that. Which is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it. It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.
So, don't make fun of bigots?
What do you take issue with? The content in the US section was waaaay less extreme. And the atheist campaigns were literally just billboards. Hell, there were more arsons in Norway than America, not to mention the other crimes.
As an addendum to my post:
DON'T THROW THE WORD BIGOT AROUND LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, CAUSE CLEARLY YOU DON'T
No, I'm saying I wasn't talking to you.
big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
synonyms: chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist
"he comes off as a naïve, close-minded bigot"
WELL THEN
Can't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.
Quote from: Dude on September 08, 2015, 02:50:56 PMNo, I'm saying I wasn't talking to you.
Oh, I see now. Sorry.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 08, 2015, 02:50:40 PMAs an addendum to my post:
DON'T THROW THE WORD BIGOT AROUND LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, CAUSE CLEARLY YOU DON'T
big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
You can replace "opinions" with just about whatever.
EDIT: Ninja'd with the exact same definition as Dude
Alright friends, you all had your fun, take this somewhere private.
This is a warning.
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 08, 2015, 02:52:23 PMCan't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.
I understand that you're tired of it but you have the option of ignoring it so I don't think we have to stop unless shit gets out of control
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 02:49:23 PMBecause the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots.
Ah yes, religious people who are actually convicted are such terrible people. They're all less human than all the minorities that need the shield of "they can get upset for any reason." I mean tbh 100% of the people who call themselves "Christians" should have been opposed to the decision but even that wasn't the case.
QuoteIt's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that.
Says someone on the left. I don't really consider this even valid because the left thrives by attacking the right like this. :P
QuoteWhich is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it. It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.
So it's a fundamental right as long as it doesn't make anyone feel bad? I'm allowed to express myself in whatever way I want as long as I don't hurt someone else's fweelings because they can't accept that not everyone has to agree with them
QuoteSo, don't make fun of bigots?
I really hate this word. A bigot is someone who can't tolerate other viewpoints. Nocturne is being incredibly tolerate of other viewpoints while still retaining his own. It's the
Left that insists on everyone's viewpoints being akin to their political agenda, or else you're labeled as said "bigot". Which doesn't make any sense, frankly. It's honestly being used on the wrong people that the definition would suggest. :P
EDIT: Ninja'd. Alright.
o no not the left theyll kill us all
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 08, 2015, 02:52:23 PMCan't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.
Just as we have freedom of speech, so too do you have the freedom to choose what media to consume and not consume. It's not as if the contents of this are being broadcast on the main page of the NSM forums in bright bold letters for all to see. What would you rather this topic be about, if not
politics?(This thread is more about semantics at this point but the discussion was about politics. In a thread titled "Politics". I don't see the problem.)
Quote from: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 03:17:04 PMWhat would you rather this topic be about, if not politics?
New topic title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow)
Get yourselves edumacated, kids. It's gonna be a wild ride.
Quote from: Dude on September 08, 2015, 03:25:56 PMNew topic title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
I think rainbows should be illegal
My uncle used to coach the Hawaiian Rainbows
♪ You are my sunshine, my only sunshine ♪
♪ You make me happy when skies are grey ♪
♪ You'll never know dear, how much I love you ♪
♪ Please don't take my sunshine away~ ♪
I believe that rainbows should only be allowed in the country if they can contribute to the US by paying taxes, working, and integrating into our American society. All freeloader rainbows are a drain on the economy and resources should not be reallocated to help them.
Should we declare war on the sun or the rain to prevent more rainbows from infiltrating society? Soon enough the Aurora to Rainbow ratio will tip in a disadvantageous direction and we need to decide what steps to take to prevent that.
Quote from: Dude on September 08, 2015, 03:28:41 PMMy uncle used to coach the Hawaiian Rainbows
i officially cannot find this anywhere now wtf
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20121225031740%2Fmlp%2Fimages%2Ff%2Ff0%2FRainbow_Dash_performing_a_sonic_rainboom_S1E16.gif&hash=cd71cc653adf9769a3fc6c44d9c0d797c6bb596d)
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvideochums.com%2Freview%2Fmega-man-8-3.jpg&hash=d879ece4f480b9a82afa0a3af68ba80abacf11a4)
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PMWaddle, sweetie, I've seen you make some good posts arguing your points before but this one just doesn't do it for me.
:] for some reason people always tend to dislike it when I point out their mistakes
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PMI'm trying really hard to understand this but I can't. I realize that the definition of offensive is subjective, but what's factual is, obviously, not subjective. Whether something is offensive or not has no bearing on whether something is factual or not. That's why Slow's post that essentially said "everything that's offensive is wrong" set me off. :P
Whether something is factual or not isn't technically related to how an individual interprets it, meaning it's not in straight correlation to how an individual defines it!!
also "wrong" can also be taken as "ethically wrong"
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PMNah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.
first of all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
You assume "they" and "their" actions represent the entirety of the left view, but in reality it has no effect on the actual values.
Second of all, in your example they weren't even denying people's right to be upset, as they were offended as well, but by the offended people.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PMOh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.
If you don't mind opening your philosophy a bit for me fren, to me this only seems like a red herring
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PMAs far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda. :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy
everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you seem deadset that the left doesn't think like that. If the left has a right to its opinion, why shouldn't anyone else have the right?
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PMFreedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level. I also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?
If you're white and act racist towards fe. the asian people, you're clearly not gonna act that way towards other white people. That's known as discrimination and undermines the right to be treated as an equal individual of the society.
also you're speaking from your own personal and individual perspective, and not representing the entirety of america. :x
You're absolutely right about when restricting "freedom", you restrict individualism. But that's exactly what laws and human rights do, and it's a dilemma to say should laws and human rights exist in a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation is a regulated thing for a reason, and
Quote from: The European Convention on Human RightsARTICLE 10
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
^this explains pretty well why.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PMBesides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?
as long as you live in democracy you should be fine fren.
ninja'd @maestro if you're gonna do something then please do something about this off-topic clutter .-.
Content Warning
Spoiler
MLF you have absolutely no right to come in here and say extremely conceited and insulting things, then act like you're the good guy by changing the subject.
To everyone else: There is no straight equivalent for homophobia because one doesn't exist. Don't you dare claim to be a "victim." Are straight kids driven to suicide because their friends and family disown them under the name of god, something they were raised to believe is a loving entity who looks after everyone? Are straight people physically assaulted and raped because they're straight? Huh, but I guess having your church rightfully accused of being bigoted is just an absolutely horrible crime. Oh, and that's also totally different from freedom of speech - that right only applies to me when I want to be politically incorrect!
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 10:45:14 AMMuch of our western culture came from Greece and Rome, yes?
Because,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
In Rome, you were allowed to have gay sex as long as you took the dominant position :o Acceptable partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers.
In Greece, instead of sexuality being limited to the sexuality in and of itself, it was assigned to dominant and submissive roles, dominant roles being associated with masculinity and submissive roles being associated with femininity.
inb4 someone says "down with the patriarchy"
Along with many other civilizations. Homophobia came around with the Roman Catholic Church (In rome, it was only acceptable when it was a democracy, not when it was a christian autocracy iirc.) Anyways, this is redundant to the point both you and I were trying to make, since I posted that in your defense.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc5x4ziwc5C7lTRgbGlArAP239MYn2KHJe4yuy_4QDOM2AUXc9M8NC7P6g)
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 08, 2015, 09:02:43 AMThe only way people use that word is in a derogatory way. "Blinded by political correctness," etc. When something is offensive, it's not politically incorrect, it's just incorrect.
Most of the times I hear it is about people being stringently uptight about "offensive" things (in quotes for a reason).
You mean like asking people not to use the phrase trigger word because their somone or other was shot and it traumatizes them kind of thing?
Quote from: Waddle Bro on September 08, 2015, 04:22:30 PMninja'd @maestro if you're gonna do something then please do something about this off-topic clutter .-.
you obviously didn't get the memo then
Quote from: Dude on September 08, 2015, 04:49:28 PMyou obviously didn't get the memo then
Quote from: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 03:17:04 PMJust as we have freedom of speech, so too do you have the freedom to choose what media to consume and not consume. It's not as if the contents of this are being broadcast on the main page of the NSM forums in bright bold letters for all to see. What would you rather this topic be about, if not politics?
(This thread is more about semantics at this point but the discussion was about politics. In a thread titled "Politics". I don't see the problem.)
Quote from: Dude on September 08, 2015, 03:25:56 PMNew topic title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
i did this to make mlf happy that was the memo that waddle missed duh
god you're so insensitive
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on September 08, 2015, 04:27:12 PMMost of the times I hear it is about people being stringently uptight about "offensive" things (in quotes for a reason).
That's usually the intended purpose when someone uses the word. Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited. The word was literally invented as anti-left propaganda, so it has no place in intelligent discussion (same goes for any anti-right propaganda.)
Quote from: Dude on September 08, 2015, 04:53:24 PMi did this to make mlf happy that was the memo that waddle missed duh
god you're so insensitive
Yes, let's make MLF happy. Now that we know "Islams" are violent killing machines and Christians are perfectly pure and peaceful people, nothing else needs to be said.
if you didnt catch my alliteration i hate you
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 04:59:10 PMThat's usually the intended purpose when someone uses the word. Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited. The word was literally invented as anti-left propaganda, so it has no place in intelligent discussion (same goes for any anti-right propaganda.)
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcanyoncollective.com%2Fuploads%2Faddedsmilies%2Ffacepalm.gif&hash=c443d361e242f03e1fffb3f7acf93a86fca11c1d)
Quote from: Waddle Bro on September 08, 2015, 04:22:30 PM:] for some reason people always tend to dislike it when I point out their mistakes
Because you tend to do it in a really technical way that makes it hard to rebut because I don't understand all the jargon. :P
QuoteWhether something is factual or not isn't technically related to how an individual interprets it, meaning it's not in straight correlation to how an individual defines it!!
Sure, I don't have any problems with this.
Quotealso "wrong" can also be taken as "ethically wrong"
Is it ethically wrong to offend someone though? That's a whole nother debate and something that I've never really thought about hmm.
Quotefirst of all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
You assume "they" and "their" actions represent the entirety of the left view, but in reality it has no effect on the actual values.
Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I need to learn not to stereotype the entire left into one viewpoint even though that's
what everyone on the left does to the entire Republican party. I realize that not everyone shares the same views but I can assume a majority of people who identify themselves as "the left" share at least similar views on these sort of issues.
QuoteSecond of all, in your example they weren't even denying people's right to be upset, as they were offended as well, but by the offended people.
This is... really confusing. Although I suppose it makes sense. There were still some pretty hateful things said on both sides that I could have done without.
QuoteIf you don't mind opening your philosophy a bit for me fren, to me this only seems like a red herring
Certain issues, no matter how many times they're "proven," will never be seen as factual by the entirety of the American population. This of course is directed to both sides of the political spectrum.
Quoteeveryone is entitled to their opinion, but you seem deadset that the left doesn't think like that. If the left has a right to its opinion, why shouldn't anyone else have the right?
Fair enough point. I suppose the problem is that I find a lot of people presenting the left's opinions as "progressive" (when in actuality "progressive" can be used to describe anything under the sun) or whatever. The left are the open-minded ones, the intellectuals, the educated, the scholarly. The right are the greedy stick-in-the-mud bigots who want to enslave everyone that isn't a millionaire into the economy!
Obviously that isn't the actual view of the Democratic party (at least I hope not) but it's certainly a dramatized view of many of its strong supporters.
QuoteIf you're white and act racist towards fe. the asian people, you're clearly not gonna act that way towards other white people. That's known as discrimination and undermines the right to be treated as an equal individual of the society.
What if you're just a jerk and act that way towards everyone. Or would it be any worse if that person acted that way towards white people only? IDK you're ignoring my point that racist
thought can't and shouldn't be regulated by the government, but only racist
action.Quotealso you're speaking from your own personal and individual perspective, and not representing the entirety of america. :x
Duh, what else do you expect me to do? The "entirety" of America doesn't agree on anything. Ever. Nothing in this thread represents the entirety of America.
QuoteYou're absolutely right about when restricting "freedom", you restrict individualism. But that's exactly what laws and human rights do, and it's a dilemma to say should laws and human rights exist in a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation is a regulated thing for a reason, and^this explains pretty well why.
Sure, but that's why we have a set Bill of Rights to list what freedoms belong to humanity innately and to protect them from tyranny. But then the government starts to infringe on it. Then what do you do?
Quoteas long as you live in democracy you should be fine fren.
Vote Bernie Sanders 2016...?
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on September 08, 2015, 05:10:19 PM*extremely low resolution image*
Bravo! Such a brilliant display of pretentiousness! I'll have to add this to my repertoire!
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 05:15:05 PMBravo! Such a brilliant display of pretentiousness! I'll have to add this to my repertoire!
Says you who said this:
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 04:59:10 PMOf course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 05:13:50 PMIs it ethically wrong to offend someone though? That's a whole nother debate and something that I've never really thought about hmm.
I think this is the heart of it all.
Yes, it is ethically wrong to purposely offend someone.
Not, it's not ethically wrong to accidentally offend someone. If you do however, you should say sorry, not go "wow stop being so politically correct", which falls under the category of purposefully offending someone.
Off topic: I just realized purposely and purposefully are both words and they mean the same thing.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on September 08, 2015, 05:15:45 PMSays you who said this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
I'll stand by all three of these statements:
You're Pretentious
I'm Pretentious
Spoiler
Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited.
Whoa, Firearrow, what the fuck
Quote from: Dude on September 04, 2015, 09:12:15 AMIt's like you try to take everything I say seriously.
Calm down, brah.
EDIT: Nvm i misinterpreted what you said, continue.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 05:18:55 PMI think this is the heart of it all.
Yes, it is ethically wrong to purposely offend someone.
Not, it's not ethically wrong to accidentally offend someone. If you do however, you should say sorry, not go "wow stop being so politically correct", which falls under the category of purposefully offending someone.
Off topic: I just realized purposely and purposefully are both words and they mean the same thing.
This is where the issue gets complicated, though.
Anybody (specifically referring to the earlier-mentioned "uptight" people) could be offended by
anything. If you can thus define "offended" as applying to any situation, how can anybody disagree with you without purposefully offending you?
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 05:26:50 PMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
I'll stand by all three of these statements:
You're Pretentious
I'm Pretentious
Spoiler
Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited.
The problem with what you said is that you're making a broad assumption that, with certainty, does not apply to the situation which I described in my earlier post, yet you are apparently assuming it does, and does so in every situation, or at least the majority of situations.
When I hear someone say something like "the left ideology is flawed because..." I just think "this person is a moron and should be ignored." Because that's the level of intelligence and language you'd expect to see from someone who thinks The Blaze is good writing and delivers coherent arguments. Now in America, being on "the right side of politics" has the reputation of defending people who think it's okay to hate other people on something they can't control. Like Huckabee, who will sooner be a ball of lard than president.
I can't believe people get mad over being told they're being intolerant, then whine about being "persecuted." Do you expect people to support your behavior to support your baseless ideas and hurt feelings?
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on September 08, 2015, 05:31:14 PMThis is where the issue gets complicated, though. Anybody (specifically referring to the earlier-mentioned "uptight" people) could be offended by anything. If you can thus define "offended" as applying to any situation, how can anybody disagree with you without purposefully offending you?
Because disagreeing with someone isn't offensive?
QuoteThe problem with what you said is that you're making a broad assumption that, with certainty, does not apply to the situation which I described in my earlier post, yet you are apparently assuming it does, and does so in every situation, or at least the majority of situations.
You have yet to point out how it doesn't. Rather, you decided to post a picture.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 05:47:51 PMBecause disagreeing with someone isn't offensive?
...no? At least, not inherently.
QuoteYou have yet to point out how it doesn't. Rather, you decided to post a picture.
You are making an assumption about a situation where it has clearly been stated to be contradictory, hence my response. There doesn't need to be any "explanation" because your statement was entirely inapplicable to the situation.
EDIT: To elaborate...
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on September 08, 2015, 04:27:12 PMMost of the times I hear it is about people being stringently uptight about "offensive" things (in quotes for a reason).
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 04:59:10 PMOf course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited.
My post was specifically referring to its usage in a situation where using it is not "selfish and conceited," yet you brought it up when referring to the situation which I stated. Also the term "too sensitive" is loaded language in this specific case, but that's a different story and not entirely relevant to the main point.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on September 08, 2015, 05:51:24 PM...no? At least, not inherently.
...so I'm right?
QuoteYou are making an assumption about a situation where it has clearly been stated to be contradictory, hence my response. There doesn't need to be any "explanation" because your statement was entirely inapplicable to the situation.
Whatever you're trying to prove you win. Now can we get back on the topic about political correctness and give me a counter argument that isn't in .jpg format.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 06:00:27 PMWhatever you're trying to prove you win. Now can we get back on the topic about political correctness and give me a counter argument that isn't in .jpg format.
he's gonna go get a BMP
where's bds with his gif
Quote from: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 06:00:27 PM...so I'm right?
No.
QuoteWhatever you're trying to prove you win. Now can we get back on the topic about political correctness and give me a counter argument that isn't in .jpg format.
I clarified in the edit to my post. I don't have anything to "counter" because my whole statement was encased in my original post (thus the statement itself could be considered a counter to your response :P). Your statement was inapplicable to my statement, hence my "facepalm picture" response. If you're intentionally being inflammatory to provoke a response, then, well, I guess you did?
I vote everyone is a dickbutt and gets banned
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSg2YKIZjK-ifrZLvmmVgGT9dX9Y6W6VNY_-U-W63qvgWWfHkgS)
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 05:13:50 PMthat's what everyone on the left does to the entire Republican party.
Literally all of the prominent members are hilariously over the top right wing (like how every single republican candidate opposes gay marriage in one way or another), so it's a bit of a different story. There's at least some variety in both social and economic views with many popular left wing individuals, while right wing may have some economic and policy variety, their social block, at least in the ones that get all of the media attention, is straight outta medieval europe.
yeah, blue is extremely conservative, and I like to make fun of him for it
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 08, 2015, 09:48:12 PMI like to make fun of him for it
yeah, I like to take people's words and turn them into personal attacks when they were never intended to be
For those who might not be paying attention, there's a debate tomorrow night on CNN (at the Reagan library!). The minor debate starts at 3 PM Pacific time (6 PM EST), and will include our friends Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum. Jim Gilmore was not invited as he did not poll well enough recently. Also, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, has dropped out.
At 5 PM Pacific time (8PM EST), immediately following the minor debate, will be the major debate between the Top 11 candidates, essentially the previous Top 10 on the Fox News debate last month plus Carly Fiorina. It promises to be a fun time.
Also, while doing some research I found this really interesting article on Yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/forget-trump-how-bernie-sanders-and-ben-carson-129070072541.html) about Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson. Should be an interesting read for people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Thanks Blueflower. I might tune in.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 15, 2015, 01:58:58 PMAlso, while doing some research I found this really interesting article on Yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/forget-trump-how-bernie-sanders-and-ben-carson-129070072541.html) about Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson. Should be an interesting read for people on both sides of the political spectrum.
It just looks like a well worded "Vote for Ben Carson" article with a touch of "conservatives are pretty amazing ya'know, and the amazing ones are the ones that vote for Ben Carson."
Quote from: FireArrow on September 15, 2015, 05:14:48 PMIt just looks like a well worded "Vote for Ben Carson" article with a touch of "conservatives are pretty amazing ya'know, and the amazing ones are the ones that vote for Ben Carson."
Except I don't think that's what its intention was. It pointed out good things and flaws in both candidates. Plus I just thought it was interesting.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 15, 2015, 05:23:14 PMExcept I don't think that's what its intention was. It pointed out good things and flaws in both candidates. Plus I just thought it was interesting.
That seemed to of been the message the author was trying to get across (along with don't vote for trump and that other guy). Maybe I'm wrong though.
Changing the subject, can someone enlighten me on the Religious Liberties some of the republicans have listed under issues they want to fix? I'm not aware of any laws/changes taking away peoples freedom of religion, but if there are I definitely would like to see them gone. I'm just afraid it's euphemism for "let's reunite church and state and ensure we never become a secular society."
Quote from: FireArrow on September 15, 2015, 05:50:15 PMChanging the subject, can someone enlighten me on the Religious Liberties some of the republicans have listed under issues they want to fix? I'm not aware of any laws/changes taking away peoples freedom of religion, but if there are I definitely would like to see them gone. I'm just afraid it's euphemism for "let's reunite church and state and ensure we never become a secular society."
I think a lot of this has to do with that Kim Davis nonsense, and I agree that I don't understand a lot of it. Some definitely comes from the whole notion that every group in America constantly has to be the victims, the oppressed, the discriminated-against (whether actually true or entirely fabricated), and spend more time whining and name-calling than going out and fighting for what they believe in!
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 15, 2015, 06:00:09 PMI think a lot of this has to do with that Kim Davis nonsense, and I agree that I don't understand a lot of it. Some definitely comes from the whole notion that every group in America constantly has to be the victims, the oppressed, the discriminated-against (whether actually true or entirely fabricated), and spend more time whining and name-calling than going out and fighting for what they believe in!
Ugh don't even bring up Kim Davis. But yeah, I agree. I hate how our society is "if you aren't the oppressed, you're the perpetrator!" It just makes everyone go around trying to prove that they're a victim so they don't end up as the bad guy.
Why is it that when I read liberal viewpoints they just seem wrong, like, in what world is deficit spending ok
and that's how I figured out I was conservative
Religious liberty as it pertains to the Kim Davis case is essentially the notion of being exempt from certain laws on a religious basis.
Unfortunately, that's not how a secular government works; when a religious conviction can override the law of the land, government loses damn near if not all of its authority
I've never actually heard of a christian religion that forbids from signing a marriage license for homosexuals. What she did wasn't ok.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 15, 2015, 09:39:01 PMReligious liberty as it pertains to the Kim Davis case is essentially the notion of being exempt from certain laws on a religious basis.
Unfortunately, that's not how a secular government works; when a religious conviction can override the law of the land, government loses damn near if not all of its authority
If there were a law that said, everyone needs to drink beer each morning or they'll be arrested, then I wouldn't follow that law and instead choose to go to prison.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 15, 2015, 09:31:48 PMWhy is it that when I read liberal viewpoints they just seem wrong, like, in what world is deficit spending ok
and that's how I figured out I was conservative
Yes, not spending too much money is a conservative value (unless you're bush?), but since when was deficit spending a liberal viewpoint? That sounds like something a conservative would say to bash liberalism, not something a liberal would say.
If you're actually interested in the difference between liberal and conservative view points rather than opinionated propaganda from one side, I'd suggest reading this. (http://news-basics.com/2010/liberal-vs-conservative-values/)
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 15, 2015, 09:51:25 PMI've never actually heard of a christian religion that forbids from signing a marriage license for homosexuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
QuoteIf there were a law that said, everyone needs to drink beer each morning or they'll be arrested, then I wouldn't follow that law and instead choose to go to prison.
Yes, and you would be right to do so. However, drinking beer every morning actually affects your life, letting two gay dudes down the street get married does not.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 15, 2015, 09:54:14 PMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church Yes, and you would be right to do so. However, drinking beer every morning actually affects your life, letting two gay dudes down the street get married does not.
that's why what she did wasn't ok, and what I did was ok
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 15, 2015, 09:54:14 PMYes, and you would be right to do so. However, drinking beer every morning actually affects your life, letting two gay dudes down the street get married does not.
to play devil's advocate, that's not enough of an argument for the government to be able to accept it. Plus, lots of conservatives think that same-sex marriage
does affect them.
You mean the slippery slope of "what's next, beastiality being legal?"
Probably something about "Oh, our children will see this and want to imitate it and that would be wrong"
Quote from: FireArrow on September 15, 2015, 09:52:53 PMYes, not spending too much money is a conservative value (unless you're bush?), but since when was deficit spending a liberal viewpoint? That sounds like something a conservative would say to bash liberalism, not something a liberal would say.
It might not be what they say, but it's what they do. Government entitlement programs (that liberals support and conservatives generally do not) now take up a
huge portion of our budget and essentially prevent us from using tax dollars for important things. Like, oh IDK, paying off our massive debt.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 16, 2015, 11:09:52 AMIt might not be what they say, but it's what they do. Government entitlement programs (that liberals support and conservatives generally do not) now take up a huge portion of our budget and essentially prevent us from using tax dollars for important things. Like, oh IDK, paying off our massive debt.
That, once again, sounds like something a conservative would say to bash the other party, it's truth is very limited.
I've found an unbiased source (unbiased meaning he hates both parties equally, so more of a neutral bias I guess?) It's not the most... scholarly of websites out there, but I found his opinion rather interesting and enlightening.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-liberals-justify-spending-well-beyond-revenue-on-a-government-scale-but-not-on-a-personal-one (https://www.quora.com/Why-do-liberals-justify-spending-well-beyond-revenue-on-a-government-scale-but-not-on-a-personal-one)
I think what I'm trying to say is that what one party says about the other is either not true or a gross exaggeration. It's like asking ISIS their opinion on Christianity - you're probably not gonna get an accurate answer.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 16, 2015, 11:09:52 AMIt might not be what they say, but it's what they do. Government entitlement programs (that liberals support and conservatives generally do not) now take up a huge portion of our budget and essentially prevent us from using tax dollars for important things. Like, oh IDK, paying off our massive debt.
It's interesting to note that the states that take up the most welfare are also the ones who generally oppose minimum wage hikes- for an obvious reason. When you don't pay people a living wage, they have to go off of government benefits.
Would you mind explaining to me why raising the minimum wage is a good idea? I honestly have no idea and I'm curious about what the logic behind that is.
Because it allows people who work a 40 hour work week at the federal minimum wage to actually have a living wage; if you're a family of two and both parents work 40 hours a week with the federal minimum wage of 7.25 an hour, you're still below the federal poverty line.
Fun fact; had the minimum wage followed the inflation through the 70's, it'd be somewhere around 22 dollars an hour.
More money for lower class workers -> More money put back into lower-mid income neighborhoods and small businesses
Also the people that have to work 2-3 minimum wage jobs to support 3 kids might be able to afford more than mcdonalds every day which might be kinda neat
Think of it as something (somewhat-inversely) similar to Reagan's trickle down, except it's an actual working economic model unlike anything he ever did
everyone who's taken an economics class knows that when the minimum wage goes up the # of people working goes down
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 16, 2015, 10:23:48 PMeveryone who's taken an economics class knows that when the minimum wage goes up the # of people working goes down
Then let's not have a minimum wage, everyone gets to work!!!
Quote from: FireArrow on September 16, 2015, 10:56:35 PMThen let's not have a minimum wage, everyone gets to work!!!
theoretically speaking, yes, if there were no minimum wage, unemployment would be nonexistent. If the minimum wage was $20, nobody would have a job (except for the people who already make more than 20 an hour.) IDK about you but I'd rather keep my job than getting fired cause Walmart can't afford to keep a minor
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 16, 2015, 11:02:36 PMtheoretically speaking, yes, if there were no minimum wage, unemployment would be nonexistent. If the minimum wage was $20, nobody would have a job (except for the people who already make more than 20 an hour.) IDK about you but I'd rather keep my job than getting fired cause Walmart can't afford to keep a minor
So, obviously, it's a balancing act. People who want to raise the minimum wage think our current rate of $7.25/hr is on the south end of it - don't act like they're bumbling idiots who don't know the first thing about economics.
not a lot of places pay 7.25 any more. If you think about it, without government interference, the places that don't pay as much wouldn't have as many applicants. They have to increase their pay to stay competitive with other places. EG: retail. Raising the minimum wage would, at the very best, have slight positive consequences.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 16, 2015, 10:17:57 PMMore money for lower class workers -> More money put back into lower-mid income neighborhoods and small businesses
Also the people that have to work 2-3 minimum wage jobs to support 3 kids might be able to afford more than mcdonalds every day which might be kinda neat
Think of it as something (somewhat-inversely) similar to Reagan's trickle down, except it's an actual working economic model unlike anything he ever did
It sounds to me just about as viable as an economic solution as "print more money" does. I mean, if I was a small business owner and I catered to people who work minimum wage jobs (McDonalds, for example, as you just said), then when I saw that the minimum wage went up I would either immediately reduce the number of hours I allow my employees to work, reduce my number of employees, or raise the price of services equivalently. Inflation took a nose-dive during Reagan's administration because he understood how to make an economy powerful. Weakening the power of the American dollar by passing out more of it for the same work isn't going to do that.
Also, Nocturne, take a look at my all-time favorite New York Times article, the kind of thing that you'd
never see in that newspaper today:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/14/opinion/the-right-minimum-wage-0.00.html
I don't know if I agree with it but it's something to think about.
I'm assuming raising the minimum wage would also entail programs to help people get and keep those jobs. For example, if you read Hilliary Clintons take on the issue (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/), she doesn't just say "lololol guys let's raise the minimum wage because I don't know shit about economics like all those smart republics!" She has plans to make everything work out, because nothing works in a vacuum (likewise, you can't criticize it in a vacuum either.)
Note: I don't support Hilary Clinton more than any other candidate atm, I'm just looking for an easy example.
So, I didn't watch the GOP debate last night, but I saw the "important" stuff on Facebook. It seems that the main points our country took away from the debate were:
- Donald Trump knows nothing about Autism/vaccines, and
- there was a really hot guy sitting behind the moderator in the audience.
Truly, this presidential race is leaps and bounds ahead of its time.
Quote from: Dudeman on September 17, 2015, 02:34:30 PMSo, I didn't watch the GOP debate last night, but I saw the "important" stuff on Facebook. It seems that the main points our country took away from the debate were:
- Donald Trump knows nothing about Autism/vaccines, and
- there was a really hot guy sitting behind the moderator in the audience.
Truly, this presidential race is leaps and bounds ahead of its time.
not sure which is worse, the candidates for this year or the people in america this year
IMO the way compensation needs to happen is that the CEO's need to stop paying themselves fucking ridiculous amounts of money when their workers have to rely on government welfare programs (the things the right is always bitching about), making it so the government is essentially paying them in the form of their worker's healthcare and food costs.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 17, 2015, 03:36:19 PMIMO the way compensation needs to happen is that the CEO's need to stop paying themselves fucking ridiculous amounts of money when their workers have to rely on government welfare programs (the things the right is always bitching about), making it so the government is essentially paying them in the form of their worker's healthcare and food costs.
you make it sound like 3/4 of the nation is relying on the government for their living instead of cursing them for taking their money
Not 3/4, but just short of 1/2.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 17, 2015, 03:44:32 PMNot 3/4, but just short of 1/2.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid
49,901,000 who collected Social Security; 49,073,000 who got food stamps; "46,440,000 on Medicare; 23,228,000 in the Women, Infants and Children program, 20,223,000 getting Supplemental Security Income;13,433,000 who lived in public or subsidized rental housing; 5,098,000 who got unemployment; 3,178,000 who got veterans' benefits; and 364,000 who got railroad retirement benefits."
So I'm seeing more like 50 mill, not 150 mill
"In total, the Census Bureau estimated, 151,014,000 Americans out of a population then estimated to be 306,804,000 received benefits from one or more government programs during the last three months of 2011. Those 151,014,000 beneficiaries equaled 49.2 percent of the population."
a large portion of those benefits HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND. Raising the minimum wage would do nothing to decrease the number of, say, military veterans receiving money. To imply such a thing is folly. You actually have to read the numbers instead of lumping them together
In all honesty social security is fine because you essentially pay for yourself. At least, that's how it should be. Medicare is probably justifiable too but to a lesser degree, and certainly not as many people need it that get it. Food stamps you could also probably make a case for but those could use some cuts as well. We're spending money we don't have, or so it would appear.
Out of curiosity, any ideas how long it would take to pay back the entire national debt if the government stopped dishing out benefits like it is currently? A little more than two 8-term presidencies, or roughly 18 years. It's a huge problem but it's not unsolvable if we just get our acts together and stop being fiscally irresponsible. We're essentially the richest and most powerful country on earth and yet we're not smart enough to manage our checkbook. Of course, I'm not in favor of dropping all government programs, but slashing them down until we're spending the money that we take in and only the money that we take in is the only sensible action here.
^Do you really think the republicans are gonna do that? They're just gonna spend money on their republican agenda rather than the democratic one. Do you want our money to go to government programs or tax cuts and the military?
Preferably a bit should go to all of the above (we don't need a military all the time, but currently it would be nice to not be shrinking it), but in the degree that they still leave a bit of a surplus behind. In other words, the debt shouldn't be going up.
Also, I'm pretty sure John Kasich could do it, seeing as how he's done it twice before (once in Ohio and once during a previous federal administration I believe)
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 17, 2015, 06:48:33 PMPreferably a bit should go to all of the above (we don't need a military all the time, but currently it would be nice to not be shrinking it), but in the degree that they still leave a bit of a surplus behind. In other words, the debt shouldn't be going up.
Also, I'm pretty sure John Kasich could do it, seeing as how he's done it twice before (once in Ohio and once during a previous federal administration I believe)
Well, it says on his campaign page that he's gonna increase military funding (https://johnkasich.com/NationalSecurity/) and cut taxes (https://johnkasich.com/BalancingBudgets/).
Supposedly he has had success in Ohio, so maybe that approach works?
I don't see why people are so angry about government funded support, that's the point of government. It's like they want to revert back to some barbaric society where you're either in the bourgeois or some flea ridden peasant.
The focus shouldn't be that too many people are using it, or it should be taken away, it should be how do we ensure that it can continue being funded as it should be, and how can we further support people that have a need to pull on these programs. It's absurd how selfish some people are.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 17, 2015, 11:40:01 PMI don't see why people are so angry about government funded support, that's the point of government. It's like they want to revert back to some barbaric society where you're either in the bourgeois or some flea ridden peasant.
The focus shouldn't be that too many people are using it, or it should be taken away, it should be how do we ensure that it can continue being funded as it should be, and how can we further support people that have a need to pull on these programs. It's absurd how selfish some people are.
Now we're just getting into the semantics of what government's primary function is, and unfortunately for you, no one agrees on that and I don't think anyone ever will. I mean if you honestly believe that government's biggest responsibility is to dispense benefits to people then that's fine but stop assuming that everyone shares your point of view. :P The programs all need major reform or else we're never going to be able to support them. Actually we can't support them already but that doesn't seem to be anyone's concern. Votes are far more important!
Lol everyone. Does anyone agree that the government's role ISN'T to take care of their citizens? Sorry, but Lord Reagan isn't a good example when it comes to what works, we know the the trickle down effect doesn't work.
Example:
Suddenly a billionaire has $300 million more to spend. Will he buy 100,000+ cars and save an American automaker from bankruptcy?
Suddenly $100,000 working class people get $300 million total from a tax refund (yes, these exist). Will they buy 100,000 cars so they don't have to drive their old cars to work?
The reason a safety net exists is because bad things happen to anybody. And don't say it'll never happen to you. Let's say your parents both get into a car accident and can't work. Would you honestly say 'tough luck, maybe you shouldn't have been driving"? Then give them bootstraps and tell them to work anyway, so you can keep your house and appliances? Will all people feel obliged to give you their services for free until you get back on your feet (try this at Wal-Mart)?
Earlier this year:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/conservative-spurns-obamacare-and-insurance-but-blames-obama-now-that-hes-going-broke-and-blind/
The update to that story is that people on GoFundMe donated $28k and told him to get insurance ASAP after the story went viral. It's also amazing that I hear a lot of people who talk about people abusing the welfare system (we know this doesn't happen on the scale they think) find no issue with soliciting strangers for help with crowdfunding sites.
I'd like to make a few comments and then I have a new political update.
Firstly, Regan's economic policy wasn't intended to give rich people more money to go out and buy cars or whatever. Basing an economic system on the faith in the goodness of human beings is doomed from the start. The system was designed to lower tax rates and thus get the rich people to stop investing their money overseas to avoid the high tax rates in America. Then, of course as rich people tend to do, they would try to make more money. How would they do that? By starting more businesses, of course! This resulted in a boost to the economy, more employment, and an increase in revenues to the government.
You can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.
Secondly, I don't think anyone should advocate that the government shouldn't have a safety net of last resort. But it truly has to be of last resort. Pumping out one trillion dollars a year into entitlement programs doesn't sound to me like it's being used as a last resort.
Also, here's the political news: Scott Walker has supposedly dropped out of the election (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/scott-walker-said-to-be-quitting-presidential-race/). Such a shame too. I rather liked him. He just couldn't stand out with so many similar and better candidates in the field.
Since we're still on the topic of money, you guys might find this useful. http://www.ontheissues.org/Budget_+_Economy.htm#Headlines (http://www.ontheissues.org/Budget_+_Economy.htm#Headlines)
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 21, 2015, 01:41:05 PMFirstly, Regan's economic policy wasn't intended to give rich people more money to go out and buy cars or whatever. Basing an economic system on the faith in the goodness of human beings is doomed from the start. The system was designed to lower tax rates and thus get the rich people to stop investing their money overseas to avoid the high tax rates in America. Then, of course as rich people tend to do, they would try to make more money. How would they do that? By starting more businesses, of course! This resulted in a boost to the economy, more employment, and an increase in revenues to the government.
You can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.
Tax cuts=welfare for the rich and is in every way, a handout. Honestly, these companies that tell you trickle down works are the ones who are best at sucking money out of the government/taxpayers for their own benefit. It seems like you're the one putting faith in a terribly flawed system. (https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12049327_10153316023056051_7343413211761017873_n.jpg?oh=cdcf4d2eb282715d0353644b27029171&oe=569C59EF)
I thought about this today because under Fiorina (who is running for president), her company among others lobbied for a tax cut in exchange to bring money, r&d and jobs to the US. What actually happened was that she took $4 billion out of $4.3 billion in handouts to buy stock (illegal). Later she made a bad decision to buy Compaq and then laid off tens of thousands of workers and she got fired for that with a nice $21 million severance package. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ex-hp-ceo-fiorina-used-job-creating-tax-breaks-to-buy-back-stock-then-fired-thousands-of-workers/) So how much of this $21 million did the fired workers get? And what do you think rich people did with their money? Buy YOU a house? They put their money back in stock and investments and begged the government to bail them out when that turned sour! If the rich have never been richer, then why is the government in massive debt and some people are unemployed?
Since 1969 only Clinton ended his term with a surplus. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton) Reagan closed down mental hospitals and sold weapons to Iran. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
QuotePumping out one trillion dollars a year into entitlement programs doesn't sound to me like it's being used as a last resort.
Entitlement programs for the rich? We haven't paid a trillion to barely feed people with food stamps. How is it entitlement to give people a chance at having enough to eat or stay alive? Let's blame the poor people instead while the rich people are running off with money.
Look at Scott Walker's record in Wisconsin's education, labor unions and environment. I could never justify tax cuts on education but somehow afford a sports stadium.
While I'm at it, there is this article about how businesses reinvented themselves with Christianity as PR. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/how-big-business-invented-the-theology-of-christian-libertarianism-and-the-gospel-of-free-markets/) Also, a history of the Koch brothers and Fred Koch are worth reading.
Uck here we go again.
Quote from: Ruto on September 24, 2015, 08:35:10 PMTax cuts=welfare for the rich and is in every way, a handout.
hand·out
noun
1. something given free to a needy person or organization.
wel·fare
noun
1. financial support given to people in need.
Don't really think it meets either of these definitions. In order for something to be a handout you have to... hand it out. I mean if gas prices go down people don't think "wow this is great the gas companies are giving us free money!"
QuoteHonestly, these companies that tell you trickle down works are the ones who are best at sucking money out of the government/taxpayers for their own benefit.
And I'd much rather have politicians suck money out of the taxpayers for their own benefit? No, not really. The rich keep the economy going. The government throws money down the drain, hence 18 trillion some dollars in debt.
QuoteIt seems like you're the one putting faith in a terribly flawed system. (https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12049327_10153316023056051_7343413211761017873_n.jpg?oh=cdcf4d2eb282715d0353644b27029171&oe=569C59EF)
Ah, absolutely. I trust Pope Francis who's in charge of a country with no economy for all of my economic needs! Next we can learn about climate change from the man who invented the internet!
QuoteI thought about this today because under Fiorina (who is running for president), her company among others lobbied for a tax cut in exchange to bring money, r&d and jobs to the US. What actually happened was that she took $4 billion out of $4.3 billion in handouts to buy stock (illegal). Later she made a bad decision to buy Compaq and then laid off tens of thousands of workers and she got fired for that with a nice $21 million severance package. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ex-hp-ceo-fiorina-used-job-creating-tax-breaks-to-buy-back-stock-then-fired-thousands-of-workers/)
I don't know enough about the particular situation to defend her. I can tell you, however, that I'm going to take everything from Rawstory.com with a grain of salt. I mean, come on, if I posted a link to a Fox News article would you take me seriously? Probably not. All that website needs is knowledge of her being conservative and it has a motivation to drag her through the mud.
Reading up Carly's Wikipedia page (which is a good deal less biased) reveals that she hired more people during her career than fired, so there was a net gain of employees for the company. In addition, she was fired for "declining stock value, disappointing earning reports, disagreements about the company's performance, and her resistance to transferring authority to division heads."
QuoteSo how much of this $21 million did the fired workers get?
Well they actually probably got some of it depending on whether they filed for unemployment benefits or not.
QuoteAnd what do you think rich people did with their money? Buy YOU a house?
Why the heck would I want rich people to buy me a house? I'll work hard and buy my own house, thank you. And yes, of course I know not everyone has the opportunities to buy a house.
QuoteThey put their money back in stock and investments and begged the government to bail them out when that turned sour!
Government should never bail people out. Ever. It's not their problem.
QuoteIf the rich have never been richer, then why is the government in massive debt and some people are unemployed?
The rich being rich doesn't have anything to do with the government being in debt. Let's get a president that won't double the debt in their presidency, shall we?
QuoteSince 1969 only Clinton ended his term with a surplus. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton)
I'm aware of this. From what I understand, he cooperated with Republicans (John Kasich likes to take partial credit for this) to balance the budget. And that's nice and I respect him for that. I mean if he didn't he would have been as "the Monica Lewinsky" President for all of history so he kind of saved his own behind in that regard.
Reagan closed down mental hospitals and sold weapons to Iran. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
Yeah, I'm aware of this. Reagan himself was never directly linked with the affair, but I suppose like Harding and Teapot Dome a President gets blamed for what his subordinates do behind his back, huh?
QuoteEntitlement programs for the rich? We haven't paid a trillion to barely feed people with food stamps. How is it entitlement to give people a chance at having enough to eat or stay alive? Let's blame the poor people instead while the rich people are running off with money.
Here's another quote from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's Wikipedia page:
"SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and supplied roughly 46.5 million Americans with an average of $125.35 for each person per month in food assistance.[2]" I'm assuming that because it says "each person," that families with numerous children would get more than this, but I could be wrong on that. That's certainly enough to live off of per month for food, certainly. It wouldn't be very luxurious or healthy but the poor that I've seen in Bolivia would kill for that income a month.
QuoteLook at Scott Walker's record in Wisconsin's education, labor unions and environment. I could never justify tax cuts on education but somehow afford a sports stadium.
Here's Scott Walker's budget for the upcoming few years. (http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DEBF/Budget/Biennial%20Budget/2015-17%20Executive%20Budget/bib1517.pdf) As for labor unions and the environment, those are other debates entirely.
QuoteWhile I'm at it, there is this article about how businesses reinvented themselves with Christianity as PR. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/how-big-business-invented-the-theology-of-christian-libertarianism-and-the-gospel-of-free-markets/) Also, a history of the Koch brothers and Fred Koch are worth reading.
Ooh boy, another rawstory article. "Merrrrr capitalism and religion are evil, everyone's a blind sheep to what the media tell them, merrrrr."
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 21, 2015, 01:41:05 PMYou can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.
Conservatives like him because of his STOP THE DAMN REDS WITH THE POWAH OF JESUS speakings, not anything to do with his actual policies. His views are hilariously out of line with all of the leading conservative agendas at present.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 25, 2015, 08:33:59 AMConservatives like him because of his STOP THE DAMN REDS WITH THE POWAH OF JESUS speakings
Lol if you can find him saying anything close to this I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Also a few new updates from the political world:
- Speaker of the House John Boehner is resigning, much to the jubilee of the people who actually elected him. Maybe now the Republicans in congress will actually attempt to do something about a certain government-sponsored organization that we really need to do something about.
- Kim Davis is becoming a Republican because the Democrats abandoned her and have been calling her Hitler for a few months now. Let's see how long it takes the media to forget she was a Democrat and to start going "merrrrrrr Republicans" again.
- Here's the current state of the Democratic party illustrated pretty nicely:
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2Fbd2a38b22d1bc07adbf520c31908a1cca577d997%2Fc%3D0-0-2544-1913%26amp%3Br%3Dx513%26amp%3Bc%3D680x510%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2F2015%2F08%2F17%2FUSATODAY%2FUSATODAY%2F635753985680387830-081715indyWebOnly-dems-recycle.jpg&hash=02c418a4fff43704cd5f6438947f54d8500efa8e) - As for the Republicans, recent polls show Trump going down a few notches and the actually conservative candidates (i.e. Rubio and Fiorina) moving up, in some cases into the double digits. This race is looking less and less like a Donald Trump exposition by the day and I'm glad we're heading in that direction.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 26, 2015, 08:43:20 PM- Kim Davis is becoming a Republican because the Democrats abandoned her and have been calling her Hitler for a few months now. Let's see how long it takes the media to forget she was a Democrat and to start going "merrrrrrr Republicans" again.
Kim Davis is fodder against Christians who don't know what the first amendment actually is, not republicans. "Hurr Durr, Imma change my political opinion about completely unrelated things because I don't like the people who share my opinion" sounds really dumb though.
Quote from: Dude on September 26, 2015, 09:54:13 PMok thanks for the update
I mean do I need to specify that I lean right before making my posts? The left-leaning people on this forum certainly present their opinions as factual a lot more than I do. :P
Quote from: FireArrow on September 26, 2015, 09:59:20 PMKim Davis is fodder against Christians who don't know what the first amendment actually is, not republicans. "Hurr Durr, Imma change my political opinion about completely unrelated things because I don't like the people who share my opinion" sounds really dumb though.
You could make that case, sure. But like you keep pointing out to me, the partisan system is flawed to a degree. What's wrong with her changing her registration and keeping some Democratic principles? Certainly hasn't stopped Jeb Bush and his standardized education or Donald Trump and his single-payer healthcare.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 26, 2015, 10:12:10 PMYou could make that case, sure. But like you keep pointing out to me, the partisan system is flawed to a degree. What's wrong with her changing her registration and keeping some Democratic principles? Certainly hasn't stopped Jeb Bush and his standardized education or Donald Trump and his single-payer healthcare.
It's just... really childish. If she changed her opinion to be more oriented to the right side, then she cares more about her nonexistent dignity than what she actually thinks is best for the country. If she changed affiliations without changing her opinion, then she's completely destroying the point of even registering for a party just to make a lousy point (though I'd argue there's no good reason to register for any party, as you know ;3)
Quote from: FireArrow on September 26, 2015, 10:16:25 PMIt's just... really childish. If she changed her opinion to be more oriented to the right side, then she cares more about her nonexistent dignity than what she actually thinks is best for the country. If she changed affiliations without changing her opinion, then she's completely destroying the point of even registering for a party just to make a lousy point (though I'd argue there's no good reason to register for any party, as you know ;3)
I mean the main reason to register for a political party is to vote in the primaries. Even if you don't agree 100% with either side (which of course most people don't fall into) it's still better to register to the side that you're more likely to support, or the side with the candidates that you want to win, so you can vote for them early on.
Also, couldn't you make the argument that every politician acts for what they perceive to be the best for the country, no matter how delusional they may be? Or perhaps you could also make the argument that all politicians act for their own purposes and couldn't care less about their country? You be the judge of that one.
I'm not going to defend Kim Davis on here because there really isn't very much to go off of that doesn't involve using religion. So I'll concede your point for now.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 26, 2015, 10:24:34 PMI mean the main reason to register for a political party is to vote in the primaries. Even if you don't agree 100% with either side (which of course most people don't fall into) it's still better to register to the side that you're more likely to support, or the side with the candidates that you want to win, so you can vote for them early on.
By that logic I'd register as republican so I can try and make sure the least "redneck" candidate makes it to the end.
QuoteAlso, couldn't you make the argument that every politician acts for what they perceive to be the best for the country, no matter how delusional they may be? Or perhaps you could also make the argument that all politicians act for their own purposes and couldn't care less about their country? You be the judge of that one.
Kim Davis isn't a politician so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
QuoteI'm not going to defend Kim Davis on here because there really isn't very much to go off of that doesn't involve using religion. So I'll concede your point for now.
That's the whole thing, you can't use religion to defend Kim Davis because religion should not even be a factor in what she does.
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Quote from: FireArrow on September 26, 2015, 10:33:11 PMBy that logic I'd register as republican so I can try and make sure the least "redneck" candidate makes it to the end.
Sure, go ahead. No one's stopping you!
QuoteKim Davis isn't a politician so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
But she is. At least I'm pretty sure she is. She was elected to hold an office as a county clerk in Kentucky, doesn't that make her a politician?
QuoteThat's the whole thing, you can't use religion to defend Kim Davis because religion should not even be a factor in what she does.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Kim Davis isn't a member of Congress nor is Congress condoning her actions. :P
ooh, political crap
#votejackolantern2016
I will now be taking questions, thank you.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 26, 2015, 10:33:11 PMBy that logic I'd register as republican so I can try and make sure the least "redneck" candidate makes it to the end.
i'm actually doing that lmao
Ah yes, the more reputable candidates, such as the woman who was an abysmal failure as a business executive that thinks we should reenter the most volatile and self-destructive phase of the Cold War with a new arms race and full-on military hostility towards our current adversaries.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 24, 2015, 09:28:42 PMUck here we go again.
hand·out
noun
1. something given free to a needy person or organization.
wel·fare
noun
1. financial support given to people in need.
Same concept, though, of giving money to someone to help them out, which we do for the rich all the time- and they invest it in tax free havens and China, where the cost of labor is dirt cheap.
QuoteReagan closed down mental hospitals and sold weapons to Iran. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
Yeah, I'm aware of this. Reagan himself was never directly linked with the affair, but I suppose like Harding and Teapot Dome a President gets blamed for what his subordinates do behind his back, huh?
And do tell, how much was it on the average taxpayer when we bailed out wall street, or when we give tax cuts to the Koch brothers? How much of that check are we picking up? Reagan also supported amnesty for illegal immigrants and a ban on assault weapons, BTW.
QuoteAs for labor unions and the environment, those are other debates entirely.
Honestly they're not really that controversial. The only "bad" things that I can think of from labor unions has been voting for political candidates and I'm not educated on that story so I can't speak for that one.
The environment? Simply put, if you disbelieve in climate change, you're wrong. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) End of story.
QuoteGovernment shouldn't bail anyone out. Ever. It's not their problem.
Then I suppose you'd be fervently against the bailing out of Wall Street, right?
Or wait, do you want to keep the supposed "top talent" even though they went bankrupt?
New rant:
Can someone explain to me why the self professed "Christian Fundamentalists" can't stand illegal immigrants or Syrian refugees?
In the Bible it says multiple times to treat the immigrant as your family, because they've probably gone through hell and back, and that you either were in their position once or will be in the future.
But now most of the GOP candidates (who are all christian) want to block out immigration, and yet in other policies are influenced by their religion.
You're trying to find logic where none exists
Because they only care about the bible when it benefits their ability to win the election.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 26, 2015, 08:43:20 PMLol if you can find him saying anything close to this I'd be very interested in seeing it.
You could try reading a history textbook, or looking at sources beyond christiandailynewsforpatriots.biz
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100253947
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/09/16/us/politics/ap-us-gop-2016-reagan.html?_r=0
Ben Carson: "Well I like the idea of a proportional tax. That way you pay according to your ability; I got that idea, quite frankly from the Bible- tithing."
"We need to secure all borders, not just by fences but also by surveillance, drones, and other equipment."
he's not a politician either I thought he was a doctor
They aren't mutually exclusive.
excuse me, yes they are, have you ever met a doctor
I'm so glad some of you guys can't vote lmao
Quote from: Dude on September 28, 2015, 11:06:03 PMI'm so glad some of you guys can't vote lmao
I'm glad I can't vote XD
Quote from: Dude on September 28, 2015, 11:06:03 PMI'm so glad some of you guys can't vote lmao
Fun fact: I turned 18 two days before the 2012 election. My dad took a picture of me outside the voting booth and put it on his Facebook (where he's friends with people of all stripes) and people on both sides of the spectrum were saying "I hope she picked the right candidate."
(i picked the one who did not have binders full of women)
I turned 18 2 days before the day of the 2008 election lol
... I turned 14 the day of the 2008 election
No you didn't.
yeah I did. november 4?
Even if I was able to vote I'd be one of those people that just don't really give a shit about politics
"hey r u a repub or demo"
"im a kid that dont give a fuk"
Quote from: Altissimo on September 29, 2015, 06:58:22 AMyeah I did. november 4?
2nd I thought. Wasn't it a Tuesday?
Edit: oh wait I was wrong. shocker there.
Quote from: Altissimo on September 29, 2015, 05:34:23 AMFun fact: I turned 18 two days before the 2012 election. My dad took a picture of me outside the voting booth and put it on his Facebook (where he's friends with people of all stripes) and people on both sides of the spectrum were saying "I hope she picked the right candidate."
(i picked the one who did not have binders full of women)
good choice
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 28, 2015, 09:14:43 PMhe's not a politician either I thought he was a doctor
A retired neurosurgeon who's running for president because conservative logic.
So apparently only politicians can become president now? I don't remember reading that in the Constitution....
No, but you're supposed to be, oh.. what's that word....
Qualified.
If all it takes to be President is just be a politician, then at least half the world is qualified given the track record of most politicians.
Quote from: Dudeman on September 29, 2015, 04:31:21 PMSo apparently only politicians can become president now? I don't remember reading that in the Constitution....
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 29, 2015, 04:39:39 PMQualified.
someone who doesn't have multiple degrees in law and history and all that stupid boring crap shouldn't have a political position
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 29, 2015, 04:39:39 PMNo, but you're supposed to be, oh.. what's that word....
Qualified.
Quote from: Dudeman on September 29, 2015, 04:31:21 PMSo apparently only politicians can become president now? I don't remember reading that in the Constitution....
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 29, 2015, 04:56:49 PMsomeone who doesn't have multiple degrees in law and history and all that stupid boring crap shouldn't have a political position
Seriously guys? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Politician)
By virtue of running for president he's a politician. No, that doesn't mean he isn't a doctor.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 29, 2015, 05:53:46 PMSeriously guys? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Politician)
By virtue of running for president he's a politician. No, that doesn't mean he isn't a doctor.
"Politician" used in this connotation usually refers to someone
solely involved in politics, as in these definitions:
Quote1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2
a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession
b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons
Please explain to me how running for president isn't included under that definition.
QuoteA politician (from Classical Greek πόλις, "polis") is a person holding or seeking an office within a government, usually by means of an election, voted for either by people or by a definitive group in the government. Politicians propose, support and create laws or policies that govern the land and, by extension, its people. Broadly speaking, a "politician" can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in any bureaucratic institution where the ranks are awarded by the kind of support the person has.
QuotePoliticians are people who are politically active, especially in party politics. They are people holding or seeking political office whether elected or appointed, professionally or otherwise. Positions range from local offices to executive, legislative and judicial offices of state and national governments.[1][2] Some law enforcement officers, such as sheriffs, are considered politicians.
We aren't talking about two different words here, you're just using concise definitions to leave a larger margin of interpretation. If you want to argue that you have to hold an office before you can be a politician, be my guest. As far as I'm concerned, all it takes is running for one.
Quote from: blueflowerderp
Lol I thought Catholics recognize the pope with some authority. Btw the pope says evolution is real and so is climate change. He also has a master's degree in chemistry, so I would give him the microphone when it comes to science.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 26, 2015, 10:12:10 PMI mean do I need to specify that I lean right before making my posts? The left-leaning people on this forum certainly present their opinions as factual a lot more than I do. :P
You haven't cited ANY sources for your crazy beliefs, and I picked RS because it's easy enough for teenagers to understand. You can read the NYT or New Yorker if you feel like a big kid. The problem is that you refuse to read anything that disagrees with you, even facts.
I've heard things about Kim Davis being a Democrat and it has nothing to do with her having any ideas aligning with the party's. Some reasons I heard were 1) her mother was one 2) she lived in one of the more liberal towns in KY so she could have been doing it for the votes. I've been in a booth and I would be lying if I knew everyone on the ballot. Since the gay men were denied a marriage license by her had voted for her, it's likely they didn't know her and assumed she was the lesser of two evils.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 26, 2015, 10:39:58 PMBut she is [a politician]. At least I'm pretty sure she is. She was elected to hold an office as a county clerk in Kentucky, doesn't that make her a politician?
She is an ELECTED OFFICIAL, elected to uphold the law and do some paperwork. Which she refuses to do.
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 26, 2015, 10:39:58 PMKim Davis isn't a member of Congress:P
This makes her NOT a politician. She neither makes the law, nor does she get to choose which ones to carry out. She's a paperwork grunt and her ego is too big for her to understand that. How can you lecture people about politics and not know the difference yourself?
Quote from: FireArrow on September 26, 2015, 10:33:11 PMBy that logic I'd register as republican so I can try and make sure the least "redneck" candidate makes it to the end.
Know someone who does this to vote in the Republican primaries.
@whoever used the CNS link
CNS is unreliable, just like any news network that has a conservative political affiliation with their name. You can see that their math completely did not add up.
---
Hey, let's get back to the evils of feeding the poor, St. Blueflower. $125 per person is a total handout because they adults with children don't deserve to eat. By the way, most of these programs are made to feed hungry CHILDREN. Are you seriously going to tell them to stop eating? I spend $40 for groceries in a week and I'm the size of a 12 year old. $125 is chicken scratch. It's funny that you use the argument, "a developing country would kill for this." WE ARE NOT A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. It's like telling your kids to eat their spinach because there's a starving kid in Africa. It isn't really a good argument.
If you don't pay taxes and stash tons of it overseas, you have a lot to do with how the government is getting revenue. I can tell you the reason why people in China are more hesitant to invest in business, it's because their money can vanish overnight, and they don't have any program that federally backs them in case of that kind of catastrophic loss. For example, the FDIC here for the average person.
The severance pay for Carly Fiorina has nothing to do with the government, HP paid that. It's funny to think that if you were right, the government did indeed bail out the average worker while Fiorina made off with the loot (from HP). But let's talk more about your worship of the rich.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 25, 2015, 08:33:59 AMConservatives like him because of his STOP THE DAMN REDS WITH THE POWAH OF JESUS speakings, not anything to do with his actual policies. His views are hilariously out of line with all of the leading conservative agendas at present.
Oh yes, the religion and capitalism thing, the fuel for the gullible. Doesn't that show it's really a thing?
Also Ben Carson said God gave him the answers to his chemistry exam for an interview. This guy is deluded and his professor did what all professors did; recycle his exam questions and keep everyone on their toes all semester.
@Dude
Hey, I said that first, on Skype D: But I'll let you have it because you made it sound funny.
Quote from: Ruto on September 29, 2015, 07:57:10 PMLol I thought Catholics recognize the pope with some authority. Btw the pope says evolution is real and so is climate change. He also has a master's degree in chemistry, so I would give him the microphone when it comes to science.
but don't catholics believe in creationism
so we shouldn't listen to the pope anyway
Quote from: Ruto on September 29, 2015, 07:57:10 PMAlso Ben Carson said God gave him the answers to his chemistry exam for an interview. This guy is deluded and his professor did what all professors did; recycle his exam questions and keep everyone on their toes all semester.
Ewwwwwww. Honestly, that alone convinced me not to vote for him. If god can't help Africa because of his "ultimate mysterious plan", then why the hell should he help you on a chemistry test?
Ugh, I'm just imagining him doing weird ass stuff in office because "god told him to." I had a lot of respect for him before too :P.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 29, 2015, 08:01:54 PMbut don't catholics believe in creationism
so we shouldn't listen to the pope anyway
Catholics who claim to know more about biology than biology majors because theology trumps everything? That's stupid.
Catholics who claim to know more about biology than biology majors and more about theology than the pope because "that's what Catholics believe"? Wat.
Omg guys I found this picture that perfectly describes Ruto's post to blue
(https://i.imgur.com/u8a0sQx.jpg)
Quote from: Dude on September 29, 2015, 11:54:34 PM(https://i.imgur.com/u8a0sQx.jpg)
dying
I'm literally sitting here coughing my lungs out cause I'm sick and I might be dying
Quote from: FireArrow on September 29, 2015, 08:57:29 PMEwwwwwww. Honestly, that alone convinced me not to vote for him. If god can't help Africa because of his "ultimate mysterious plan", then why the hell should he help you on a chemistry test?
Ugh, I'm just imagining him doing weird ass stuff in office because "god told him to." I had a lot of respect for him before too :P.
Oh yeah. It's pretty disturbing to think this guy was a surgeon, but he probably would have a whole team restrain him if he started doing cuckoo stuff on a patient. I know about his background, but even more about how he thinks America should remove the programs that helped him succeed in the first place. Like pulling up the ladder after he climbs it.
Also this comment:
"I think I know the exact day this happened! I was studying for a very important life-changing test too that night, and I asked for help. God said, shut up, I'm helping Ben Carson and can't do everything. You know what's it's like everyone calling you every night asking for help? Well, God does work in mysterious ways. Damn you Ben Carson, because of you, I now work at Burger King."
Quote from: Dude on September 29, 2015, 11:54:34 PMOmg guys I found this picture that perfectly describes Ruto's post to blue
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/u8a0sQx.jpg)
Well...XD
Quote from: Ruto on September 29, 2015, 07:57:10 PMLol I thought Catholics recognize the pope with some authority. Btw the pope says evolution is real and so is climate change. He also has a master's degree in chemistry, so I would give him the microphone when it comes to science.
This is actually very poor logic. I know multiple Creationists with PhDs in Chemistry, Science, you name it.
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 30, 2015, 09:28:16 AMThis is actually very poor logic. I know multiple Creationists with PhDs in Chemistry, Science, you name it.
? Except Ruto wasn't saying that creationists don't or can't have PhDs at all friend. Notice how she said "I thought" and "I would", implying personal opinions. Besides, if you want to talk about logic, people tend to trust people with experience on science more than people who don't have experience, so you can't call Ruto illogical at all.
Don't try to draw conclusions that have no basis from what people say and are completely unrelated to the point.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on September 30, 2015, 10:30:24 AMBesides, if you want to talk about logic, people tend to trust people with experience on science more than people who don't have experience
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 30, 2015, 09:28:16 AMThis is actually very poor logic. I know multiple Creationists with PhDs in Chemistry, Science, you name it.
i didn't mention a word on creationists smh
It's common human behaviour to trust people on things you think they have knowledge of. That's why you usually go to a doctor instead of to your 3-year-old sibling when you have aids.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on September 30, 2015, 11:15:09 AMIt's common human behaviour to trust people on things you think they have knowledge of. That's why you usually go to a doctor instead of to your 3-year-old sibling when you have aids.
I agree
there we go then
Quote from: Waddle Bro on September 30, 2015, 11:15:09 AMIt's common human behaviour to trust people on things you think they have knowledge of. That's why you usually go to a doctor instead of to your 3-year-old sibling when you have aids.
:D :D :D :D ;)
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 30, 2015, 09:28:16 AMThis is actually very poor logic. I know multiple Creationists with PhDs in Chemistry, Science, you name it.
Lol creationists. I can't imagine a more toxic environment for them than a science classroom. Wasn't there a site I posted saying how creationism disagrees with every law/theory in biology/chemistry/physics? Oh yeah. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
I would NOT give anyone a degree in chemistry because they are creationist, because it means they don't understand even basic chemistry. If you're talking about that idiot tax cheat Ken Hovind, his PhD is from a diploma mill and not recognized by a real institution. However, if you're Ben Carson, you can get your chemistry degree first and then make up bullshit to get voters/suit your religion later because you're famous and won't get in trouble.
Ah.....I don't have time to discuss this.....but I will say this:
Nothing in the Bible goes against Science. Everything in the Bible agrees with it.
Also, the first and second laws of thermodynamics go against Evolution. You can't forget the Law of Entropy.
"No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles."
Anyway, would you like to continue this on skype sometime, Ruto? I don't have time now and I'd love to continue XD
Ever since the beginning of this month, I have been extremely busy.
Entropy only applies in closed systems, MLF, which the earth is not.
But, you seem to know them well, so what are the other laws, could you tell me?
Alas, I don't have time now :/
Wish I did.....I'll contact you when I have time. Actually, I think this discussion would be better on skype. We wouldn't be waiting so long on each other to comment and we'd get more thoughts in quicker. There is an NSM skype chat now that Maestro put up. I can add anyone that is interested. There is only 10 participants as of now.
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 30, 2015, 12:15:19 PMAh.....I don't have time to discuss this.....but I will say this:
Nothing in the Bible goes against Science. Everything in the Bible agrees with it.
?????? then why do so many christians disbelieve evolution
When I gave up trying to take some people in this thread seriously it actually became pretty amusing I highly recommend it
I'm really confused, what does thermodynamics have to do with evolution? Genetic changes over time cannot result in diversification because energy cannot be created nor destroyed? Evolution can't occur because entropy can only increase in a closed system?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how your argument is any different than trying to bake cookies with a calculator.
Also what's with your aversion to posting in these threads? You like post twice then tell everyone to stop talking and move to skype.
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 30, 2015, 12:15:19 PM"No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found..."
except for god
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 30, 2015, 02:16:27 PMWhen I gave up trying to take some people in this thread seriously it actually became pretty amusing I highly recommend it
http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Condescending-People (http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Condescending-People)
yes i see the irony in this
Quote from: FireArrow on September 30, 2015, 04:52:34 PMAlso what's with your aversion to posting in these threads? You like post twice then tell everyone to stop talking and move to skype.
Tbh, I don't really like talking about this stuff on the forums.
...so why do you start in the first place
Just thought I'd add that little bit.
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 30, 2015, 06:52:38 PMJust thought I'd add that little bit.
Protip: Don't post in a thread labeled politics or religion if you don't want people disagreeing with you.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 30, 2015, 07:07:15 PMProtip: Don't post in a thread labeled politics or religion if you don't want people disagreeing with you.
That's not the problem.
Of course not. The problem is posting something in public and then telling people to talk to you privately about it. That's unreasonable.
I get butthurt about religeous stuff pretty easily so I try to avoid reading stuff in this topic at all, else a war would start and/or I'll forever be known as stupid and senseless
@mlf telling us to stop
Quote from: Dude on September 29, 2015, 11:54:34 PM(https://i.imgur.com/u8a0sQx.jpg)
If you don't want to talk about this stuff, avoid the damn topic.
Quote from: braixen1264 on September 30, 2015, 07:21:27 PMI get butthurt about religeous stuff pretty easily so I try to avoid reading stuff in this topic at all, else a war would start and/or I'll forever be known as stupid and senseless
This says it all^
Quote from: Dudeman on September 30, 2015, 07:19:09 PMThe problem is posting something in public and then telling people to talk to you privately about it.
I said this because I didn't want to talk about it
then. I was busy.
I didn't say it cause I wanted everyone to not talk about it. I just don't have time to respond so I suggested talking about it later on skype.
Doesn't matter.
Obviously, I'm always the "match in the gas can" about everything. I just won't talk then.
stirring the pot
Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:
The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Nah, not interested in a skype chat with a bunch of kids. Dude's got a point, if you find you're unintentionally getting in trouble by talking repeatedly, stop talking and think about what you did wrong. Stop asking me to contact you/share contact info, it's borderline harassment and I don't need to deal with more problems.
@MLF
Quote from: Altissimo on September 30, 2015, 07:47:33 PMIf you don't want to talk about this stuff, avoid the damn topic.
I have an idea, let's get back on topic.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/1nDm900wgGU1O/giphy.gif)
Quote from: FireArrow on September 30, 2015, 04:52:34 PMI'm really confused, what does thermodynamics have to do with evolution? Genetic changes over time cannot result in diversification because energy cannot be created nor destroyed? Evolution can't occur because entropy can only increase in a closed system?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how your argument is any different than trying to bake cookies with a calculator.
Also what's with your aversion to posting in these threads? You like post twice then tell everyone to stop talking and move to skype.
except for god
http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Condescending-People (http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Condescending-People)
yes i see the irony in this
I think mlf's point here was that the Big Bang as it's currently postulated is literally creating matter
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 30, 2015, 09:22:12 PMI think mlf's point here was that the Big Bang as it's currently postulated is literally creating matter
I'm not too knowledgeable on the big bang, so if any astrophysics buffs wanna correct me go ahead. But I'm pretty sure the big bang is the theory that the entirety of everything was all compressed down into a single point, aka a singularity (somewhat like a blackhole.)
Keep in mind that scientists are as good as 100% sure evolution is the cause of both humans and species (which was the previous topic at hand, why I assumed mlf was referring to thay.) Theories on the creation of the universe and biogenesis (big bang, amino acids formation, etc.) are completely unrelated and are nothing more than hypotheses and or guesswork.
The Big Bang does no such thing. I'm not even an expert this is just basic knowledge of the theory.
The Big Bang simply states that at the beginning of time matter was pressed into a single point of infinite density, and that it essentially exploded and the matter clumped together (if you will) and formed our universe.
It gives no explanation of HOW that matter got there, but if your God only gives answers because of a gap in the knowledge of science, he's gonna be going away pretty fast, because scientists solve these questions very quickly.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 30, 2015, 09:28:21 PMall compressed down into a single point, aka a singularity
Actually, if I remember correctly, Stephen Hawking apparently did some maths involving something called imaginary time (think imaginary numbers represented on a 2 dimensional plane... let me just find a picture.)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Real-and-imaginary-time-axes.svg/220px-Real-and-imaginary-time-axes.svg.png)
If I read correctly a while back, apparently accounting for imaginary time makes the big bang thing not a singularity or whatever.
Quote from: Yellow on September 30, 2015, 09:38:04 PMActually, if I remember correctly, Stephen Hawking apparently did some maths involving something called imaginary time (think imaginary numbers represented on a 2 dimensional plane... let me just find a picture.)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Real-and-imaginary-time-axes.svg/220px-Real-and-imaginary-time-axes.svg.png)
If I read correctly a while back, apparently accounting for imaginary time makes the big bang thing not a singularity or whatever.
Bleh, sounds like a bunch of stuff I'll never understand unless I become a 4 dimensional being. That's pretty interesting though, I need to go edumacate myself.
pretty sure he proved god existed then he disproved it the exact same way or something weird like that
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 30, 2015, 10:01:33 PMpretty sure he proved god existed then he disproved it the exact same way or something weird like that
..?
I think he's referring to a quote he made a long time ago regarding a very early theory of his regarding black holes. It was partly made in jest, if I'm remembering the context correctly.
I'm confused about the second amendment.
It says "the right to bare arms" so does that mean just firearms or weapons in general?
I suggest that we put this thread in Forum Games where it rightfully belongs.
Quote from: Dude on October 01, 2015, 11:01:43 PMI'm confused about the second amendment.
It says "the right to bare arms" so does that mean just firearms or weapons in general?
obviously the meaning is pretty ambiguous given the extent of weaponry back then but I'd assume it meant any way to feasibly defend yourself
aka frying pans
I thought it meant wearing tank tops
Keep in mind, that statement is prefaced with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".
In the late 18th century, automatic weapons weren't a thing; it was flintlock technology.
So, should this make assault weapons legal?
Well, no constitutional right is absolute- the first amendment prohibits slanderous/defamatory speech, prohibits rallies that endanger public safety, etc. The 5th amendment, while you have the right to avoid self incrimination, you can still be legally forced to take a breathalyzer test. So, whether assault weapons are constitutionally ban-able is up for debate.
IMO the right to self defense shouldn't include tools that more often than not injures others before used for self defense. (http://www.vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-study-finds/)
I picked a good time to go on a school retreat.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 02, 2015, 04:06:34 PMKeep in mind, that statement is prefaced with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".
In the late 18th century, automatic weapons weren't a thing; it was flintlock technology.
So, should this make assault weapons legal?
Well, no constitutional right is absolute- the first amendment prohibits slanderous/defamatory speech, prohibits rallies that endanger public safety, etc. The 5th amendment, while you have the right to avoid self incrimination, you can still be legally forced to take a breathalyzer test. So, whether assault weapons are constitutionally ban-able is up for debate.
IMO the right to self defense shouldn't include tools that more often than not injures others before used for self defense. (http://www.vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-study-finds/)
or people who sell guns can actually check who they're selling them to
You don't need a criminal record to murder someone.
IMO If you're going to get a gun permit it should be like driving a car- you need to be well trained in proper maintenance and safety and how to use it correctly. I see no reason why that is unconstitutional; I see an infinite amount of why it's a responsible decision.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 02, 2015, 06:29:35 PMYou don't need a criminal record to murder someone.
no, you need a mental ilness record
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 02, 2015, 07:03:59 PMno, you need a mental ilness record
Step 1. Don't go to a psychologist.
Step 2. Get a gun.
I suppose a mandatory psychiatric exam before buying a gun would be a decent idea. It doesn't help situations where people get messed up after owning a gun for 5 years (annual examinations to renew your license?)
I really hate the whole gun control law thing. It would be nice for each family to own a gun for safety reasons but people are dumb and abuse that right.
But what exactly are guns gonna protect us from? Unless you're carrying it around all the time you're still just as vulnerable to gun violence (which will be pretty rampant given a "everyone owns a gun" scenario.) If any outside governments attacked U.S. soil, your gun is gonna be about as useful as a toothpick. Same goes for the U.S. military. The only thing I can really think of is wild animals in more rural areas. If you don't believe me, just look at gun based statistics in other countries.
The idea of needing a gun to protect ourselves is unique to America (other counties are pretty confused as to why we love guns so much), which comes from the whole unexplored frontier/every man for himself way back when our country was founded. I think people are so touchy about gun control because guns are so engraved into our culture, but I think the safety of the general public is more important than preserving that small part of American history and culture.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 08, 2015, 08:05:39 PMThe idea of needing a gun to protect ourselves is unique to America (other counties are pretty confused as to why we love guns so much), which comes from the whole unexplored frontier/every man for himself way back when our country was founded. I think people are so touchy about gun control because guns are so engraved into our culture.
Well said.
If only SFK were here
Agreed.
Look at Australia, where virtually zero citizens have guns. Low murder rate, and when they took guns away, guess what didn't happen? Rise in homicide with other weapons. The gun deaths dropped, and nothing else picked up the slack.
Study after study after study consistently show that more guns=more homicides.
As the comedian Jim Jeffries put it, there's only one reason to have a gun; "Fuck off, I like guns!".
As an Australian I can confirm most of these facts. Except people still have guns, it's just regulated so that crazy people don't have guns.
Let's just ignore the shooting that occurred at Parramatta on Monday...
Nah fuck it, it was a police station, they have guns. It just further proves the point.
It's disgusting that there's such a dependency on them in this country. We need a crackdown like Australia had, throw out the 2nd Amendment and everything, I don't care, it's been long overdue.
Politics, schmolitics!
Why, back when I was a kid, the closest thing we had to a political system was our unanimous fear of dinosaurs!
Those vicious bastards.
If we still had hostile forces in America it'd be a good idea
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on October 09, 2015, 07:37:11 AMIt's disgusting that there's such a dependency on them in this country. We need a crackdown like Australia had, throw out the 2nd Amendment and everything, I don't care, it's been long overdue.
Get the states to vote on a new amendment to override the 2nd Amendment then. You need 75% of them to say "yes" to that and then it'll go through. Anything other than that is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Obviously we have to go through due process, but that doesn't mean until we do we just sit around with our thumbs up our arses.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 09, 2015, 11:14:34 AMGet the states to vote on a new amendment to override the 2nd Amendment then. You need 75% of them to say "yes" to that and then it'll go through. Anything other than that is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Gun control is not against the second ammendment, which is something that we urgently need to strike down on. Outright banning guns is something we can decide on later as it may prove to be unnecessary.
Why the hell does everyone skip the
"well-regulated" part?
1) A bunch of hicks carrying their rifles in public is not well-regulated
2) Parents not locking up their guns from their toddlers is not well-regulated.
3) Bypassing background checks by buying a gun from another bumpkin is not well-regulated.
Then there are people buying multiple guns. It just gives an illusion of class or safety (running away or taking cover is the best way to survive). I would throw in the compensation excuse too since it's mostly men that feel the need to buy the biggest, newest or the fastest whatever.
The first Democratic debate of this election cycle will be held tomorrow (Tuesday) night at 8:30 EST on CNN. Participants include front-runner Hillary Clinton, socialist Bernie Sanders, and three other people that most voters haven't even heard of: Jim Webb, a former senator from Virginia, Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Lincoln Chafee, the former governor of Rhode Island.
Hope some of you tune into this one, it's going to be wildly entertaining even though it'll be a good bit shorter than the Republican debates thus far.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 12, 2015, 07:46:43 PMParticipants include front-runner Hillary Clinton, close second democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, and three other people that most voters haven't even heard of: Jim Webb, a former senator from Virginia, Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Lincoln Chafee, the former governor of Rhode Island.
FTFY
#1 It's not a close second, he's still a good 20% behind her and
#2 Didn't I imply that he's in second by saying that the other three participants are virtually unknown to the American voter base
1) Which states are you looking at? He's ahead in Iowa and NH. Looking only at the nationwide poll leaves a large gap in your knowledge, especially with a candidate that is gaining steam quickly like Bernie is.
2) Not really; you mentioned front runner and then listed off other candidates. Doesn't necessarily mean he's second; also you said nothing about him other than "socialist" which isn't even accurate. He's a democratic socialist; IE what Scandinavia has, what Canada has, what most of western Europe has as well.
Can I seriously not make a single post in this thread without you going ballistic like literally everything I said with the possible exception of "socialist" versus "democratic socialist" was 100% factual.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 12, 2015, 08:55:04 PM2) Not really; you mentioned front runner and then listed off other candidates. Doesn't necessarily mean he's second; also you said nothing about him other than "socialist" which isn't even accurate. He's a democratic socialist; IE what Scandinavia has, what Canada has, what most of western Europe has as well.
so you're saying a democratic SOCIALIST isn't a SOCIALIST
I think his point more than anything was clear
you're too young to understand politics BAM
Besides the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee was asked a while ago what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist was, and she couldn't answer the question lol. Leads me to believe there is none, making the term "Democratic Socialist" about as redundant as "Republican Bigot".
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 12, 2015, 09:30:46 PMso you're saying a democratic SOCIALIST isn't a SOCIALIST
I think his point more than anything was clear
you're too young to understand politics BAM
Yeah, those 14 year olds will never understand the importance of misrepresenting a politicians stance to make them look bad. What a n00b
what's so bad about being a socialist
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 12, 2015, 08:55:04 PMLooking only at the nationwide poll leaves a large gap in your knowledge
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/upshot/joe-biden-no-money-weak-polls-but-still-clintons-toughest-rival.html
Not really.
QuoteSource: NBC/WSJ, Fox News, Quinnipiac, CNN, CBS/NYT, ABC/Washington Post, YouGov
Nothing is blatantly wrong with socialism, it just has a bad stigma because of this mass of uneducated Americans that grew up with BETTER DEAD THAN RED EVIL SOCIALIST EMPIRE mentality. Then there are just the plain selfish prick conservatives that don't like the idea of collective wealth going towards public betterment.
Also
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html
Polls are increasingly worthless so I really wouldn't just sit behind them with your arms crossed to prove your point. I personally still think Sanders is far too left-wing to have any practical chance at winning the nomination, and would stand no chance at all in the general election. He also fairly strongly supports gun rights (disregarding his pre-debate flip) so I am auto-opposed.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on October 13, 2015, 03:05:31 AMNothing is blatantly wrong with socialism, it just has a bad stigma because of this mass of uneducated Americans that grew up with BETTER DEAD THAN RED EVIL SOCIALIST EMPIRE mentality. Then there are just the plain selfish prick conservatives that don't like the idea of collective wealth going towards public betterment.
Yeah, some people think it's 1950...Sounds like that 50s propoganda with capitalism=Christian is still around.
Also
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on October 13, 2015, 03:05:31 AM]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html
Polls are increasingly worthless so I really wouldn't just sit behind them with your arms crossed to prove your point.
Sort of like how people think Trump has a chance at becoming president because polls. Yeeeeeeeeah right. The Republican race turning into a race where people are beating each other at saying the most outrageous shit. Sanders has a lot of great ideas, but how much could he do as president? We're better off with 100 of him and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate and 400 in the House lmao.
@miscellaneous
If one top person doesn't know it, surely it means no one else does??? ::)
Quote from: Ruto on October 13, 2015, 08:41:42 AMIf one top person doesn't know it, surely it means no one else does???
If the chairman of the Republican National Committee couldn't answer what the difference was between a Republican and a fascist, the media would go
ballistic.
It seems to me that a lot of Republicans don't know what they're talking about when they use insult Obama by calling him socialist, communist, and fascist at the same time.
What you said didn't even happen yet, so automatically painting the person as a victim is just a paranoid thought.
Double post because I found this:
Ben Carson and his "Holocaust could have been prevented with guns" remark. Here's a bit of actual historical info from the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34485358).
"The Anti-Defamation League, an anti-Semitism monitoring group, has previously said that drawing comparisons between the gun control debate in the US and the Holocaust was "historically inaccurate and offensive", especially to Holocaust survivors and their families.
In 1943,
armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fought the Nazis. Jews killed about 20 Nazis, but about 13,000 Jews died in the uprising."
I bolded the "armed" for everyone.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 12, 2015, 09:36:50 PMBesides the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee was asked a while ago what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist was, and she couldn't answer the question lol. Leads me to believe there is none, making the term "Democratic Socialist" about as redundant as "Republican Bigot".
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 12, 2015, 09:05:51 PMCan I seriously not make a single post in this thread without you going ballistic like literally everything I said with the possible exception of "socialist" versus "democratic socialist" was 100% factual.
If you had just said. "my mistake" and corrected your initial post without that DNC chairwoman comment, the recent posts would ALL be without incident. That, and not going defensive by listing stuff, which sounded pretty hostile imo.
Quote from: Ruto on October 13, 2015, 10:43:10 AMIf you had just said. "my mistake" and corrected your initial post without that DNC chairwoman comment, the recent posts would ALL be without incident. That, and not going defensive by listing stuff, which sounded pretty hostile imo.
Nah I'm not compromising my views for the sake of not being labled "hostile," sorry
I can't wait to vote for Sanders.
Quote from: Dude on October 13, 2015, 11:41:39 AMI can't wait to vote for Sanders.
waddle's genitalia will be waiting for you
Do you like hearing yourself talk or what's the deal?
Quote from: Dude on October 13, 2015, 11:45:48 AMDo you like hearing yourself talk or what's the deal?
Yeah absolutely I just spam up the forums whenever I get the chance
No I just like making stupid jokes :P And arguing with people
I've also seen you call people imbeciles behind their back
Quote from: Dude on October 13, 2015, 12:01:34 PMI've also seen you call people imbeciles behind their back
And...?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 13, 2015, 01:42:30 AMwhat's so bad about being a socialist
Nothing. It's just mislabeling, which leads to incorrect assumptions.
My dad says that the president doesn't even have much control over the economy and it's really congress who influences that
Quote from: Dude on October 13, 2015, 01:02:24 PMIt says a lot about your character. Idk.
Perhaps. And the fact that you shifted this to an attack on my character shows a lot about yours.
I was just adding to this tho...
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 11:47:43 AMYeah absolutely I just spam up the forums whenever I get the chance
No I just like making stupid jokes :P And arguing with people
Overreacting much?
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 01:05:11 PMPerhaps. And the fact that you shifted this to an attack on my character shows a lot about yours.
just gonna say that a reference to waddle's genitalia seemed like an ad hominem attack that came before his. even if you didn't mean it as an insult, it comes across as disrespectful.
I think he was just referencing the "vote Sanders or the dick stays soft" joke in Waddle's sig
ah, makes sense. thanks for the clarification. I'm not up to date with NSM's current dick jokes
too bad it wasn't funny
Quote from: Dude on October 13, 2015, 01:33:31 PMtoo bad it wasn't funny
wasn't supposed to be funny it was supposed to be true
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 11:20:50 AMNah I'm not compromising my views for the sake of not being labled "hostile," sorry
If you're wrong, most people will try to correct you, no matter what your views are. No need to think of yourself as a martyr or some kind of ideological warrior. That would just be egotistic.
Quote from: Ruto on October 13, 2015, 03:05:54 PMIf you're wrong, most people will try to correct you, no matter what your views are. No need to think of yourself as a martyr or some kind of ideological warrior. That would just be egotistic.
keywords bolded
@Blue The difference between a socialist and a democratic socialist is quite vast.
Socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
That's PURE socialism. Bernie isn't a pure socialist; what he's advocating for is a social democracy, IE the government Scandinavia, Canada, and most of Western Europe has.
@Kefka You can say he doesn't have a shot, but he's currently polling better than Obama did at this point in the race of 2008. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFLtCx8VRyc)
If you don't want to go by polls, then what should we go by? If there's another system I'd be happy to check it out.
As for Biden, I'm fairly sure he said he's not running. It'd also be fairly late to join the race now, though I suppose stranger things have happen.
Also, say what you like, but Bernie Sanders has made his stance regarding guns quite clear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq86YXlQ4d0). He's fairly moderate on the issue, and honestly (though I don't disagree w/you) your stance is quite radical in this political climate on guns (throwing out the second amendment and making guns illegal).
@NoS He did kinda screw up...
So I have been recently informed that I have been rude to blueflower so I will be posting reasons for my posts that, as Olimar says, an "anonymous user", has said were "rude".
Quote from: Dude on October 13, 2015, 11:45:48 AMDo you like hearing yourself talk or what's the deal?
Blue has been posting practically every other time and knows not many people here agree with him so I wasn't sure if he's just posting to start shit or what.
Quote from: Dude on October 13, 2015, 12:01:34 PMI've also seen you call people imbeciles behind their back
This is in reference to FSM's private chat with him during the Fire Emblem homophobia incident that he posted in a skype room that we have with a couple of NSM members.
The log
[6/26/2015 12:22:04 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:03:40] zbluflowah: okay i realize that i'm a few years younger than you and from your perspective i'm probably an idiot
[26/06/15 07:03:40] zbluflowah: but can you please at least try to be nice
[26/06/15 07:04:06] (FSM): you're the one who won't apologize
[26/06/15 07:04:20] (FSM): it wasn't nice
[26/06/15 07:05:55] zbluflowah: I apologized to you, didn't I?
[26/06/15 07:06:06] zbluflowah: I'm not making any more posts in that thread because they'll just further entrench me
[26/06/15 07:06:46] (FSM): I promise no one will say anything bad if you apologize
[26/06/15 07:07:21] zbluflowah: Oh, I promise they will
[26/06/15 07:07:27] zbluflowah: I'll consider apologizing anyway though I suppose
[26/06/15 07:07:31] (FSM): also I never heard an apology
[26/06/15 07:08:04] zbluflowah: Ugh why is this so annoyingly complicated
[26/06/15 07:08:21] (FSM): On 26/06/15, at 07:05, zbluflowah wrote:
> I apologized to you, didn't I?
On 26/06/15, at 07:07, (FSM) wrote:
> also I never heard an apology
wouldn't call this complicated
[26/06/15 07:08:42] zbluflowah: I'm trying to figure out what precisely I'm being accused of before I apologize for it
[26/06/15 07:09:05] zbluflowah: If it had to do with the difference between "giving birth" and "having kids" then yeah sure I'll apologize for that
[26/06/15 07:13:48] (FSM): You made it clear to others how because homosexual couples can't have biological kids(that belong both of them), it's worse than if you had a straight couple and thus children between them
[26/06/15 07:14:22] zbluflowah: From a gameplay perspective that's correct
[26/06/15 07:14:27] (FSM): meaning it's homophobic, because you don't see them as equals, even though same-sex couples can get kids in other ways
[26/06/15 07:14:43] zbluflowah: We were talking about Fire Emblem
[26/06/15 07:14:50] zbluflowah: I didn't say a single thing about actual homosexuals
[26/06/15 07:16:10] (FSM): It's still homophobic even if it's in a game
[26/06/15 07:16:52] zbluflowah: So if I don't use the Demolition Man in Team Fortress 2, that means I hate black people too?
[26/06/15 07:18:20] (FSM): If you don't use him because of his colour, it is racist
[26/06/15 07:18:41] zbluflowah: Sure, that's fine
[26/06/15 07:18:56] zbluflowah: But by that same logic I didn't say anything about homosexuality itself
[26/06/15 07:19:18] zbluflowah: Having kids in Fire Emblem is significantly beneficial to succeeding in the game, and therefore is the best course of action
[26/06/15 07:20:26] (FSM): you're homophobic if you see same-sex relationships as non-equal to straight ones
[26/06/15 07:21:03] zbluflowah: Then I guess by your definition I'm homophobic when I play Fire Emblem lol
[26/06/15 07:21:38] (FSM): Nah, that definition just means you're homophobic
[6/26/2015 12:24:32 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:21:48] zbluflowah: Stop telling me what I am
[26/06/15 07:22:36] zbluflowah: I don't know if I feel the need to defend myself here or not because these accusations are absurd
[26/06/15 07:24:06] (FSM): On 26/06/15, at 07:19, zbluflowah wrote:
> Having kids in Fire Emblem is significantly beneficial to succeeding in the game, and therefore is the best course of action
But same-sex couples can have kids in other ways than sex
[26/06/15 07:24:15] (FSM): so all of your arguments seem invalid
[6/26/2015 12:28:02 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:27:19] zbluflowah: I mean I guess that might be my opinion but still
[6/26/2015 12:31:40 AM] Ruto: oh god someone let him remove himself from the gene pool if he's so concerned
[6/26/2015 12:34:27 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:32:47] zbluflowah: But what do I apologize for
[26/06/15 07:33:03] (FSM): For any malaise you might have caused
[26/06/15 07:33:06] zbluflowah: Being inconsiderate in my wording?
[26/06/15 07:33:31] zbluflowah: If I say that Kefka and/or Dude will post something hurtful again in reply XD
[26/06/15 07:33:37] (FSM): They won't
[26/06/15 07:34:09] (FSM): they're mature enough
[26/06/15 07:34:15] zbluflowah: Dude and Kefka are both imbeciles
[6/26/2015 12:34:40 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:34:15] zbluflowah: Dude and Kefka are both imbeciles
[26/06/15 07:34:28] zbluflowah: You know what, fine I'll make an apology so vague that they can't pick it apart XD
So please, stop complaining about me as I'm not the only one who is a terrible person
So this is the incriminate blueflower thread now? Yes, he can get overly defensive and overreact to people disagreeing with him, however, the extent that this has been taken to is absurd. I've given up any hope I've had in NSM being able to discuss things civilly. Peace, I'm done with these topics.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 13, 2015, 07:27:10 PMI've given up any hope I've had in NSM being able to discuss things civilly. Peace, I'm done with these topics.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftechnabob.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fanime-fansub-fail-1.jpg&hash=295d89b8fe6f1ffbf84049f2f63c34cf49b3d5c4)
Alright, I apologize. We had that conversation somewhere between 1 and 2 in the morning, I was angry, tired, and felt betrayed by numerous people at the time that I thought were my friends.
Dude I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I don't think you're an imbecile. I said it in the heat of the moment and I'm sorry.
Honestly an imbecile is hardly the worst thing to call a person.
Quote from: mariolegofan on October 13, 2015, 07:42:19 PM[quote that went missing]
You weren't even involved in the debate!
Imbecile isn't bad at all. At least u didn't say faggot. I bet you would have a whole army on ur ass Lol
Quote from: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 13, 2015, 09:42:19 PMImbecile isn't bad at all. At least u didn't say faggot. I bet you would have a whole army on ur ass Lol
bloo doesn't say naughty words like that
Quote from: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 13, 2015, 09:42:19 PMImbecile isn't bad at all. At least u didn't say faggot. I bet you would have a whole army on ur ass Lol
Next time you feel like posting something this stupid, don't
I never called anyone a faggot. Sorry if you guys got the wrong idea
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 13, 2015, 05:11:34 PMHe's fairly moderate on the issue, and honestly (though I don't disagree w/you) your stance is quite radical in this political climate on guns (throwing out the second amendment and making guns illegal).
Of course, I don't honestly think that would happen for a few generations at minimum, but I find his record to be highly flakey.
Anyway Hillary rekt that debate
Can nsm just take a month break from sensitive topics or whatever? I know everyone's prided on their freedom of speech and their power to maturely discuss their views, but we've proven over and over again that that's just not going to happen
I'm really tired of everyone I like fighting all the time
so uh can y'all stop jibber jabbering about the severity of various curse words and the personal attacks and shtuff? it'd be rather appreciated.
so, just a couple of unrelated thoughts.
in the fantasy world that some call canada, we have a federal election coming up super soon. keep in mind that canada's existence is still unverified.
where i live, there's a pretty high chinese population. and recently, there was an advertisement in chinese and punjabi that the conservative party sponsored that made statements such as "the liberal party wants to make marijuana easy to get for kids". and i'm just wondering why they would try to stoop down to the level of using scare tactics instead of actually making legitimate arguments.
the news comments on pretty much any article say "stop harper" or "it's harper's fault" now. i honestly can't tell if they're joking or if they are being serious. the overwhelming anti-conservative sentiment pretty much everywhere i go is rather annoying. i can't go anywhere without seeing a stop sign vandalized to say "stop harper". i mean, sure. i don't quite agree with some of their policies, either. but this is just getting insane. it doesn't help that i live in probably the most liberal and left-leaning part of canada... whose liberal party is conservative and whose conservative party is pretty much irrelevant. why do we even have a premier with an approval rating of 30%. why, bc.
i'm stuck in canada during the election season. please send help.
ninja'd but i don't really care.
I think I've heard of canada before, but I didn't know it had a government.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 13, 2015, 11:28:00 PMI think I've heard of canada before, but I didn't know it had a government.
XDDD. Truuuue
in case you guys haven't noticed i'm trying to get this topic locked or deleted.
Why is that?
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on October 13, 2015, 10:55:04 PMOf course, I don't honestly think that would happen for a few generations at minimum, but I find his record to be highly flakey.
Anyway Hillary rekt that debate
Hillary has a much shadier past than Bernie; and I'm not talking about Benghazi, I frankly don't give a damn- I'm referring to her voting history. She voted yes on Citizens United, Yes on the Iraq War, and until I think 2012 or 2013 was opposed to same sex marriage.
Quote from: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 14, 2015, 05:43:22 PMWhy is that?
because
republicans are the devil it only divides us as a community and that's noooo good.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 13, 2015, 07:27:10 PMSo this is the incriminate blueflower thread now? Yes, he can get overly defensive and overreact to people disagreeing with him, however, the extent that this has been taken to is absurd. I've given up any hope I've had in NSM being able to discuss things civilly. Peace, I'm done with these topics.
oh
and if Olimar told me who the anonymous complaint was from i wouldn't have had to post it in public so just throwing that out there.
Well I mean if a politics thread without a spicy debate is no fun. But yea it probably does divide the community. I'm only a month new so I don't know that well.
NSM doesn't know how to have spicy debates without causing drama.
i cant wait to use all these reaction images ive been saving
There are people on my facebook that support Donald Trump...
What a sad world xD
Quote from: Ruto on October 18, 2015, 07:25:37 PMThere are people on my facebook that support Donald Trump...
What a great world xD
ftfy
Ok, truth be told, I'm not the biggest Trump fan in the world. I mean, his political party doesn't always match up with his ideas...personally I'm more of a Ben Carson guy. But still, I'd take Trump over any of the liberal candidates. (Then again, I'd take Vermin Supreme over a liberal ;D.)
I'm kinda curious what would happen if he became president. We'd become the world's most hated country, minorities would disappear, we'd probably be in an endless state of war with the middle east and mexico. Idk, it's fun to think about ;3
Related: https://youtu.be/u8i_a6F_K0I
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 18, 2015, 07:32:03 PM(Then again, I'd take Vermin Supreme over a liberal ;D.)
Excuse me, but are you trying to use Vermin Supreme as a tool for negative comparisons? I'll have you know that no one can compare to his caliber of perfection.
Lol not at all. It's because they're the stereotypical Trump voter, barely literate in their only language, incredibly xenophobic and clinging to superstition like fact. I don't really get why people think Trump is a statesmen, not there are any rules in it to begin with.
Pericles had mistresses, bribed people and did all sorts of crazy things, Cicero's name literally meant "chickpea" and people considered them as actually competent people in state matters. Trump is just an entertainer.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 18, 2015, 07:37:38 PMI'm kinda curious what would happen if he became president. We'd become the world's most hated country, minorities would disappear, we'd probably be in an endless state of war with the middle east and mexico. Idk, it's fun to think about ;3
He won't be president because he can't stay out of trouble. I think China and Russia would "take action." Ben Carson is totally nuts, so not that either.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 18, 2015, 07:32:03 PM(Then again, I'd take Vermin Supreme over a liberal ;D.)
At this point, Vermin Supreme would probably be a better choice than
any of the candidates. :-\
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/97/f3/5e/97f35e631b051a04c92cd6a19bb484a6.jpg)
The only republican I'm really OK with is John Kasich, mostly because all the other ones are gonna try and make gay marriage illegal again.
pls no
support firearrow x hawt guys
vote for any democrat or kasich
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on October 18, 2015, 07:47:24 PMAt this point, Vermin Supreme would probably be a better choice than any of the candidates. :-\
Yeah, I'm really not too fond of any of the Candidates. Trump is a comedian, Carson is insane, Clinton just says what people want to hear, Jeb is the republican equivalent of that, and America isn't ready for someone like sanders.
Kasich is best Republican hands down.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 18, 2015, 07:52:04 PMsupport firearrow x hawt guys
Isn't that how yaoi is categorized???
bernie sanders is a senile old man
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 18, 2015, 07:58:41 PMbernie sanders is a senile old man
He seems mentally capable to me. People mostly hate him because his views are against what America has historically stood for, that doesn't make him stupid, just different. Considering countries with similar views (Sweden, Norway, etc.) are extremely well off and rated some of the happiest countries on earth, can you really say that someone trying to copy that is a senile old man?
Quote from: Ruto on October 18, 2015, 07:55:08 PMIsn't that how yaoi is categorized???
pretty sure yaoi uses slashes
Quote from: Dude on October 18, 2015, 08:06:44 PMpretty sure yaoi uses slashes
;)
If a vote for FireArrow is a vote for yaoi...
I wasn't aware you were classified as senile for wanting to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world..
Honestly Rand Paul wasn't as bad as some. Kasich I don't care for because IIRC he's a climate denier, he wants to cut taxes, and maybe worst is he wants to increase our already horribly expensive military budget.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 18, 2015, 08:33:27 PMI wasn't aware you were classified as senile for wanting to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world..
Honestly Rand Paul wasn't as bad as some. Kasich I don't care for because IIRC he's a climate denier, he wants to cut taxes, and maybe worst is he wants to increase our already horribly expensive military budget.
He said best Republican, not best candidate!
I would also like high speed trains.
I still would choose Rand Paul over him, since Rand Paul is somewhat libertarian esque. On social issues he's a bit better. He's still an idiot, but trying to choose a republican candidate to run the economy is like picking which sharp stick to kill a komodo dragon.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 18, 2015, 08:39:21 PMI still would choose Rand Paul over him, since Rand Paul is somewhat libertarian esque. On social issues he's a bit better. He's still an idiot, but trying to choose a republican candidate to run the economy is like picking which sharp stick to kill a komodo dragon.
that's a really dumb comparison
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 18, 2015, 08:58:14 PMthat's a really dumb comparison
i personally prefer the yaoi comparison
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 18, 2015, 07:58:41 PMbernie sanders is a senile old man
A few quotes from Bernie to back this up (paraphrased, of course):
"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE OF ANY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" Um, no. China and India are major countries.
"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!
Question: What is America's biggest enemy?
Bernie: "CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW OUR CHILDREN WILL INHERIT AN UNINHABITABLE PLANET." I don't even think most climate change models predict this lol. Unless the change
skyrockets to an average of one degree per year (which it won't) I'm pretty sure my children will live on a habitable planet.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AM"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
Well, it may seem absurd, but it does prove his point.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AM"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!
How is this evidence of senility? Pointing out the prison population is important
exactly because of the incidence of innocent or mentally ill prisoners.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AMBernie: "CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW OUR CHILDREN WILL INHERIT AN UNINHABITABLE PLANET." I don't even think most climate change models predict this lol. Unless the change skyrockets to an average of one degree per year (which it won't) I'm pretty sure my children will live on a habitable planet.
You are technically correct, but the fact of the matter is that the tipping point is just over the horizon, so, in effect, if we don't act now, we may as well be giving our children an inhabitable planet. Of course, the actual effect will be an uninhabitable planet (by our standards of living) for our great-great grand children, which, it could be argued, are still our children. In essence, unless Climate Change is acted upon, our descendants will inherit an inhabitable planet.
Of course Sander's is using hyperbole and family appeal to persuade his audience, but all politicians do this. Personally, I find his use of persuasive devices more succinct and amiable than that of Donald Trump, for example.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AMA few quotes from Bernie to back this up (paraphrased, of course):
"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE OF ANY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" Um, no. China and India are major countries.
Yeah, comparing the US to developing countries is so schmart! One thing I learned from my Chinese culture class is that China took the most people out of poverty in the last 50 years than any other country in history.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AM"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
Obviously you need money to keep a campaign running! Besides, he turned away dirty money and that's better than what a lot of people would do. Trump has billions and he accepts donations, why aren't you complaining about that?
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AM"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!
You have a lot to read...
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AMQuestion: What is America's biggest enemy?
Bernie: "CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW OUR CHILDREN WILL INHERIT AN UNINHABITABLE PLANET." I don't even think most climate change models predict this lol. Unless the change skyrockets to an average of one degree per year (which it won't) I'm pretty sure my children will live on a habitable planet.
Yes, we know you're a denier, but that's not how climate change would work. One article I saw on Scientific American says 100 degree winters in 2100 are possible. Right now, the warmer, more acidic oceans are killing off coral and driving fish north. Also, there's a theory that the mass dying of sea stars are due to a virus that proliferates in warmer water. But you're going to say we don't need oceans to live now? I'm not the one to shove the problems to kids, but people do it now and in the 80s like it's cool.
What is a civil conversation?
Quote from: FireArrow on October 18, 2015, 10:42:16 PMi personally prefer the yaoi comparison
I saw an FF one a few weeks ago and was like "there is no way you can make that SFW."
Stop oh my god.
People complain how much fighting there is or how "blueflower is unfairly targeted" but if you actually read the topic, you can see how every "fight" here has spawned from the narrow-minded, propagandistic, biased and/or offensive posts meant to personally attack people instead of criticizing the actual ideas or ideologies. The reason why you think NSM can't talk in a civil fashion is because of some of the bad apples in the basket and you should do something about it. I'm tired of this because I've lost count how many times I've told you all to view things rationally and to keep an open mind. Don't let your emotions cloud your judgement.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 18, 2015, 07:58:41 PMbernie sanders is a senile old man
Fren this quote is a textbook case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Also, ageism.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AMA few quotes from Bernie to back this up (paraphrased, of course):
You're literally arguing to try to back up an ad hominem.
If you write them yourself, they are not quotes from Bernie fren ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ in order "to back that up" first of all you need to use actual quotes instead of these clearly biased quotes, that you even admit to writing these in a bigoted fashion. It's literally like you're fishing for an argument ._.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 11:47:43 AMNo I just like making stupid jokes :P And arguing with people
and this quote doesn't convince me of your motives on why you keep posting narrow-minded and condescending posts.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AM"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE OF ANY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" Um, no. China and India are major countries.
Yeah I watched the video but here's a quote
Spoiler
QuoteJeff Frank, Sanders' press secretary, clarified that when the senator said "major country," he meant a member nation of the OECD, an international economic group composed of 34 generally wealthy countries. (OECD stands for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.)
Frank also said that Sanders was referring to a 2012 UNICEF report on childhood poverty in which the United States ranked 34th out of 35 countries with a childhood poverty rate of 23.1 percent, besting only non-OECD member Romania. The report primarily uses data from 2009.
According to that report, Sanders' statement would be true; however, a later UNICEF report from 2014 with more recent OECD data put the U.S. rate of childhood poverty lower than that of Israel, Mexico, Spain, and Greece, as well as that of non-OECD Latvia. (Romania was not included.)
So yeah, you're right on how he was clearly overstating the situation, which is typical in politics(not saying it's justified). This is a prime example of how authorities are always questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).
(But still, I personally think the US' poverty rate is very high and I agree on how no children should have to live in poverty.)
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AM"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
I'm not sure if you got the point of that. Major companies are able to donate incredibly much to campaigns, hundreds of thousands and therefore it's easier for major companies to "buy" politicians on their side, essentially corrupting the candidates.
What's worth to note is how unlike fe. Clinton, Sanders rejects all these kind of billionaire donations and hasn't taken any corporate PAC money. Sanders gets I think all of his donations from individuals with a donation limit of $2700 (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml), which imo represents the message of how every individual is important with his campaign.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AM"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!
Quote from: Waddle Bro on August 09, 2015, 08:51:00 AMBut let me explain, as the difference in income becomes larger, it essentially results in more people suffering from poverty. And as long as the people who suffer from poverty remain a minority, they can't do anything about it, they can't make a change. The social mobility would pretty much be at a standstill, meaning in general the lower class wouldn't have a chance to rise to a higher class, as they are struggling to even be able to support themselves. In general, those people are more likely to be desperate enough to break the law in order to try to make their lives and situation better. And as you might deduce from all that, the difference in income is also in correlation with the severity of the criminal law. "The more severe the criminal law is, the less crime is likely to occur." It's also notable how corrupted your justice system could become (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/30/baltimore-rioters-parents-500000-bail-allen-bullock), for example in this case favouring the upper class(instead of whites).
By lowering income differences, you create peace within the society. When there's peace within the society, there isn't that much of a need for prisons.
Quote from: Clanker37 on October 19, 2015, 07:45:05 AMYou are technically correct, but the fact of the matter is that the tipping point is just over the horizon, so, in effect, if we don't act now, we may as well be giving our children an inhabitable planet. Of course, the actual effect will be an uninhabitable planet (by our standards of living) for our great-great grand children, which, it could be argued, are still our children. In essence, unless Climate Change is acted upon, our descendants will inherit an inhabitable planet.
Of course Sander's is using hyperbole and family appeal to persuade his audience, but all politicians do this. Personally, I find his use of persuasive devices more succinct and amiable than that of Donald "That baby was driving me crazy" Trump, for example.
a+++++++++ post by my fren Clanker, couldn't have said it better myself :] Honestly a lot of people here should learn from these kind of posts.
wow blue i never thought of it that way, you're very persuasive i'll be sure to make my vote on someone who can make america great again like donald trump
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/653a383f86076032e854cdff4afa70cd/tumblr_inline_nwc0a4z2fW1r580lk_540.jpg)
If you have anything against blueflower's posts, wouldn't it be wiser to not respond rather than make me question why this topic was unlocked? It takes two to argue, no matter who started it.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on October 19, 2015, 09:48:58 AMFren this quote is a textbook case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Also, ageism.
You're literally arguing to try to back up an ad hominem.
We're electing people into our office, not ideologies. This is not ad hominem at all, he is not avoiding the point of an argument by attacking the person making the argument, because the argument
is "is Bernie Sanders fit to be president."
"He's a senile old man" is an incredibly abrasive and weak argument, but it's not a fallacy.
tl;dr
Lock this again.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 02:46:26 PMLock this again.
no, keep going, I was going to nuke a bag of popcorn
The topic is fine when people have their reasonable debates with one another. It's when certain members decide to go on a Colbert-tier parody flame baiting crusade when issues arise. Most people in the topic are capable of civil, logical discussion. If issues arise unilaterally, then yes it might need closing, otherwise things will be dealt with on an individual basis. The deficiencies of just one or two individuals in a community should not be what limits the entirety.
Let this be a genero warning I suppose, but without this topic I could easily see posts along the lines of it just bleeding into other areas of the forum as the months progress.
Outright banning any political discussions, no matter how minor, is just unfeasible.
If you have nothing of value to contribute to the current conversation, please refrain from posting as you will only dilute whatever the subject at hand is and derail the conversation towards a less constructive direction and will likely agitate those trying to have a serious conversation. This means no idle quotes, no blanket "I agree/disagree with X person" without adding to the conversation, and no sarcastic responses like "yeah, sure they will (eye roll)."
Think before you post, please try to cite your sources, and it is recommended that you if you can't handle a heated conversation then do not chime in. We do not need to hear you whining about "I don't like seeing people disagree" or "I don't like this topic".
Also, opinions do not hold any logical weight. Do not expect people to take you seriously if you cannot back up your argument with credible sources. Save parody and satire for elsewhere on the forum.
Just some friendly advice.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on October 19, 2015, 03:47:13 PMOutright banning any political discussions, no matter how minor, is just unfeasible.
Really? Seems as simple as a 3 day ban for each offense tho.
I meant just blanket "No politics ever" is unfeasible. People will talk about it anyway.
They can talk about it privately though. Why bring it to a Nintendo sheet music forum?
Quote from: Dude on October 19, 2015, 04:13:40 PMThey can talk about it privately though. Why bring it to a Nintendo sheet music forum?
With this in mind we could delete probably over 60% of the posts on this forum and the entire "Off Topic" board
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:43:59 AMA few quotes from Bernie to back this up (paraphrased, of course):
Paraphrased =/= taking what he said and making it way more hyperbolic than it was.
Quote"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE OF ANY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" Um, no. China and India are major countries.
He said industrialized countries, which India is not, nor is it a member of the OECD.
Quote"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
Too much *big* money in politics; millionaires and billionaires like the Koch brothers endorsing campaigns and giving ludicrous sums of money to the candidates that will pass laws convenient to them and reject laws inconvenient to them.
Quote"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!
Actually, quite a few people are in jail for crimes they didn't commit, or petty crimes that really aren't worth locking them up for. As a matter of fact, it costs us more money to keep people in a box for ~15 years than to rehabilitate and readjust them. I thought you were all about money?
QuoteQuestion: What is America's biggest enemy?
Bernie: "CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW OUR CHILDREN WILL INHERIT AN UNINHABITABLE PLANET." I don't even think most climate change models predict this lol. Unless the change skyrockets to an average of one degree per year (which it won't) I'm pretty sure my children will live on a habitable planet.
Actually, only judging by the damage we've done
right now several cities (if not the entire state) of Florida will be gone by 2200 due to rising oceans. To say nothing of the excessive droughts, lack of clean water (those underground reservoirs have almost entirely been contaminated by fracking), massive floods and forest fires (we're already dealing with the latter in my state, Oregon), far warmer winters..
tl;dr: Blue you're putting strawman after strawman on Bernie, not even realizing that your arguments are invalid anyways. And you wonder why people respond and "attack" you?
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 04:21:41 PMWith this in mind we could delete probably over 60% of the posts on this forum and the entire "Off Topic" board
pretty sure 99.9% of them don't make people show their worst side like politics does.
A few years ago I started getting an idea as to my political viewpoints
I was listening to a lecture blah blah blah and suddenly I thought, "what this person is saying... is just completely wrong."
That's how I learned obama was bad.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2F344e48702f2e94830c1a3817511d5468%2Ftumblr_inline_myu0m3E5CK1qlrx1d.png&hash=a5f10957b0d5e06c7f37ad1b619feacc2921af90)
Quote from: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 02:46:26 PMWe're electing people into our office, not ideologies. This is not ad hominem at all, he is not avoiding the point of an argument by attacking the person making the argument, because the argument is "is Bernie Sanders fit to be president."
"He's a senile old man" is an incredibly abrasive and weak argument, but it's not a fallacy.
Ideologies are behind every choice we make.
He was attacking the attributes of the person himself, instead of giving any reasoning as to why exactly he'd be senile. Like Maestro said, opinions don't hold any logical weight, as that'd be an open question. It's still slander nevertheless.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 19, 2015, 08:35:46 PMA few years ago I started getting an idea as to my political viewpoints
I was listening to a lecture blah blah blah and suddenly I thought, "what this person is saying... is just completely wrong."
That's how I learned obama was bad.
You should read Maestro's latest post on this topic :]
Quote from: Waddle Bro on October 19, 2015, 09:04:05 PMIdeologies are behind every choice we make.
He was attacking the attributes of the person himself, instead of giving any reasoning as to why exactly he'd be senile. Like Maestro said, opinions don't hold any logical weight, as that'd be an open question. It's still slander nevertheless.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how it's any different than us bashing trump or carson. As long as we aren't attacking
eachother (which is what this thread quickly devolves into after every blueflower/noc post), there's nothing to get worked up over.
I wasn't saying how people trashing Trump or Carson without any basis would be any different from what noc was doing. I don't agree on allowing hypocritical attacking against the attributes of certain people, we should stop all unjustified shitting on anyone. We should strive to be better than people throwing biased insults towards anyone.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on October 19, 2015, 09:29:12 PMI wasn't saying how people trashing Trump or Carson without any basis would be any different from what noc was doing. I don't agree on allowing hypocritical attacking against the attributes of certain people, we should stop all unjustified shitting on anyone. We should strive to be better than people throwing biased insults towards anyone.
is it still ad hominem to say trump is a turkeyface who can't take anything seriously
Unless you can justify that, then yes.
1) Advice for being a comedian in political commentary: whatever you make fun of has to be true and logical.
2) Some of you are just being inflammatory. If someone corrects you, getting defensive and throwing another insult is going to result in another argument. Better to save your reputation and said say "oops, corrected" or "I stand corrected."
3) YOU ARE NOT A MARTYR. Being defensive doesn't actually help your cause as much as you think, especially if you're wrong on basic facts. Your ego is worth less than friendship, for example...
I would hold Trump to a different standard because he's also an entertainer. Don't expect people *not* to treat him like the Bieber of finance. I think there's a reason that Republicans get kicked around more, it's because they try to screw over lots people and say things that aren't true, and they should know better.
yeah but why is Donald Trump orange
He's an oompa loompa
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 19, 2015, 08:35:46 PMA few years ago I started getting an idea as to my political viewpoints
I was listening to a lecture blah blah blah and suddenly I thought, "what this person is saying... is just completely wrong."
That's how I learned obama was bad.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on October 19, 2015, 03:47:13 PMIf you have nothing of value to contribute to the current conversation, please refrain from posting as you will only dilute whatever the subject at hand is and derail the conversation towards a less constructive direction and will likely agitate those trying to have a serious conversation.
Think before you post, please try to cite your sources, and it is recommended that you if you can't handle a heated conversation then do not chime in.
(. . .)
Also, opinions do not hold any logical weight. Do not expect people to take you seriously if you cannot back up your argument with credible sources. Save parody and satire for elsewhere on the forum.
http://gawker.com/ben-carson-has-plenty-of-energy-once-tried-to-stab-a-g-1738615515
Crazy! In other news, a surgeon is a great career choice for psychopaths who don't end up in jail first. Basically, you get paid for cutting people up. I read that in Scientific American too, about a surgeon who was curious and took a personality test. He found out he was a psychopath.
If anyone is curious, they should take a test (https://www.google.com/search?q=psychopath+sociopath+personality+test&rlz=1C1LENP_enUS503US503&oq=psychopath+sociopath+personality+test&aqs=chrome..69i57.7887j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8). Remember, you can always be a surgeon. Just don't end up in the news first for torturing dogs to death, like Mike Huckabee's son.
[snip]
On the subject of Ben Carson, here are some interesting lines from an article I read earlier today.
"According to the latest poll from Bloomberg Politics and the Des Moines Register (https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.gannett-cdn.com/LDSN/desmoines/PDF/151023_ia_methodology_7760982.pdf), Carson is ahead of the pack with 28 percent of the vote. But more interesting are the facts behind his rise. Iowans aren't just charmed by his demeanor, his experience, and his inexperience as a politician and policymaker—although that's definitely true—they also support his most controversial, and entirely ludicrous, ideas.
Eighty-five percent of respondents say Carson's lack of experience is mostly or very attractive; 88 percent say the same for his skill as a neurosurgeon, while 49 percent say it's unattractive that he has little experience with foreign policy.
But then it goes off the rails. Two years ago, at the Values Voter Summit, url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/10/11/ben-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-since-slavery]Carson said that the Affordable Care Act[/url]—designed to increase health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans—was the "worst thing that has happened in this country since slavery," which trapped millions of people in brutal hereditary bondage for more than two centuries. American slavery was a disgraceful chapter in our history that still shapes the structure of our society. Obamacare, by contrast, has delivered insurance and health services to 17.6 million people. (http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/)
What do Iowa Republicans think? Eighty-one percent say this makes him a "mostly" or "very" attractive candidate.
Last month, Carson voiced opposition to a hypothetical Muslim president. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/ben_carson_doesn_t_believe_muslims_should_be_president_his_genial_reputation.html) "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," he said. This, despite the Constitution's clear dictate on religious tests—they're verboten. What do Iowa Republicans think? Seventy-seven percent say this makes him a "mostly" or "very" attractive candidate.
Two weeks ago, Carson said that guns—in the hands of German Jews—could have slowed Adolf Hitler and even stopped the Holocaust. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-gun-control-2016-election/) "I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people have been armed," he said.
Historians think this is ludicrous. "I can think of no serious work of scholarship on the Nazi dictatorship or the causes of the Holocaust in which Nazi gun control measures feature as a significant factor," wrote Alan Steinweis for the New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/ben-carson-is-wrong-on-guns-and-the-holocaust.html)
What do Iowa Republicans think? A whopping 77 percent say that Carson's statement makes him "very" or "mostly" attractive. Overall—presumably based on his beliefs and opinions—96 percent of Iowa Republicans are attracted by "common sense"-based approach to issues. If there's an area where respondents were unhappy, it's with Carson's fetal tissue research as a neurosurgeon. Forty-eight percent find it "mostly" or "very" unattractive."
You can read the rest of the article here. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/iowa_republicans_love_ben_carson_the_state_s_conservative_caucus_goers_have.html)
I really don't want to think our country can be this disgusting. Please tell me the is empty left wing mud slinging or something because I just don't want to accept the fact that our America is that fucking stupid, pardon my french.
Wait, who are you talking about, PDS or Iowa Republicans?
You don't need to mudsling the right wing to make them look bad >_> Their candidates are a joke. The person saying the most outrageous crap gets the most attention or biggest lead in the polls. Confucius must be rolling over in his grave.
I also read the Slate article. I'm sure I posted about Carson's comment on "arming the Jews would prevent the Holocaust". He's probably doing it for the media attention to sell more books and paid appearances, but using a presidential candidate platform for monetary gain is an insult.
Article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34485358
"The Anti-Defamation League, an anti-Semitism monitoring group, has previously said that drawing comparisons between the gun control debate in the US and the Holocaust was "historically inaccurate and offensive", especially to Holocaust survivors and their families.
In 1943, armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fought the Nazis. Jews killed about 20 Nazis, but about 13,000 Jews died in the uprising.Ben Carson's comments come days after a mass shooting at a college in the US state of Oregon, in which nine people were killed."
Quote from: Altissimo on October 26, 2015, 06:17:23 AMlmao my ex-boyfriend wants/wanted to be a surgeon
Glad you got out of that okay lol
Freakin' Justin Trudeau is gonna run my beautiful country to the ground! ..oh wait.. is this american politics? I'll just back out here..
I'm mostly disturbed by the "Obama care is the worst thing since slavery." I'm so sorry that the upper class people living a decent life pay a bit more for medical insurance, but come on. Are these people really selfish enough to think that it's even remotely appropriate to compare being charged more money (to help out people!) to slavery?
I swear, these people (majoriry of iowa republicans) dont even know what Jesus preached.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 27, 2015, 09:59:14 AMI'm mostly disturbed by the "Obama care is the worst thing since slavery." I'm so sorry that the upper class people living a decent life pay a bit more for medical insurance, but come on. Are these people really selfish enough to think that it's even remotely appropriate to compare being charged more money (to help out people!) to slavery?
I swear, these people (majoriry of iowa republicans) dont even know what Jesus preached.
People either have no idea about anything or they're just trolling the polls. Since trolling is fun to people, it could be possible that they're just bored.
Just a reminder to everyone that the 3rd Republican Debate is tonight!
Anyone wanna play the republican debate drinking game?
You just get totally shitfaced beforehand, that way you can stand listening to them.
For reference:
Spoiler
DRINK EVERY TIME:
1. Donald Trump brags about how much money he makes.
2. Trump uses the words "disaster," "loser" or "head spin."
3. Trump says he "loves" somebody or thinks he/she is a "wonderful person," before ripping him/her for being a loser or a disaster or whatever.
4. Trump rips another candidate's poll numbers. Make it a double if he tweaks Jeb about cutting the pay of his staffers. Add a beer chaser if Trump doubles down and talks about how well, in contrast, he pays his people.
5. Anyone references how Hillary "lied before the committee."
6. A candidate proposes abolishing an utterly necessary branch of government, or a politically untouchable program like Medicare.
7. Jeb Bush refers to himself as "Veto Corleone," or insists that "Washington is the pejorative term, not Redskins." Drink as much as you can stomach if he actually uses either line.
8. Any candidate makes an awkward/craven pop-culture reference, including references to Peyton Manning or the Broncos.
9. Any candidate illustrates the virtue of one of his/her positions by pointing out how not PC it is.
10. Any candidate compares anything that isn't slavery to slavery. A double if it's Ben Carson.
11. Any candidate evokes Nazis, the Gestapo, Neville Chamberlain, concentration camps, etc. Again, a double if it's Ben Carson, who has been amping up the slavery/Holocaust imagery lately.
12. Carson cites the Bible as authority for complex policy questions.
13. Any candidate righteously claims he/she would never have compromised on the debt ceiling thing. You may drink more if you feel sure enough that the person is lying.
14. Carly Fiorina whips out a number that is debunked by Politifact or some other reputable fact-checking service before the end of the night. (Example: the 307,000 veterans who supposedly died last year because of Barack Obama's inept management of the VA.) Actually, drink if any candidate does this.
15. A low-polling candidate makes a wild and outrageous statement in a transparent attempt to revive his or her campaign. Huckabee calling for summary bludgeonings of immigrants would be an example.
16. A candidate complains about not getting enough time. This evergreen drinking game concept is henceforth known as the "Jim Webb rule."
17. The audience bursts into uncomfortable applause at a racist/sexist statement.
DRINK THE FIRST TIME AND THE FIRST TIME ONLY:
18. A candidate evokes St. Reagan.
DRINK EVERY TIME YOU HEAR:
19. "Selling baby parts"
20. "White Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter"
21. "Ferguson Effect"
22. "I'm the only candidate on this stage who..."
23. George Bush/My brother "kept us safe"
24. "Shining city on a hill"
TAKE A SHOT OF JAGER IF:
25. Anyone references a biblical justification for gun ownership, or insists an infamous historical tragedy would have been prevented if more people had been armed.
The following rules are optional, for the truly hardcore.
BONUS SHOTS IF:
Ted Cruz mentions his wife's baking skills without mentioning she worked for Goldman Sachs.
Rand Paul mentions the Constitution, the Framers or the founders before he mentions his children.
Someone makes a quiet car joke at Christie's expense.
Fiorina mentions being a secretary or having a husband who drove a tow truck.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-official-gop-debate-drinking-game-rules-pt-3-20151028#ixzz3puIqleMA
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
That's incredibly offensive to young people xD
I want to say it's a step up from comparing Obamacare to slavery, but....
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 07, 2015, 10:02:10 AMI want to say it's a step up from comparing Obamacare to slavery, but....
Not as bad as being proud of pantaloons aflame. (http://theslot.jezebel.com/ben-carson-admits-that-his-autobiography-isnt-100-accu-1741295273?trending_test_a&utm_expid=66866090-62.H_y_0o51QhmMY_tue7bevQ.1&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ftheslot.jezebel.com%2F%3Ftrending_test_a)
Then he made a disgusting tweet about how much he made this week from sounding like a victim of the media. It makes sense if you're out to make money from gullible people to sell books, but then if your autobiography lied about stuff, isn't that bad press? He needs to go away.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2015/nov/07/ben-carson-house-homage-to-himself-in-pictures?CMP=fb_gu
I found the third image to be pretty funny.
Spoiler
As humble as you can get while engraving a biblical inscription into stone and covering it with gold leaf, surrounded by ornate decorations and numerous awards
I hope Carson or Trump say something insensitive about the French attacks like after that shooting at that university and then their poll numbers crash and burn
If they were armed this would of never happened!
Quote from: FireArrow on November 13, 2015, 11:53:26 PMIf they were armed this would of never happened!
I think Newt said that. Ugh.
Quote from: Dude on November 13, 2015, 11:27:38 PMI hope Carson or Trump say something insensitive about the French attacks like after that shooting at that university and then their poll numbers crash and burn
Heard morons say Trump's wall would be a good idea but joke's on her, since she can't vote in a US election. I think it would make the hardcore idiots just foam at the mouth.
I also think that Trump's latest speech and Carson caugh fabricating parts of his autobiography did enough damage lol
[snip]
why just threaten? why not go all the way? go big or go home, man.
Quote from: Dude on November 15, 2015, 08:42:33 AMwhy just threaten? why not go all the way? go big or go home, man.
Trump may be despicable but he's not deserving of murder.
Even if it would prove an excellent point.
Oh no, not murder. Just shoot him in the foot.
Quote from: Dude on November 15, 2015, 10:23:42 AMOh no, not murder. Just shoot him in the foot.
What are you saying? We don't need someone
else to do that for him!!
Quote from: Clanker37 on November 15, 2015, 01:38:02 AMWhoop. There it is.
People being this stupid really depresses me.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716
hail trump
For those of you who think that Islamic terrorism is really a threat in the US....
http://reverbpress.com/politics/battlegrounds/toddler-shooting-incidents-threat-muslim-terrorists-us/
Quote from: Waddle Bro on November 21, 2015, 11:56:20 AMhttp://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716
heil trump
fixed because that's where people made the comparison
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 25, 2015, 11:00:08 AMFor those of you who think that Islamic terrorism is really a threat in the US....
http://reverbpress.com/politics/battlegrounds/toddler-shooting-incidents-threat-muslim-terrorists-us/
You forgot attacks made by white supremacists (basically losers whose only achievement in life is being born white and thinks he/she can be great by putting other people down). If they don't have their guns/bombs/artillery/"freedom" they would be lower than cow turds and even less useful. I wouldn't fertilize a lawn with white supremacists.
I once talked to this guy who said he shot himself by accident with a BB gun and he didn't go to the hospital for it, so there are probably way more unreported incidents. The way he said it made me think that he thought it was nothing. :O
Quote from: Ruto on November 27, 2015, 11:13:09 AMI once talked to this guy who said he shot himself by accident with a BB gun and he didn't go to the hospital for it, so there are probably way more unreported incidents. The way he said it made me think that he thought it was nothing. :O
I mean, it's possible to get shot with a bb and not even feel it, so...
BB =/= Airsoft if that's what she meant. They are much more painful.
Colorado wtf
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 27, 2015, 11:57:29 AMI mean, it's possible to get shot with a bb and not even feel it, so...
He shot himself in the butt.
Americans can have some pretty impressive butts if you know what i mean
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/class-based-affirmative-action/419307/?utm_source=SFFB
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cj-pearson-endorses-bernie-sanders
Hahaha I don't care much about what people say on YouTube but the reactions are pretty funny. The people who were praising this kid last week are now howling in rage.
(Basically a black kid who got famous for insulting Obama (and backing Republicans) is now supporting Bernie Sanders, what a troll!) xD
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/19/watch-the-christmas-parody-informercial-the-ted-cruz-campaign-has-paid-to-air-during-saturday-night-live/
I thought this one was funnier than the trump one
Here's one I found that I thought was hilarious on the issue of Islamophobia:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10103964279738483&set=a.738882800843.2371193.6228901&type=3&theater
http://media.cagle.com/20/2013/12/08/141396_600.jpg (http://media.cagle.com/20/2013/12/08/141396_600.jpg)
I wish they would of somehow mentioned starbuck's red coffee cup.
Quote from: FireArrow on December 19, 2015, 08:12:46 PMhttp://media.cagle.com/20/2013/12/08/141396_600.jpg (http://media.cagle.com/20/2013/12/08/141396_600.jpg)
I wish they would of somehow mentioned starbuck's red coffee cup.
what, nobody thinking of Jesus? Criminal.
i think the cartoon would be much more criminal if they were thinking of jesus in the season of imagination
oh is that the joke
sorry my online sarcasm detector not of very high quality so i'll explain the joke like a dumbass
Some conservative people have this delusion that there's a war on Christmas, so they're comparing this imaginary thing to the other imaginary Christmas things such as Santa and flying reindeer. So yeah, I guess you can extrapolate that Jesus is the point of Christmas and everything else from conspiracy theories to the Clause family is fluff. I personally just see it as mocking hypersensitive Christians and politicians that cater to them.
In my opinion, all politicians are paid liars. Of course, this may be stereotypical, but I'm just making a blanketed statement. If you could show me one completely truthful politician, I'd be thoroughly surprised.
Bernie Sanders
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stripersonline.com%2Fcontent%2Ftype%2F61%2Fid%2F1505301%2F&hash=b6018958ab7ae374d6d1324d80bf8fe7d8f0e1f4)
EDIT:
lol
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
As compared to what? (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/)
;3
I didn't know something as great as this existed! (Although, I'm not sure about that high of %%% for Carson. Sorry, ignore my political bias, it's just the way I was raised :P)
Ok so which shitty Republican candidate should I vote for in the primary?
all politicians lie, tell half-truths, or generally warp facts to their own suiting. Bernie Sanders is no exception
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 23, 2015, 03:24:35 PMall politicians lie, tell half-truths, or generally warp facts to their own suiting. Bernie Sanders is no exception
Some more so than others.
Hillary Clinton (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/)
Bernie Sanders (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/)
Donald Trump (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/)
Ben Carson (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/)
Ted Cruz (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/)
Marco Rubio (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/marco-rubio/)
And for giggles
Barack Obama (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/)
Hillary is the most honest candidate by a large margin, which kinda surprises me. Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, and Obama are in the middle. All the other relevant GOPs I bothered to look up don't seem to be very factual. Keep in mind this site simply measures the truth of statements political people make, if telling what you perceive to be the truth counted for anything trump and bernie would be passing with flying colors.
You might as well say there's no such thing as an honest person, then, because everyone does that.
That said, I'd be interested to see what you think of as Sanders' "lies, half-truths," and "generally warped facts", or if you'll just repost the politifact article.
@Dude I'd say Rand Paul, since he's kind of a libertarian. He's far better on foreign policy than any of the other republicans, as well as being better on some social issues.
@FireArrow Keep in mind that Politifact isn't known for their objectivity; they are known for neutrality, but neutrality =/= objectivity.
why are some of those factcheck things up there twice? also doubt you should assume that sanders or any major politician is the one searching all those statistics? pretty much all statistics are given to them by their team, at least when it comes to presidential candidates. point is how if you think you're telling the truth, your intentions doesn't mean you objectively always are.
especially the teams behind billion dollar presidential campaigns(ridiculous amounts imo) are definitely using rhetoric methods to bring the ws home. these false claims i'm looking at on homie are clearly exaggerated instead of made-up bullshit like "obama's classmates don't even remember him" tho. but always take all stats with a grain of salt, but if you look at the big picture, my man bernie has been laying down these words of wisdom and truth like corn flakes in my breakfast bowl.
why i pointed out sanders to you e.gadd bro is because he's the one who has been speaking heavily against the corrupting effect money has on the political process in us, the same problem you have with politicians.
just a general tip for everyone here, left or right, recommending you to take a look at the goal the politician wants to point out instead of how the politician is doing it. if you focus on just the road, you might end up running to a hole that the road led you to.
edit; firearrow, you should also focus on the quality of the facts or lies. a lot of them aren't honestly even that big of a deal that anyone should care about. though while hillary for example makes up her own bullshit of her grandparents and you compare that to anything sanders-false idk it's just interesting to see who's genuinely lying.
And, as is the tradition in the NSM politics thread, Waddle Bro lays down good knowledge for everyone to contemplate.
Just using politifact since MLF used it. If he considers it valid evidence against bernie, then it should also be considered valid evidence that most of his (not Rubio ;]) republican candidates are much worse.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on December 23, 2015, 04:03:50 PMedit; firearrow, you should also focus on the quality of the facts or lies. a lot of them aren't honestly even that big of a deal that anyone should care about. though while hillary for example makes up her own bullshit of her grandparents and you compare that to anything sanders-false idk it's just interesting to see who's genuinely lying.
I didn't feel like weeding through that for each person. You could argue though that Bernie's false statements would negatively impact decisions he'd make in office, whereas shit about Hillary's grandparents doesn't really hurt anyone. If we're talking about simply the intention of each candidate not to lie, then a lot of the republicans do a pretty good job of that. Sure, they throw around completely ridiculous things about planned parent hood and Obama, but they probably believe what they're saying.
XD I know this is off topic from the conversation (but this is the Off-Topic forum), but have you guys seen the Bad Lip Reading videos of the candidate debates on YouTube? XD imo, the democratic debate is funnier XD
Quote from: FireArrow on December 23, 2015, 04:30:52 PMJust using politifact since MLF used it. If he considers it valid evidence against bernie, then it should also be considered valid evidence that most of his (not Rubio ;]) republican candidates are much worse.
I didn't feel like weeding through that for each person. You could argue though that Bernie's false statements would negatively impact decisions he'd make in office, whereas shit about Hillary's grandparents doesn't really hurt anyone. If we're talking about simply the intention of each candidate not to lie, then a lot of the republicans do a pretty good job of that. Sure, they throw around completely ridiculous things about planned parent hood and Obama, but they probably believe what they're saying.
ya you're completely right and thanks for clearing it up, and i mostly meant that mentioning stuff like "people have written over 60 books about me" and that being marked as a true fact(even though it meaningless) raises your average score, making you appear as a more trustworthy person. that's a bit frivolous to me.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on December 23, 2015, 04:39:22 PMya you're completely right and thanks for clearing it up, and i mostly meant that mentioning stuff like "people have written over 60 books about me" and that being marked as a true fact(even though it meaningless) raises your average score, making you appear as a more trustworthy person. that's a bit frivolous to me.
Yeah it's probably not best to use that sight as a way to "tally honesty." My bad.
Quote from: FireArrow on December 23, 2015, 04:30:52 PMJust using politifact since MLF used it. If he considers it valid evidence against bernie, then it should also be considered valid evidence that most of his (not Rubio ;]) republican candidates are much worse.
Actually, I have no clue what that site even is.....Blue told me to post that link O_O
Anyway, tbh, I'm not really following politics too closely. I think I've only watched one of the Republican debates. :P
Here are my current views on politics at the moment and what I think of the candidates:
(my opinion; please respect that)
Ben CarsonI think he has the potential to be a good president, but I honestly don't think he is ready. He just doesn't have enough experience in the field of politics and jumping from neurosurgeon to president might not be the right thing to do. I do agree with most of the things he says and that he does have the potential to be a good leader. I also think that it was pretty stupid of him to say that God gave him the answers to a test in high school :P
I don't think that was true.
Marco RubioHe is my favorite candidate. I think Rubio would be a great president and I agree with almost everything he says. He has the experience (he worked in politics since 1998, I believe) and the leadership skills.
Alas, I haven't really followed the Democrats.....at all so don't have anything to say about them.
As of now, Marco Rubio is my favorite candidate.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 23, 2015, 03:57:50 PMYou might as well say there's no such thing as an honest person, then, because everyone does that.
That said, I'd be interested to see what you think of as Sanders' "lies, half-truths," and "generally warped facts", or if you'll just repost the politifact article.
This is true. I don't think there is any candidate running that tells the truth
all the time.There is always going to be warped facts and, as you say, half-truths.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on December 23, 2015, 04:39:22 PMya you're completely right and thanks for clearing it up, and i mostly meant that mentioning stuff like "people have written over 60 books about me" and that being marked as a true fact(even though it meaningless) raises your average score, making you appear as a more trustworthy person. that's a bit frivolous to me.
I don't see anything wrong with promoting yourself or showing off your accomplishments. Take Ben Carson, for example. I've seen these pictures online of his house and people are always saying things like, "What's with all the pictures of yourself on the wall(s)" or "What a proud person. He has a million trophies plastered throughout his house." etc.
If I was a Retired Neurosurgeon that worked very hard at college, has a doctorate, and worked extremely hard (and let's not forget saving lives) all my life, yes, I would have all my accomplishments and trophies all through my house and would "show-off" :P
Blue can come back and post it himself if he wants to argue on here, lol.
My issue with Rubio is one I have with several candidates; he's been given too much money. The corporations that donate to his (and several others, including Hillary Clinton) campaign, and they know that since they enabled their campaign to be successful, people like Rubio and others won't dare piss them off with any sort of legislation.
Quote from: mariolegofan on December 23, 2015, 04:54:09 PMThis is true. I don't think there is any candidate running that tells the truth all the time.
There is always going to be warped facts and, as you say, half-truths.
Then it seems we need a new definition of honest; perhaps someone who in the majority of cases tells what they know to be the truth, does not intentionally manipulate information, etc..
Also keep in mind that honest isn't a concrete yes or no thing, it's not an "your either honest or you aren't". There are certainly degrees of honesty.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 23, 2015, 05:30:17 PMBlue can come back and post it himself if he wants to argue on here, lol.
Agreed
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 23, 2015, 05:30:17 PMMy issue with Rubio is one I have with several candidates; he's been given too much money. The corporations that donate to his (and several others, including Hillary Clinton) campaign, and they know that since they enabled their campaign to be successful, people like Rubio and others won't dare piss them off with any sort of legislation.
Perhaps.
Also, I forgot to bring up Donald Trump. I would be very anxious having him as president and think he's one of the worst on the Republican Party. His goals are
very far-fetched. Building a wall (as he likes to say time and time again is just stupid) and getting rid of the Islamic people is just as stupid. Having him on the Republican side just makes all the Republicans look bad which does not help anything. If he was president, he'd start a war with every country in the world O_O
Quote from: mariolegofan on December 23, 2015, 04:54:09 PMActually, I have no clue what that site even is.....Blue told me to post that link O_O
Don't blindly listen to other people. I love blue, but when MLF posts I want to hear what MLF has to say.
QuoteAnyway, tbh, I'm not really following politics too closely. I think I've only watched one of the Republican debates. :P
QuoteAlas, I haven't really followed the Democrats.....at all so don't have anything to say about them.
You should probably see what the democrats have to say if you plan on voting. You'd be doing a disservice to your country is you voted someone without a fair consideration of both sides and all viable candidates.
QuoteHere are my current views on politics at the moment and what I think of the candidates:
(my opinion; please respect that)
Ben Carson
I think he has the potential to be a good president, but I honestly don't think he is ready. He just doesn't have enough experience in the field of politics and jumping from neurosurgeon to president might not be the right thing to do. I do agree with most of the things he says and that he does have the potential to be a good leader. I also think that it was pretty stupid of him to say that God gave him the answers to a test in high school :P
I don't think that was true.
The thing about Carson is the BS he says isn't just confined to the one statement about high school.
QuoteMarco Rubio
He is my favorite candidate. I think Rubio would be a great president and I agree with almost everything he says. He has the experience (he worked in politics since 1998, I believe) and the leadership skills.
If experience was you're main interest, then wouldn't Hillary be your gal?
QuoteThis is true. I don't think there is any candidate running that tells the truth all the time.
There is always going to be warped facts and, as you say, half-truths.
Some candidates do so more than others. There's just a few issues that you should always try and check politifact or better yet a primary source (please don't use news articles and blogs.)
Notably:
Planned Parent Hood
Obama
Gun Control
Gay Marriage and Adoption
One politician talking about another
etc.
QuoteI don't see anything wrong with promoting yourself or showing off your accomplishments. Take Ben Carson, for example. I've seen these pictures online of his house and people are always saying things like, "What's with all the pictures of yourself on the wall(s)" or "What a proud person. He has a million trophies plastered throughout his house." etc.
If I was a Retired Neurosurgeon that worked very hard at college, has a doctorate, and worked extremely hard (and let's not forget saving lives) all my life, yes, I would have all my accomplishments and trophies all through my house and would "show-off" :P
Most people don't consider narcissism a desirable quality. Though you bring up a good point that it's gonna be hard to find a candidate that isn't that way.
Quote from: mariolegofan on December 23, 2015, 05:36:50 PMAlso, I forgot to bring up Donald Trump. I would be very anxious having him as president and think he's one of the worst on the Republican Party. His goals are very far-fetched. Building a wall (as he likes to say time and time again is just stupid) and getting rid of the Islamic people is just as stupid. Having him on the Republican side just makes all the Republicans look bad which does not help anything. If he was president, he'd start a war with every country in the world O_O
Yay double posts. Question: Would you vote Trump over a democrat?
Quote from: FireArrow on December 23, 2015, 05:46:58 PMYou should probably see what the democrats have to say if you plan on voting. You'd be doing a disservice to your country is you voted someone without a fair consideration of both sides and all viable candidates.
Don't worry. I know plenty about them. A friend of mine is always talking to me about politics and gives me the scoop on every debate (GOP and Democrat). :P
And, as I said, I agree with almost everything Rubio has to say.
Quote from: FireArrow on December 23, 2015, 05:46:58 PMIf experience was you're main interest, then wouldn't Hillary be your gal?
I don't agree with most of what she says. She almost has the opposite views that I (and Rubio) have on a plethora of subjects.
Quote from: FireArrow on December 23, 2015, 05:46:58 PMSome candidates do so more than others. There's just a few issues that you should always try and check politifact or better yet a primary source (please don't use news articles and blogs.)
Notably:
Planned Parent Hood
Obama
Gun Control
Gay Marriage and Adoption
One politician talking about another
etc.
Of course. I know what I think about on all of these issues and will probably vote accordingly.
Quote from: FireArrow on December 23, 2015, 05:49:43 PMYay double posts. Question: Would you vote Trump over a democrat?
Hmmmm.....that's a toughy. I don't know if I'd like having Trump as a president and don't think I'd vote for him. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it
if that is what it comes to. I don't think Trump can beat any Democrat running.
Btw, I'm glad how "cool" this is going. This is how conversations on controversial topics should be done! 👍
Quote from: mariolegofan on December 23, 2015, 04:54:09 PMActually, I have no clue what that site even is.....Blue told me to post that link O_O
firearrow said it pretty well and tight but i'm gonna take it a bit further, because thinking critically is one of the biggest things in life for me because imo people should know why they are doing the things they're doing.
so, thinking can be exhausting and life can feel like just a one big moment of "whatever". when we combine fatigue and the fear to make decisions with the countless institutions, societies, people and religions that love explaining us what we should do, we get used to it and start to think it's pointless to think for ourselves when so many other things could just take the wheel of our thoughts.
instead of letting blue or anyone ghost your thoughts and tell you what to do, you should think critically and do what you think is the best. i'm not saying listening to other people is bad, but listening to someone else blindly without knowing why is. i'm not telling you to close your minds and reject everything the world has to say. taking someone else's advice can be great, but you need to figure out why you should take the advice. that way the information you perceive becomes a part of you and your essence, so you're taking your own advice. we should continue searching for wisdom and knowledge and continue to listening to others, but we shouldn't make any of it a part of ourselves unless we agree with it. every time you hear or observe something or someone is telling you what to do, just ask yourself if you agree with it. that way you avoid following something blindly.
"but woodle bra aren't you telling us how we should think right now?!" i'm actually not. i'm here to just get you to open your eyes and even question everything i'm telling you at this moment. if you listen to what i'm telling blindly, you're letting just another thing control your thoughts and cloud your mind. don't swallow shit that people try to shove down your throats. trust yourselves. even if you're afraid of mistakes, just remember that mistakes aren't the bad thing, they only teach and make you stronger. but the fear of mistakes is what paralyzes your ass. when you let something control your thoughts, you're like a pen, only a tool.
A medical degree (MD) is NOT a doctorate (PhD). Just thought I'd put that out there.
A couple days ago I had the shocking realization that I'm going to be able to vote in the next election. I most certainly will not. My political views:
Conservatives:
They get it right.
Liberals:
They're misguided, but well-meaning.
Trump:
Not a conservative.
Carson:
A crazy doctor. Knows nothing of politics.
Cruz:
I guess this is the best guy, cause most of the conservatives from my hometown love him.
Clinton:
If it had to be a democrat, it should be her.
Sanders:
Socialist. Will make America a Non-America.
Waddle Bro:
What the heck why is this guy so invested in American politics, seems fishy, not gonna listen to anything he says
Trump Followers:
Shockingly, they do exist. They seem to ignore the bad stuff he says- quote from my facebook: "True, he's rough around the edges, but maybe rough is what america needs." gross.
Politics:
Kind of stupid.
Declaration of Independence:
We're AMERICA, not BRITISH COLONIES. We don't WANT to switch to european government.
Declaration of Independence:
Hey, if we hate it, we can tear it down. Revolt of the citizens is justified by the D of I.
Constitution:
We The People. Too much Good Cop v Bad Cop, White Lives v Black Lives, all that stupid crap. We're all americans. Except for the illegal aliens ("Undocumented Democrats" lol). They should get that sorted out.
Me:
Still not gonna vote.
If you actually think Sanders is a "socialist", you should see the nutjob in the Seattle city government and rethink your definition.
Also, what is your definition of "America", and better yet, "misguided"?
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on December 23, 2015, 09:21:09 PMIf you actually think Sanders is a "socialist", you should see the nutjob in the Seattle city government and rethink your definition.
Also, what is your definition of "America", and better yet, "misguided"?
I realize that 2/3 of colonists didn't want to split from America, but the 1/3 that did felt like Britain was doing it wrong. There's a reason America has the oldest government structure today and it's not because Europe is better at government.
Misguided means they think spending money that we don't have is a good idea. I guarantee you that when you got a credit card your parents told you not to spend money you didn't have. If they didn't, well, that means either you knew that already or they were terrible parents.
I still find it absolutely astounding that if you mention any kind of socialism to an American their heads explode. Most modern iterations of socialism is democratic socialism where the government provides essential services (including education, health care and climate action) whilst remaining a mostly capitalist economy.
But that's none of my business...
*sips on affordable tertiary education and government which can utilise bipartisanship.*
*chokes on high taxes and unions*
*doesn't die due to free healthcare*
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 23, 2015, 09:05:20 PMCruz:
I guess this is the best guy, cause most of the conservatives from my hometown love him.
Loooooooooooooool
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 23, 2015, 09:05:20 PMMe:
Still not gonna vote.
Good.
Other stuff:
I think people have commented about that already.
Here's a small list of 10 socialist programs that're already in America:
- The FBI
- The CIA
- The U.S. Military
- Unions
- Social Security
- Roads/Highways
- Food Stamps
- Police Departments
- Gov't funded hospitals
- Public Transportation
NASA too
Quote from: mariolegofan on December 23, 2015, 05:55:05 PMDon't worry. I know plenty about them. A friend of mine is always talking to me about politics and gives me the scoop on every debate (GOP and Democrat). :P
Refer to waddle's post because he already covers this subject well, but I'll give myself a shot at it as well.
You've just proven that you don't. Second hand information from a friend that's probably blueflower =/= knowing both sides. I've talked to blue a lot about the debates too, his opinion of the debates is usually "Rubio proves he's the best once again" and "The democrats were really stupid." Being a complete coincidence, this also perfectly aligns with his political views. I personally don't watch the debates (no one actually debates...), but I'm also self aware enough to not accept everything blue says about them as indisputable fact. If you wanna know what democrats want, don't ask someone who hates them, find (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/) out (https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/splash) for yourself.
QuoteAnd, as I said, I agree with almost everything Rubio has to say.
I don't agree with most of what she says. She almost has the opposite views that I (and Rubio) have on a plethora of subjects.
Of course. I know what I think about on all of these issues and will probably vote accordingly.
Make sure your opinion on these subjects isn't founded upon misinformation. Hint: If it's based off of things friends and family told you it's probably wrong.
QuoteHmmmm.....that's a toughy. I don't know if I'd like having Trump as a president and don't think I'd vote for him. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it if that is what it comes to. I don't think Trump can beat any Democrat running.
Btw, I'm glad how "cool" this is going. This is how conversations on controversial topics should be done! 👍
I mostly ask because it's shaping up to be Trump vs. Clinton.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 23, 2015, 09:05:20 PMMy political views:
Conservatives:
They get it right.
Liberals:
They're misguided, but well-meaning.
My political views as a nonpartisan:
Conservatives:
2 decades behind in civil rights, hypocritical about economic issues. (Democrats spend too much money, so we're gonna cut taxes and spend money on the military!)
Democrats:
Seem to talk a lot and make very vague promises without doing much. At least they're progressive with civil rights, which is really the only reason I favor them.
Like seriously, I try to consider both sides fairly, but it's really hard when the entire cast of republicans has an entire portion of their campaign dedicated to why I'm not allowed to marry. Fiorina is the only one that doesn't make me feel like some kind of second class citizen subordinate to the rules of a religion I'm not even a part of.
It's also worth noting I went to school in Minnesota and so my textbooks were probably liberal
I don't think textbooks talk about politics much?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 24, 2015, 12:08:15 AMIt's also worth noting I went to school in Minnesota and so my textbooks were probably liberal
Depends who your textbooks were written by. Keep in mind that, while there are opinions in even the most intellectual of textbooks, they primarily present facts as a teaching material.
That said, don't trust Texas textbooks regarding slavery..
Quote from: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 12:11:17 AMI don't think textbooks talk about politics much?
They do if they're textbooks for social science classes, specifically US history classes or world history classes.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 12:11:25 AMThey do if they're textbooks for social science classes, specifically US history classes or world history classes.
Yup. I just about went crazy when they started talking about what a hero FDR was
He is in someways.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on December 23, 2015, 06:43:19 PM"but woodle bra"
Once I saw this, I started rabidly chuckling to myself.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 23, 2015, 09:05:20 PMA couple days ago I had the shocking realization that I'm going to be able to vote in the next election. I most certainly will not.
As someone looking forward to voting, this makes me sad/angry. >_<
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 24, 2015, 12:14:19 AMYup. I just about went crazy when they started talking about what a hero FDR was
He did, you know, help us recover from the Great Depression (by closing down insolvent banks, creating thousands of decent jobs to help do things like plant trees and put out forest fires, and establishing labor laws
including the minimum wage and labor hours).
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 12:23:21 AMHe did, you know, help us recover from the Great Depression (by closing down insolvent banks, creating thousands of decent jobs to help do things like plant trees and put out forest fires, and establishing labor laws including the minimum wage and labor hours).
he did all those things in parentheses, but none of those things really helped get out of the great depression. He just took credit for it.
He also put all of us into debt
Quote from: FireArrow on December 23, 2015, 11:57:55 PMI mostly ask because it's shaping up to be Trump vs. Clinton.
Don't be too sure about that. I remember back in 2008 and Hillary had a huge lead over Obama for a majority of the election season. Anything wouldn't surprise me.
With biden not being in I would be surprised if Bernie won anything.
I mean I'll still vote for whichever dem makes it tho.
This whole election is pretty much a choice between the less of two/fourteen evils imo
Generally, when textbooks (or journalism in general) are historically accurate, they are framed as "liberal" by wackjobs. It is highly entertaining, but also moderately sad for the poor state of mental capacity such a large percentage seems to be in.
Quote from: Dude on December 24, 2015, 08:18:27 AMThis whole election is pretty much a choice between the less of two/fourteen evils imo
But then again, when has it never been about the lesser of two evils?
Unless you actually want a certain person to win I guess it wouldn't be but that isn't the case for me this election.
Why would anyone even want to be president anyway... Seems like a shitty job.
Quote from: mariolegofan on December 24, 2015, 07:19:16 AMDon't be too sure about that. I remember back in 2008 and Hillary had a huge lead over Obama for a majority of the election season. Anything wouldn't surprise me.
This. Keep in mind that Bernie has more support now than Obama did at this same point in the election of 08.
Eh, I'm really nervous that Bernie is the Trump of the democrats though. Like he'll get to the last stretch and won't be able to beat whatever republican is up because of 'Murica's socialism phobia.
Except on actual policies, opinion polls show that the American public (including many republicans) agrees with him on just about every issue.. Also, he isn't saying stupid shit just for media attention. And his hairstyle is slightly better XD
Unfortunately, just showing that people's opinions line up with his does not mean people support him. FireArrow is right to some capacity. If you throw the word "socialist" around enough, it'll scare off plenty of people who don't really grasp what that means. I think Bernie would be a pretty good choice, but he would be a risky candidate for the democrats whereas Clinton has a pretty good chance of beating Trump and rivaling the other likely republicans.
so... cruz?
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/01/07/theres-no-carrying-water-for-ted-cruz/
"What I enjoy most about being a Ted Cruz supporter [is] I have not once had to make an excuse for something he has done. ...Not once.
No justifying something stupid he's said."
How about the "No man who doesn't begin any morning on his knees is not fit to be commander in chief [of America]?" (Phrasing, by the way.)
how is that saying something stupid?
I mean, doesn't it show humility at least?
He's saying that people who don't pray (read: atheists) aren't fit to lead this country.
And honestly if you're concerned about humility, why not just do your own best and let Sky Daddy help the starving kids in Africa?
Assuming he even cares about this rock; on the grander scale we're so insignificant I'd be surprised if he really cares only about the people on this planet and not the plethora of other planets likely to have life on them.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 08, 2016, 04:33:44 PMHe's saying that people who don't pray (read: atheists) aren't fit to lead this country.
so he thinks atheists aren't fit to lead america. Religious belief is a huge factor in what makes america america, so doesn't he have a point? I don't see why anyone would have to apologize for a statement like that.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 08, 2016, 04:33:44 PMAnd honestly if you're concerned about humility, why not just do your own best and let Sky Daddy help the starving kids in Africa?
If you were humble, then wouldn't you do your best to help others be better, instead of bettering yourself only?
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 08, 2016, 04:33:44 PMAssuming he even cares about this rock; on the grander scale we're so insignificant I'd be surprised if he really cares only about the people on this planet and not the plethora of other planets likely to have life on them.
Why can't he care about all of it?
Either way, you sound really salty right now. I had no idea you had so much pent-up anger toward pious folk
people who don't pray don't have to be atheists ._.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 08, 2016, 04:43:19 PMso he thinks atheists aren't fit to lead america. Religious belief is a huge factor in what makes america america, so doesn't he have a point? I don't see why anyone would have to apologize for a statement like that.
What is "american", what are "american values", how can anyone find those values or tell what they are, if they even exist? Times change, values change, where can you draw the line where values shouldn't change? Point is, that's based on raw generalizations, so it's not a valid reason. Just because someone doesn't do something, it can't lower the potential of anything one can do. It's just flawed reasoning. A person is fit to lead America if people vote him as the leader, it's up to democracy. Wouldn't that tell you more about being capable of representing "american" values?
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 08, 2016, 04:33:44 PMAnd honestly if you're concerned about humility, why not just do your own best and let Sky Daddy help the starving kids in Africa?
before you go any further, I just want to point out how you don't need to be unnecessarily disrespectful just to possibly hurt someone's feelings.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 08, 2016, 03:54:44 PMI mean, doesn't it show humility at least?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 08, 2016, 04:43:19 PMIf you were humble, then wouldn't you do your best to help others be better, instead of bettering yourself only?
Yeah praying can show humility, but it also doesn't mean anyone who doesn't pray or is focused on improving themselves can't be more or just as humble.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 08, 2016, 04:33:44 PMAssuming he even cares about this rock; on the grander scale we're so insignificant I'd be surprised if he really cares only about the people on this planet and not the plethora of other planets likely to have life on them.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 08, 2016, 04:43:19 PMWhy can't he care about all of it?
Literally no point in arguing to prove biased opinions frens, in fact that should be kept out when arguing
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 08, 2016, 04:43:19 PMEither way, you sound really salty right now. I had no idea you had so much pent-up anger toward pious folk
There's no need whatsoever to personally attack or flamebait like that, especially when you've been expressing a mineral-filled mind here like
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 23, 2015, 09:05:20 PMWaddle Bro:
What the heck why is this guy so invested in American politics, seems fishy, not gonna listen to anything he says
x)
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 08, 2016, 04:43:19 PMso he thinks atheists aren't fit to lead america. Religious belief is a huge factor in what makes america america, so doesn't he have a point?
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion..."
pastafarians for president
WHO SAID TED CRUZ DOESN'T SAY OR DO STUPID THINGS?
lmao I've never seen anything more american
Noc, I thought we're supposed to abide by the constitution? It makes it clear that no religious test is to be ever required for for office.
If anyone should be getting help from God, it certainly isn't the US. We dug ourselves into the trench we're in now with terrible policy.
The fact that you can say "eh he thinks atheists aren't fit for office because they're atheists" speaks much of your character. If you honestly think an atheist is less of a viable candidate purely because they lack God, look into this study;
http://fusion.net/story/228159/study-religious-kids-selfish/
Here's an exact quote:
"Researchers also found an inverse relationship between observance level and generosity — children from more religious homes were found to be more selfish than their less religious counterparts."
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 09, 2016, 08:33:02 PMhttp://fusion.net/story/228159/study-religious-kids-selfish/
I'm not sure if I have confidence in these results. (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3rnzi6/religious_kids_are_harsher_and_less_generous_than/cwq0hpi)
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 09, 2016, 08:33:02 PMNoc, I thought we're supposed to abide by the constitution? It makes it clear that no religious test is to be ever required for for office.
If anyone should be getting help from God, it certainly isn't the US. We dug ourselves into the trench we're in now with terrible policy.
The fact that you can say "eh he thinks atheists aren't fit for office because they're atheists" speaks much of your character. If you honestly think an atheist is less of a viable candidate purely because they lack God, look into this study;
http://fusion.net/story/228159/study-religious-kids-selfish/
Here's an exact quote:
"Researchers also found an inverse relationship between observance level and generosity — children from more religious homes were found to be more selfish than their less religious counterparts."
dude you're freaking out right now. The statement he made REALLY doesn't need an "I'm sorry, he's confused" attachment by some other person like 80% of things Donald Trump has said, and that's all we're talking about. You're starting to get really emotional about this aren't you
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 09, 2016, 09:07:20 PMdude you're freaking out right now. The statement he made REALLY doesn't need an "I'm sorry, he's confused" attachment by some other person like 80% of things Donald Trump has said, and that's all we're talking about. You're starting to get really emotional about this aren't you
Never gave Trump a free pass, nor have I; but the article originally posted is absolutely stupid.
And no, I'm actually quite happy right now, so me "getting emotional" about this is me just not liking irrationality.
And yes, it does need an "I'm sorry, he's confused", just as if he attacked any other minority.
Imagine he had said something to the effect of "Jews aren't capable of being commander in chief since they don't believe in Jesus".
If someone said this exact same thing, but they were Muslim and constantly praised Allah like GOP candidates praise God and Jesus, they'd be called batshit by just about everyone. And you'd be right to call them that! But in the same respect, saying that people who simply don't believe in God (or anyone who doesn't pray, since, as Waddle pointed out, his comment wasn't specifically about atheists, but it's hardly ever that people think of Buddhists or Jains as immoral) is therefore an ineffective leader is just stupid, and dickish.
And yes, I don't care for you irrationally backing this up as you seem to have been doing.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on January 09, 2016, 09:00:47 PMI'm not sure if I have confidence in these results. (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3rnzi6/religious_kids_are_harsher_and_less_generous_than/cwq0hpi)
Responding with Reddit? Mkay..
They actually acknowledge in the thread that the experiment was controlled for the things the OP of that thread was talking about.
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on January 09, 2016, 07:53:10 PMWHO SAID TED CRUZ DOESN'T SAY OR DO STUPID THINGS?
hi sfk :-)
bruh sfk shows up and you all still care about politics
HI SFK I'VE MISSED YOU A LOT hope you'll show up more :]
THE CANADIAN BEAT THE CLOWN BUT HE'S STILL A CANADIAN AND CAN'T BE PRESIDENT WHY DOES EVERYONE SEEM TO FORGET THAT?
Continued from PYTOTMT
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on February 24, 2016, 05:49:40 PMI think it's different in people's minds- cars are such an ingrained part of society today that taking them away would be highly improbable. Or not. There are some people who are opposed to the development of self-driving cars, which, if they worked right, could greatly reduce or eliminate crashes.
the joke was that you can't really just take away cars cancer and suicide, I wasn't lobbying to actually take away cars
So the Republican debate is happening in the Moores opera house tomorrow, and it is fucking up all of my classes.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 24, 2016, 06:07:54 PMSo the Republican debate is happening in the Moores opera house tomorrow, and it is fucking up all of my classes.
lol.....I know exactly how you feel. I was in Greenville, South Carolina the same day as the debate. Wow, It took me 30 minutes to drive two miles to my hotel xD
Quote from: Waddle Bro on February 24, 2016, 06:21:55 PMNo need homie I got you cue the wiki links and since that is a literal textbook example it should be over before it can even begin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
I think though that the statement "cars are more dangerous than guns" can be drawn from the comparison of yearly deaths. If the goal of taking away guns is to reduce gun related violence, that will absolutely work. But reducing gun related violence won't actually do anything, will it.
FWIW I don't personally like guns, I think they're loud and crap, but I was talking to a guy who owned an AK-47 and I asked him why he would even need an AK. He responded "why would you need a fancy car? Besides, it's fun to shoot an AK-47." The point being that whatever guns are, other stuff is worse about it.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 24, 2016, 06:07:54 PMSo the Republican debate is happening in the Moores opera house tomorrow, and it is fucking up all of my classes.
throw a carrot at Donald trump for me
Here's my logic for being against Gun Control in one sentence:
The bad guys will always have guns. That is a 100% certainty. Gun control just takes away guns from the law abiding citizens and makes it harder for the good guys to get guns.
That's what my grandpa told me too but the "law abiding citizen trying to protect him/herself" idea is overdone and liberals simply ignore it
I can't help but think that you guys waited for Waddle to go to bed before saying anything.
Quote from: Sebastian on February 24, 2016, 06:59:17 PMThe bad guys will always have guns. That is a 100% certainty. Gun control just takes away guns from the law abiding citizens and makes it harder for the good guys to get guns.
Why does
anyone need guns? Especially untrained hicks.
fun fact : abused women are 5 times more likely to be killed if their partner owns a gun
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/
=)
I'd personally rather have like throwing knives or something than a gun.
More badass.
Quote from: Dude on February 24, 2016, 07:45:49 PMI'd personally rather have like throwing knives or something than a gun.
More badass.
Less cowardly.
Totes.
Quote from: Altissimo on February 24, 2016, 07:38:41 PMfun fact : abused women are 5 times more likely to be killed if their partner owns a gun
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/
=)
Does that suggest a direct correlation, though (i.e. is owning a gun the direct and only
cause of this- like, "Would these people just not kill their partners if they didn't have a gun?" which seems improbable*- or is it something else, like the fact that people who are more likely to want to own a gun for no reason are more violent, or just the fact that so many people own guns that people will inevitably be able to find connections among unrelated things?).
*For example, the article says, "A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm," but if the abusers didn't have firearms, wouldn't they just threaten their partners with something else? Does the removal of firearms reduce any injury or instance of domestic violence? Should we be focusing on that (firearms) as a problem instead of getting to the root of the cause (while I agree that restricting access to certain weapons or places to people known to be violent is a good step, it won't prevent these people from being violent in the first place- only attempt to mitigate damage)?
Additionally, the article says that "applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married." Does the removal of firearms reduce the
need for protective orders, or does it only make it more likely that someone will apply for one in cases of violence (i.e. motivate them more to apply for a protective order that they probably already need in the first place)?
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not trying to be combative. I'd just like to have more direct and clear information on this subject.
Quote from: Dude on February 24, 2016, 07:45:49 PMI'd personally rather have like throwing knives or something than a gun.
More badass.
And I'd rather use a bow to kill someone. Your point?
Knives are better. >:(
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on February 24, 2016, 07:59:53 PMDoes that suggest a direct correlation, though (i.e. is owning a gun the direct and only cause of this- like, "Would these people just not kill their partners if they didn't have a gun?" which seems improbable*- or is it something else, like the fact that people who are more likely to want to own a gun for no reason are more violent, or just the fact that so many people own guns that people will inevitably be able to find connections among unrelated things?).
*For example, the article says, "A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm," but if the abusers didn't have firearms, wouldn't they just threaten their partners with something else? Does the removal of firearms reduce any injury or instance of domestic violence? Should we be focusing on that (firearms) as a problem instead of getting to the root of the cause (while I agree that restricting access to certain weapons or places to people known to be violent is a good step, it won't prevent these people from being violent in the first place- only attempt to mitigate damage)?
Additionally, the article says that "applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married." Does the removal of firearms reduce the need for protective orders, or does it only make it more likely that someone will apply for one in cases of violence (i.e. motivate them more to apply for a protective order that they probably already need in the first place)?
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not trying to be combative. I'd just like to have more direct and clear information on this subject.
you're right about correlation =/= causation. that being said from my own experience i think this is one case where correlation does equal causation. for the same reason that people attacking schools meet more success when they use firearms than when they use knives or other such weapons, i think so too do people trying to attack their partners meet more success when they have firearms
also: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/ women are not often able to protect themselves with guns in their houses in the case of domestic violence; 16% of abused but not murdered women had guns in their homes whereas 51% of murder victims had guns in their homes
Quote from: Ruto on February 24, 2016, 07:20:12 PMWhy does anyone need guns? Especially untrained hicks.
Why not? I do think that everyone that owns a gun should know how to use it.
i dont think anyone would disagree with that, it's a matter of the fact that people who do know how to use them still do all kinds of horrendous shit
oh why do i even bother
Quote from: Altissimo on February 24, 2016, 08:20:48 PMi dont think anyone would disagree with that, it's a matter of the fact that people who do know how to use them still do all kinds of horrendous shit
That's true.
My point is that the Gun Control Laws won't stop the criminals because they will always have guns. It will stop the law-abiding citizens from getting them.
Honestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.
Quote from: Dudeman on February 24, 2016, 08:30:11 PMHonestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.
imma agree heavily wit this
It makes it more difficult for the average psychopath or petty criminal to acquire weaponry as it isn't so readily available to enter either the legitimate or illegitimate market. Outlawing guns will not result in random muggers suddenly getting top mafia sources.
I look forward to when the US can join the civilized world and deprecate the irrelevant clause that keeps this problem around.
@mlf
Well, you're a law abiding citizen up until the point you shoot someone. There's no black and white "good guys" and "bad guys" - most of the shootings you hear about in the news are from people who would otherwise be unable to get a gun if we had better laws. They aren't criminals trained in the black market, they're emotionally distraught teens and young adults who can too easily obtain power.
Would you support the legalization of poorly controlled chemical weapons for the general public as well? I mean, "bad guys" that know their stuff can already get them, so why not let everyone have it?
Quote from: Dudeman on February 24, 2016, 08:30:11 PMHonestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.
A+. This would be the best solution.
Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 08:33:01 PMWould you support the legalization of poorly controlled chemical weapons for the general public as well? I mean, "bad guys" that know their stuff can already get them, so why not let everyone have it?
Nah, that's different and you know it :P
It... really isn't.
Chemical weapons are much different than hand guns.....gas and all.
Quote from: Sebastian on February 24, 2016, 08:38:50 PMNah, that's different and you know it :P
How? They are both conduits for killing large amounts of people easily? In gun free countries like Japan, the idea of either of them are equally horrifying.
Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 08:45:54 PMHow? They are both conduits for killing large amounts of people easily? In gun free countries like Japan, the idea of either of them are equally horrifying.
I see your point, but I think Dudeman hit the nail on the head. Proper training and a having background check would be the best thing to do before acquiring a gun.
Quote from: Sebastian on February 24, 2016, 08:54:23 PMI see your point, but I think Dudeman hit the nail on the head. Proper training and a having background check would be the best thing to do before acquiring a gun.
That's kinda what democrats want and conservatives are fighting against. I'll further that statement by assuming that Noc, the guy who started this, doesn't want further gun control laws. I don't think anyone is truly fighting for an outright ban on guns beyond semi-automatic assault weapons.
I guess so. I don't see a problem with certain gun control laws such as the requirement of having the proper training and/or getting a background check (which I think is actually a good idea). I just don't want people to have the right of owning a gun taken away :P
Quote from: Sebastian on February 24, 2016, 09:03:39 PMI guess so. I don't see a problem with certain gun control laws such as the requirement of having the proper training and/or getting a background check (which I think is actually a good idea). I just don't want people to have the right of owning a gun taken away :P
Well, I'm not sure what we are debating about in the first place then.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on February 24, 2016, 08:31:24 PMIt makes it more difficult for the average psychopath or petty criminal to acquire weaponry as it isn't so readily available to enter either the legitimate or illegitimate market. Outlawing guns will not result in random muggers suddenly getting top mafia sources.
I look forward to when the US can join the civilized world and deprecate the irrelevant clause that keeps this problem around.
I somehow doubt that one would need "top mafia sources" to get illegal firearms. If it's in demand, people will always be willing and able to manufacture and distribute it (especially since people don't need assault rifles to commit gun crimes; and especially considering how many guns people already have). It's nice to think that it would be that easy, but given the track record, it wouldn't be.
Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 08:33:01 PMThey aren't criminals trained in the black market, they're emotionally distraught teens and young adults who can too easily obtain power.
That logic really stops people from getting, say, drugs.
QuoteWould you support the legalization of poorly controlled chemical weapons for the general public as well? I mean, "bad guys" that know their stuff can already get them, so why not let everyone have it?
Using chemical weapons isn't really an accurate comparison- it's like comparing the legality of fireworks to the legality of bombs.
Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 08:57:59 PMI don't think anyone is truly fighting for an outright ban on guns beyond semi-automatic assault weapons.
I thought that was what the problem was in the first place?
I don't personally care for guns all that much. But a lot of people (especially once you come down here in Hickston, Hicksville) love using guns for sport, and I'm willing to accept that. Imagine if you had to pass a background check to use piano music. I think that's more accurate of a comparison
^I can understand like hunting guns but semi-automatic guns??
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 24, 2016, 09:58:25 PMI don't personally care for guns all that much. But a lot of people (especially once you come down here in Hickston, Hicksville) love using guns for sport, and I'm willing to accept that. Imagine if you had to pass a background check to use piano music. I think that's more accurate of a comparison
Now you're making me imagine people strategically dropping pianos on people down on the sidewalks. Tactical piano kill!
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on February 24, 2016, 09:37:00 PMI somehow doubt that one would need "top mafia sources" to get illegal firearms. If it's in demand, people will always be willing and able to manufacture and distribute it (especially since people don't need assault rifles to commit gun crimes; and especially considering how many guns people already have).
It's nice to think that it would be that easy, but given the track record, it wouldn't be.
You're under estimating the importance of ease of access. Of course it's not gonna 100% solve the issue, but it'll sure as hell help and is a much better option than sitting around doing nothing because "muh guns."
QuoteThat logic really stops people from getting, say, drugs.
This isn't really comparable. Illicit semi-automatic weapons are only in demand for, ya know, people that wanna kill. Given that the majority of people don't want to do that, the black market for them isn't gonna penetrate into the public sphere nearly as much as drugs have.
QuoteUsing chemical weapons isn't really an accurate comparison- it's like comparing the legality of fireworks to the legality of bombs.
If I were an adult, it would be easier for me to go out and buy a gun then it would be to buy one of those heavy duty industrial fireworks.
QuoteI thought that was what the problem was in the first place?
Ban semiautomatic guns and increase control for other guns (thorough background checks, required classes, tests, etc.) Is that unreasonable?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 24, 2016, 09:58:25 PMI don't personally care for guns all that much. But a lot of people (especially once you come down here in Hickston, Hicksville) love using guns for sport, and I'm willing to accept that. Imagine if you had to pass a background check to use piano music. I think that's more accurate of a comparison
If finale was a deadly weapon, I would support background checks and training before installing it. I'm not sure how you can even say "Yeah, I think everyone should be able to collect deadly weapons without having to do horribly tedious stuff like get proper training."
Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 10:23:41 PMYou're under estimating the importance of ease of access. Of course it's not gonna 100% solve the issue, but it'll sure as hell help and is a much better option than sitting around doing nothing because "muh guns."
The point is that it's not going to stop the people who we
need to stop from getting guns- only the people who don't have the motivations, ability, or desire to go through extra lengths.
QuoteThis isn't really comparable. Illicit semi-automatic weapons are only in demand for, ya know, people that wanna kill. Given that the majority of people don't want to do that, the black market for them isn't gonna penetrate into the public sphere nearly as much as drugs have.
Or, anybody who currently owns guns, simply want to own guns- people who feel that their rights are being infringed upon- or any criminal- who probably don't care about the legality of their actions. If somebody wants to rob a bank, they're already doing planning on doing something illegal; chances are, they either already have a gun or won't be bothered by going through an extra step to get one.
QuoteIf I were an adult, it would be easier for me to go out and buy a gun then it would be to buy one of those heavy duty industrial fireworks.
Really? Fireworks in general (not referring specifically to industrial strength ones, as that wouldn't be as accurate of a comparison) are much, much easier to obtain, especially around major events (like the 4th of July, and especially when compared to bombs, as you compared guns to chemical weapons, remember). And, guess what? People always use them in areas where it's illegal to, and nobody stops them!
QuoteBan semiautomatic guns and increase control for other guns (thorough background checks, required classes, tests, etc.) Is that unreasonable?
Not at all. A complete ban of all guns is (which is what Kefka, for example, seemed to be suggesting; he used the phrase "Outlawing guns" without specifying).
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on February 24, 2016, 10:52:02 PMReally? Fireworks in general (not referring specifically to industrial strength ones, as that wouldn't be as accurate of a comparison) are much, much easier to obtain, especially around major events (like the 4th of July, and especially when compared to bombs, as you compared guns to chemical weapons, remember). And, guess what? People always use them in areas where it's illegal to, and nobody stops them!
Well if we're talking about the wimpy little ones then your comparison isn't too valid anyways. Chemical weapons and bombs are comparable, firearms however are much closer to the former two than tiny fireworks.
QuoteNot at all. A complete ban of all guns is (which is what Kefka, for example, seemed to be suggesting; he used the phrase "Outlawing guns" without specifying).
Your quarrel isn't with me then. I have nothing against outright banning guns, but I think it's unnecessary and given American ideals I'd much rather explore less dramatic solutions first.
Firework laws vary from state to state. So do gun laws. In Minnesota you just had to be 18 with a driver's license to buy a rifle or shotgun from Walmart. Out here in Utah you need to prove that you're trained in gun safety.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 24, 2016, 11:38:34 PMFirework laws vary from state to state. So do gun laws. In Minnesota you just had to be 18 with a driver's license to buy a rifle or shotgun from Walmart. Out here in Utah you need to prove that you're trained in gun safety.
wtf you can buy guns at walmart?
Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 11:35:27 PMWell if we're talking about the wimpy little ones then your comparison isn't too valid anyways. Chemical weapons and bombs are comparable, firearms however are much closer to the former two than tiny fireworks.
Most fireworks aren't "wimpy" by any means. Not only can people injure themselves if they don't know how to use them (you can injure yourself with a
sparkler, so imagine the possibilities...), but they can also light fires if you're not careful (which is kind of a given). The availability of fireworks is also a hotly contested issue.
Those snake things are wimpy
Unless it's like giant or something.
You know what I find unsettling about Trump? The fact that he said approx. 2 years ago that "Republicans are so gullible, I could run as the republican candidate, and I'd win!"
Hmm... That seems dangerous. :o
THAT'S what you find unsettling about him?
how about everything else about him too for starters
Allow me to rephrase that:
MOST unsettling
Trump is going to win and we're going to have ourselves another holocaust. (Mexican this time though) His approach to deporting Mexicans as well as his attitude is literally exactly the same as Hitler's in WWII. Hitler originally only wanted to deport the Jews. He offered to send them to any country who would take them, "even on luxury ships". But Roosevelt (along with every other country leader) refused and so the massacre began. Let's just hope that the Mexicans don't have this same problem.
Quote from: JDMEK5 on February 25, 2016, 10:22:43 AMTrump is going to win and we're going to have ourselves another holocaust. (Mexican this time though) His approach to deporting Mexicans as well as his attitude is literally exactly the same as Hitler's in WWII. Hitler originally only wanted to deport the Jews. He offered to send them to any country who would take them, "even on luxury ships". But Roosevelt (along with every other country leader) refused and so the massacre began. Let's just hope that the Mexicans don't have this same problem.
That would be terrible.....but highly improbable.
I still don't think Trump can win. But it would help if people show up to vote, even in the nominations. About 1% of the population of Nevada ACTUALLY voted. (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35651682)
I really don't get what people see in him, he just likes to sell the whole wealth idea. Do rich people buy Trump's clothing line or go to his casinos? Not as far as I know.
The whole Nevada thing is just sad. And it's the fact that he talks a lot and says what everyone is thinking/wanting to hear (not necessarily about Mexicans, but everything in general). What worries me is that I'm not so sure that's he's all bark and no bite...
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on February 25, 2016, 05:09:45 AMYou know what I find unsettling about Trump? The fact that he said approx. 2 years ago that "Republicans are so gullible, I could run as the republican candidate, and I'd win!"
Hmm... That seems dangerous. :o
Well republicans are proving him right, if that's true...
Anyways, I personally find that statement comforting. It means all the horrible things he says are just a dance to make a worthless point.
Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 11:39:54 PMwtf you can buy guns at walmart?
Absolutely you can, they're in the back next to sporting goods lol
I generally lean towards the Republican side, but I really hope Trump doesn't win... I have no respect for that guy whatsoever.
Quote from: ZeldaFan on February 25, 2016, 08:28:43 PMI generally lean towards the Republican side, but I really hope Trump doesn't win... I have no respect for that guy whatsoever.
Tonight's display proves your point.
Quote from: ZeldaFan on February 25, 2016, 08:28:43 PMAbsolutely you can, they're in the back next to sporting goods lol
perhaps because they're a sporting good
Man, Trump got SLAMMED in last night's debate by both Rubio & Cruz! (Applause)
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on February 26, 2016, 04:15:01 AMMan, Trump got SLAMMED in last night's debate by both Rubio & Cruz! (Applause)
I'll drink to that.
you actually won't
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 26, 2016, 09:19:39 AMyou actually won't
rekt
---
In all seriousness, the Marcobot is doing better. I specifically liked the line about "If Trump hadn't inherited a family fortune he'd be selling watches."
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on February 28, 2016, 09:16:39 PMIn all seriousness, the Marcobot is doing better. I specifically liked the line about "If Trump hadn't inherited a family fortune he'd be selling watches."
That was an A+ quote.
One of the few times I agree with Marco Rubio.
*sigh*
So, I'm not in favor of banning all guns (though I'm sure I've made it clear I'd like moderate regulation where it makes sense), but this is just stupid.
This guy blew his leg off shooting at explosives. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/03/24/82236326/
While I'm perfectly okay with RESPONSIBLE gun owners, this is a problem facing a lot of people; people being stupid with their guns. It's one thing to be a gun owner who locks up their guns when they aren't hunting, but this is an entire other kind of stupid.
Honestly I'm just hoping the idiots kill each other before they can reproduce.
Quote from: Dude on March 26, 2016, 04:59:54 PMHonestly I'm just hoping the idiots kill each other before they can reproduce.
They don't have to die, just shoot certain parts off...
The bad news is that these types then to reproduce early :(
and have like 20 kids
this sounds very stereotypical and stuff
sadly stereotypical people exist
I'm cool with the less stereotypical (read: majority of) pro-gun people.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35912640
QuoteAnd - in what must count as two of the more bizarre statistics of this campaign - according to a recent study by dating site Match (formerly match.com) single Donald Trump supporters are 1,104% more likely to expect sex on a first date than Hillary Clinton supporters.
They are also 99% more likely to film themselves having sex. I think this means they are men.
Promoting your sexual prowess works well with men who feel threatened by the growing influence of women in the workforce, and by the realisation that women are now better educated than men.
those statistics... :o
At first I thought that said 1.104%,which surprised me because I thought Hillary supporters were used to waiting, but clearly they are.
QuotePromoting your sexual prowess works well with men who feel threatened by the growing influence of women in the workforce, and by the realisation that women are now better educated than men.
Quoteand by the realisation that women are now better educated than men.
Quotewomen are now better educated than men.
Quotewomen are now better educated than men.
i want to bold this for all of nsm to see :^) :^) :^) :^)
yooo go women :]
I'm... glad I'm not a Trump supporter? idk
EDIT: apparently women have been more educated than men since march 2014, where "more educated" means more women in the workforce with college degrees than men, as well as being more likely to graduate from college than men.
How do they get those statistics?
Hello trump supporter, can I ask you a couple questions? Do you think it's reasonable to expect sex on a first date? Yes, yes, I see... and if let's say you were in that situation would you try and film it? Ok, thank you for your time.
And at the end of the say I'm not gonna vote one way because of statistics on the sexual habits of supports. That just seems like mud slinging, even if it is trump at the receiving end.
Quote from: FireArrow on April 06, 2016, 01:32:31 PMHow do they get those statistics?
Hello trump supporter, can I ask you a couple questions? Do you think it's reasonable to expect sex on a first date? Yes, yes, I see... and if let's say you were in that situation would you try and film it? Ok, thank you for your time.
I'd wager either online surveys or surveys of the people who may have gone on dates with both sides.
Quote from: Altissimo on April 06, 2016, 01:35:43 PMI'd wager either online surveys or surveys of the people who may have gone on dates with both sides.
ooh but in the case of an online survey wouldn't that mean a Clinton supporter could be more likely to lie D:
pfffft ok point taken
Lol I forgot to cross post it from skype yesterday so Dude did it for me xD Anyway, the study is from a dating site Match where they obviously have that kind of information from the user already...
Yes, educated does mean college degree or more.
Did a head count yesterday in a math elective class open to only majors/minors: 3 guys, 8 girls. My senior chemistry lab in college, 2 guys, 6 girls. Like most colleges, the gender ratio is 40% male, 60% female, but it seems that there are still more girls in STEM here than guys. I think only the communications and business majors are 50/50.
Ur to slo
Quote from: Dude on April 06, 2016, 02:02:32 PMUr to slo
Yeah :/ Been pretty busy, all I have to look forward to is Eurotrip #2 in May...
www.trumpdonald.org (http://www.trumpdonald.org)
This is political enough I guess
Hey guys, loser.com now redirects somewhere new!
Quotewomen are now better educated than men.
This would explain why there are so many girls in my AP class. As for my reaction to this statement.......
Spoiler
Are you sure you're ready for this?
It get's pretty offensive..
still curious enough to see it?
Okay But you asked for it.
Prepare to be offended.
Here it is..
I don't care....good for you all.
Quote from: Ruto on April 06, 2016, 01:55:59 PMDid a head count yesterday in a math elective class open to only majors/minors: 3 guys, 8 girls.
What class was that? The math classes I've taken have varied, but I don't think I ever recall a majority female.
Quote from: Latios212 on April 14, 2016, 05:51:46 PMWhat class was that? The math classes I've taken have varied, but I don't think I ever recall a majority female.
Linear Algebra. I did another count another day (apparently some students had some athletic event last week) but the final count is actually 4 guys and 11 girls.
I remember in my old Probability Theory (senior level) class had only about 2 guys and 6 girls...it was a slow year. I didn't recall any guys in my Differential Equations class? So it was just 5 girls then. Probably because the more popular professor wasn't teaching it that semester.
Quote from: Ruto on April 14, 2016, 05:57:58 PMLinear Algebra. I did another count another day (apparently some students had some athletic event last week) but the final count is actually 4 guys and 11 girls.
My calculus professor is a woman and Linear Algebra is her favorite subject to teach. Maybe it actually
does trend that way.
I'm currently taking linear algebra and can only think of one other person that's a girl (out of about 18 students). There was at least one other but she dropped
Australia's gettin' the Double D. Whoop whoop.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-ted-cruz-is-lucifer-in-the-flesh-and-a-miserable-son-of-a-bitch/
I'm honestly to the point where I don't care who gets to be President anymore as all of the possible options suck monkeydick
Can it be over now, thx.
I'd be fine with just having the elections right now. It would save us many months of misery.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 28, 2016, 01:15:13 PMhttp://www.glennbeck.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-ted-cruz-is-lucifer-in-the-flesh-and-a-miserable-son-of-a-bitch/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghQDiGazLk
anyone else slightly worried by the increasing popularity of Donald trump?
The final contest is going to be him versus somebody, probably Clinton. But I think that there's enough Republicans who hate him enough to support Clinton or Sanders instead, in addition to the fact that very few if any registered Democrats are going to be voting for him (regardless of whether Clinton or Sanders wins), that I don't know that he has any shot at winning the presidency over Clinton or Sanders.
RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html) suggests that Clinton wins by an average of 6.5 points in general election, and Sanders by an even larger margin. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html) Trump could maybe win if literally every Trump supporter in the US actually turned out to vote and enough Democrats were disillusioned by the choice of the Democratic nominee to not vote, but I'm not so sure about that, especially if this article (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/25/bombshell-poll-20-republicans-vote-hillary-clinton-trump-wins.html) is right that a whopping 20% of Republicans would support Hillary in the event of a (now guaranteed) Trump nomination.
I guess a factor that could weaken this, in addition to the aforementioned issue of disillusioned Democrats not coming out to vote/Trump supporters mobilizing greatly, would be if there are any more damning things about the Clinton email business. But, simultaneously, Trump's not free from media scrutiny either - the whole Trump University thing - so who knows?
Edit: It's kinda funny the way the nominees are polling. Sanders trails behind Hillary, but he stands more of a chance to beat any of the former Republican nominees (speaking Cruz, Kasich, Trump) in general election than Hillary: 13.4 points against Trump (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html) versus Hillary's 6.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html); 13.0 against Cruz (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_sanders-5742.html) versus Hillary's 5.4; (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html) winning against Kasich (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_sanders-5817.html) versus losing to Kasich. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html) And simultaneously, Kasich trailed both Cruz and Trump, but was also the party's best bet to defeat Clinton and come close to defeating Sanders. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Well, I really hate to be the one to say this, but Cruz dropped out last night, and it looks like Kasich is dropping out as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/john-kasich-drops-out/
Meaning that unless something
really crazy happens at the RNC, Donald Trump
will be the Republican nominee.
Spoiler
(https://media.riffsy.com/images/6963d20d7b183c1f9f5ce2ac6de1039f/raw)
WELP, that's it folks, I think I'm done here. Let me know when it's all over.
gg GOP
Quote from: Altissimo on May 04, 2016, 01:30:08 PMEdit: It's kinda funny the way the nominees are polling. Sanders trails behind Hillary, but he stands more of a chance to beat any of the former Republican nominees (speaking Cruz, Kasich, Trump) in general election than Hillary: 13.4 points against Trump (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html) versus Hillary's 6.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html); 13.0 against Cruz (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_sanders-5742.html) versus Hillary's 5.4; (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html) winning against Kasich (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_sanders-5817.html) versus losing to Kasich. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html) And simultaneously, Kasich trailed both Cruz and Trump, but was also the party's best bet to defeat Clinton and come close to defeating Sanders. Funny how that works, isn't it?
the hipsters on my facebook are suggesting sabotage
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 04, 2016, 02:22:28 PMthe hipsters on my facebook are suggesting sabotage
how even are they suggesting this
"when everyone you know feeling the Bern but Hillary still winning"
[snip]
Unfortunately, Hillary is probably going to be the nominee in terms of pledged delegates. Bernie would have to win over 60% of the remaining delegates to secure it via pledged delegates (and not even counting superdelegates, which still might stick with Clinton to prevent an anti establishment candidate).
The more likely situation that has Bernie winning, unfortunately, is Hillary being indicted. Since Obama was bipartisan as to put a staunch Republican at the head of the FBI, with 12 agents investigating her actions in Libya, there's a good chance she might get indicted, either in the primary season or the general election.
Eh don't get my hopes up, I saw that HuffPo article too. I see people trying to be neutral in terms of the Democratic candidates a lot, but I still can't stand the slogans being tossed around with Clinton's followers. I don't know if her campaign is the one that made them up, but they were things like "it's her turn" and "here comes #45" under her picture. That sounds sooo entitled. Also I don't agree with some of her stances on things and don't really believe she's that honest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html (hope that link works)
I was talking politics with my professor the other day, who admitted she voted for Clinton based on her performance as senator of NY "back when you were in grade school so you probably don't remember." Then she told me the Scottish chemistry professor was "feelin' the Bern" and can't wait to vote for Sanders in the NJ primary. Then I also found out who voted for Trump in my school :O
Quote from: Altissimo on May 04, 2016, 01:30:08 PMI'm not so sure about that, especially if this article (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/25/bombshell-poll-20-republicans-vote-hillary-clinton-trump-wins.html) is right that a whopping 20% of Republicans would support Hillary in the event of a (now guaranteed) Trump nomination.
Right now, I'm not really convinced that a lot of Republicans would be willing to vote Democrat, especially with someone like Hillary Clinton; the same with the majority of current Bernie Sanders supporters (since it would be kind of contradictory with the reason they're probably voting for Sanders in the first place).
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on May 05, 2016, 12:17:20 AMRight now, I'm not really convinced that a lot of Republicans would be willing to vote Democrat, especially with someone like Hillary Clinton; the same with the majority of current Bernie Sanders supporters (since it would be kind of contradictory with the reason they're probably voting for Sanders in the first place).
Pardon my bluntness, but anyone that votes Hillary over Trump is dumb. Yes, she has a shady past, is dishonest, and is likely to not get anything done once put it office. However, the country isn't gonna crumble into ruins with her in office - she's too standard of a polititian. Trump is gonna undo any progress we've made on civil rights, destroy all our foregin relations, etc. etc. Even voting for him becuase "well atleast he's more conservative than Hillary" is just blidnly following labels, because his policies are hardly conservative and are better described as "trump."
Sander supporters don't like hillary much either, but they'd still vote her over trump because in what world is voting for him a good idea? This is of course ignoring my suspicoun that Trump is actually a genius democrat, because I can't believe someone that succesful can be that... ugh.
Quote from: FireArrow on May 05, 2016, 01:27:16 AMPardon my bluntness, but anyone that votes Hillary over Trump is dumb.
Do you mean "Trump over Hillary"?
I don't want Trump in office, but I still kind of doubt one person can do so much damage xD If his running mate is equally stupid, I think that impeaching Trump won't help this situation either.
Backup plans:
1) Go on vacation for 4 years in this other country I can legally reside in
2) You can guess what this one is if it doesn't involve Canada
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on May 05, 2016, 12:17:20 AMRight now, I'm not really convinced that a lot of Republicans would be willing to vote Democrat, especially with someone like Hillary Clinton; the same with the majority of current Bernie Sanders supporters (since it would be kind of contradictory with the reason they're probably voting for Sanders in the first place).
actual conservatives would rather vote democrat than trump
I don't know where else to put this, so it's going here. Australia's officially in a mammoth 8-week, Double D erection and it will be my first time voting. AND I live in a semi-swing seat.
So while you guys are voting for a fascist orangutan and a woman who REALLY wants to be president, I have to choose between a guy who does basically nothing (but he could do SOMETHING if re-erected), or the party that thinks that zingers are in the national interest. What fun.
Quote from: Clanker37 on May 09, 2016, 09:32:56 AMI don't know where else to put this, so it's going here. Australia's officially in a mammoth 8-week, Double D erection and it will be my first time voting. AND I live in a semi-swing seat.
So while you guys are voting for a fascist orangutan and a woman who REALLY wants to be president, I have to choose between a guy who does basically nothing (but he could do SOMETHING if re-erected), or the party that thinks that zingers are in the national interest. What fun.
That was the first thing I noticed when I read the paragraph.
I don't know why my eyes went to that word first...
For the record, erection does not mean election.
I hate erections they're so confusing
Quote from: Dude on May 09, 2016, 11:45:16 AMFor the record, erection does not mean election.
It does in Australia. Everyone knows it's basically a huge wank.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortion-criminalization/index.html?sr=fbpol051916oklahoma-abortion-criminalization0541PMVODtopLink&linkId=24677059
that bill sounds incomplete to me. In most cases, yes abortion is morally wrong, but in certain instances (read: rape) the woman may not feel comfortable with going through childbirth, and in the case of rape they didn't get a choice in the matter
EDIT: however if the woman got pregnant by fooling around that's no excuse for abortion either
it's like you guys want the forums to burn
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 02:08:03 PMthat bill sounds incomplete to me.
I think the Governor has to sign it or something. Not completely sure. I just posted the article because I found it interesting.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 02:08:03 PMthat bill sounds incomplete to me. In most cases, yes abortion is morally wrong, but in certain instances (read: rape) the woman may not feel comfortable with going through childbirth, and in the case of rape they didn't get a choice in the matter
EDIT: however if the woman got pregnant by fooling around that's no excuse for abortion either
what if birth control failed?
you didn't post it to foster discussion? Doing it wrong
Quote from: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 02:41:34 PMwhat if birth control failed?
7th grade health class man
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 02:42:24 PM7th grade health class man
i dont get it
birth control can fail
what, you never heard "the only birth control that always works is abstinence"?
no because i didn't go to a school that thought that was an intelligent thing to teach children :^)
yeah maybe i should get out if i dont want the forums to burn and just ignore all the dumb shit... thanks for reminding me i'm not helping
I mean I don't disagree with you, but I don't let their bad opinions bother me.
Quote from: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 02:53:56 PMjust ignore all the dumb shit
Quote from: Dude on May 19, 2016, 03:00:00 PMI don't let their bad opinions bother me.
Having a supercilious attitude is not becoming either, especially when I haven't given my opinion on the subject. Only Nocturne has.
I originally posted this article to spark some conversation on this interesting situation: Banning of abortion in a state. Surely in this day in age, you'd think that that wouldn't happen, which is why I thought of it as fascinating; however, it seems that you guys only want to chew over the morality of abortion itself.
Again, this is the politics thread, not the religion or the "this is what I think" thread.
Abortion is an issue that is often tied to religion, though, simply because attitudes toward abortion are often (not always) informed by religious attitudes. It's difficult to discuss abortion in a context without at all considering religious attitudes simply because they're tied together.
Plus, you didn't even post your views in the first topic... if you want people to discuss the actual passing of a bill that shouldn't be passed, then maybe point that out - otherwise it is incredibly easy for people (and that includes me) to misinterpret why you're posting it.
i mean it's not like we don't know what your opinion is, mlf
Quote from: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 02:49:00 PMno because i didn't go to a school that thought that was an intelligent thing to teach children :^)
fight me
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 03:22:53 PMfight me
no items fox only final destination lets Go im waiting for u outside my house
ill be there when panthers dont choke
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhh
EDIT: oh wait i was supposed to be supporting alti...
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 03:26:10 PMill be there when panthers dont choke
jokes on you i dont actually care about the panthers due to have a pittsburgh-based family hahaha
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 02:08:03 PMEDIT: however if the woman got pregnant by fooling around that's no excuse for abortion either
Let's punish men for sex. Such as, if he gets me pregnant I get one of his kidneys. Then I can sell it on the black market.
seriously though I feel like my school's sex ed was fine, it's not like they told us GO HAVE SEX AND STUFF THERE'S 0 CONSEQUENCES and they didn't tell us IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE YOU'RE AN ADULT YOUR LIFE WILL BE RUINED FOREVER GG
Quote from: Ruto on May 19, 2016, 03:29:15 PMLet's punish men for sex. Such as, if he gets me pregnant I get one of his kidneys. Then I can sell it on the black market.
I knew someone would bring that up and I agree that men are responsible too but a kidney is going a bit overboard I think
as in the man fooling around with the woman is also responsible for that child's well-being
Quote from: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 03:21:27 PMAbortion is an issue that is often tied to religion, though, simply because attitudes toward abortion are often (not always) informed by religious attitudes. It's difficult to discuss abortion in a context without at all considering religious attitudes simply because they're tied together.
Indeed. That is usually the case with every topic discussed. No matter who you are, you usually start out with your own set of presuppositions even before said discussion begins.
Quote from: Dude on May 19, 2016, 03:21:53 PMi mean it's not like we don't know what your opinion is, mlf
You make an excellent point, but it isn't fair to call someone out on their beliefs when they haven't shared them. That's like hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject.
Most people have two kidneys so they'll still be alive. A uterus and a kidney are both organs so I think that's fair.
wait when a woman gets pregnant she loses her uterus?
I think Ruto's saying that if the woman doesn't have a right to do what she wants with her uterus then the man shouldn't have a right to do what he wants with one of his kidneys
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 03:37:34 PMwait when a woman gets pregnant she loses her uterus?
That's possible if there are any complications with the pregnancy. Until she's sure, let's hold that kidney hostage.
I think you can sell a kidney for $20,000, but you can actually be a surrogate and get $50,000 for it. This is a really good deal for you.
I'm still missing your point
living with one kidney also sucks
having sex is the choice though and every choice has its consequences, good or bad. You're obligated to live with those consequences, just like with any other choice you make
bill has good intentions but I think it falls short of actually doing good rather than harm
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 03:33:18 PMYou make an excellent point, but it isn't fair to call someone out on their beliefs when they haven't shared them. That's like hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject.
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=6464.msg257974#msg257974
i mean this is an obvious distaste for it so...
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 03:48:58 PMI'm still missing your point
Same. I'm not sure what kind of point she is trying to make other than that women are oppressed and men are evil.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 03:48:58 PMhaving sex is the choice though and every choice has its consequences, good or bad. You're obligated to live with those consequences, just like with any other choice you make
This is a good point.
Quote from: Dude on May 19, 2016, 03:50:30 PMhttp://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=6464.msg257974#msg257974
i mean this is an obvious distaste for it so...
Perhaps, but
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 03:33:18 PMit isn't fair to call someone out on their beliefs when they haven't shared them. That's like hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject.
I don't get why you think opinions should be protected. Like if someone has a bigoted or hateful opinion it's not unreasonable to hate them for it and if someone has a dumb opinion it's not unreasonable to think they're dumb for it.
Quote from: FireArrow on May 19, 2016, 04:10:11 PMI don't get why you think opinions should be protected. Like if someone has a bigoted or hateful opinion it's not unreasonable to hate them for it and if someone has a dumb opinion it's not unreasonable to think they're dumb for it.
There is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. There are only bigoted people who can't tolerate others' opinion. Being against abortion is not a bigoted or hateful opinion. If anything, it's the opposite of that, but that is beside the point. My point is, calling other peoples' opinions "bigoted" is a very hypocritical statement.
Shall we review the definition:
'Bigot'
"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
Again, there is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. It's very simple to understand. You are either for something or against something.
Neither view is bigoted. Take abortion for example. Johnny is for abortion and Susie is against abortion. Which one is bigoted? Neither. Because it is an
opinion.
'Opinion'
"A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
I think the lesson we can learn here is to respect each others' opinions.
or that oklahomans are bad at making wordy laws
Example of a bigoted opinion: "Black people are horrible because they are different from me."
Also that definition isn't even right lol
Full Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Quote from: Dude on May 19, 2016, 04:33:40 PMExample of a bigoted opinion: "Black people are horrible because they are different from me."
this
besides, you're word policing. the idea isn't that you should deconstruct the sentence, it's that firearrow is more or less saying "if people HAVE OPINIONS that MAKE THEM A BIGOT it is not unreasonable to hate them for it"
So, since there's no such thing as a bigoted opinion, I take it you don't think the KKK or Neo Nazis are bigots?
Opinions can just as well be intolerant to other opinions. Take a look at any Abrahamic religion taken to its extreme(s).
@Abortion: Just thought I'd mention that until viability (~20 weeks or so), it's not a baby, it's literally just a clump of cells. There is no nervous system or sentient thought. IE: It's not a human yet, it's a fertilized egg.
yes I be the word police I herd my services are required what may I do for you: today in porticulate?
Noc, please troll elsewhere.
dude to be fair he is actually making this less of a shitfest
But mlf isn't even here right now so the less activity, the better.
I won't actually comment, but instead post the actual rules.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on May 19, 2016, 04:45:00 PM- "What's this 'Spam' I keep hearing about? It sounds delicious." Spam, otherwise known as garbage or s***-posting, are posts that do not contribute to the conversation at hand."
- "How do I know if I'm spamming?" Simple, does your post meet these requirements?
- Am I actively contributing to the conversation? Can someone respond to what I'm saying? One word responses or posts that don't contain a coherent thought are not contributions to the discussion.
as word police I result that seabass shall be victor of wordfight: vanguard until the wheel turns and the new age begins henceforth and forever amen
Come now, Noc. Let's not dig ourselves deeper.
blue sends his regards
Spoiler
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fgg3CKVH.jpg&hash=35bf1dc543f2839437df61ddbce1a486296d4840)
vote bernie
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 04:26:08 PMThere is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. There are only bigoted people who can't tolerate others' opinion. Being against abortion is not a bigoted or hateful opinion. If anything, it's the opposite of that, but that is beside the point. My point is, calling other peoples' opinions "bigoted" is a very hypocritical statement.
Shall we review the definition:
'Bigot'
"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
Again, there is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. It's very simple to understand. You are either for something or against something. Neither view is bigoted. Take abortion for example. Johnny is for abortion and Susie is against abortion. Which one is bigoted? Neither. Because it is an opinion.
'Opinion'
"A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
I think the lesson we can learn here is to respect each others' opinions.
As dude pointed out, that's not the definition of a bigot. If you wish to play semantics, I'm bigoted against people with bigoted opinions.
Groups of people inherently deserve respect. Being prejudiced against people based on their skin color, sexual orientation, religon or lack thereof etc. is bigotry. Opinions do no deserve that same respect, otherwise science and progress would never get anywhere because we'd have to concede that the KKK is entitled to their opinion and that teaching photosynthesis is being inconsiderate towards people who believe is magical plant faries.
Disclaimer: I don't think being against abortion is bigoted.
The upper 1% in this country has over 70% of the chickens. We must stop the reckless behavior of the mega farmers on Animal Farm.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 04:59:46 PMblue sends his regards
Spoiler
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fgg3CKVH.jpg&hash=35bf1dc543f2839437df61ddbce1a486296d4840)
vote bernie
he said he ragequit but now I see he's lurking
if he is:
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01661%2Fp_anne-chicken_1661204b.jpg&hash=f157432bfa2b8aa236065df81e7f66b27e724d72)
haha
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLB764DT.jpg&hash=5a0dcdf434896bf6614550f932dd9229791ba78a)
he's not a lurker, he has a skype
duh
Quote from: Dude on May 19, 2016, 04:33:40 PMExample of a bigoted opinion: "Black people are horrible because they are different from me."
Also that definition isn't even right lol
Full Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I would have to agree with this definition, but I don't know if I agree that racists are bigots. I'll explain below.
Quote from: FireArrow on May 19, 2016, 05:02:12 PMAs dude pointed out, that's not the definition of a bigot. If you wish to play semantics, I'm bigoted against people with bigoted opinions.
lol.....I guess Google should update that then.
Spoiler
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7av0epzrnty1fon/Screenshot%202016-05-19%2019.20.55.png?dl=1)
Quote from: FireArrow on May 19, 2016, 05:02:12 PMGroups of people inherently deserve respect. Being prejudiced against people based on their skin color, sexual orientation, religon or lack thereof etc. is bigotry. Opinions do no deserve that same respect, otherwise science and progress would never get anywhere because we'd have to concede that the KKK is entitled to their opinion and that teaching photosynthesis is being inconsiderate towards people who believe is magical plant faries.
I would have to agree with you here. Personally, I don't see prejudices against people based on skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. as bigotry. I see it more as just plain cruelty.....if I may be perfectly honest. If you're gonna hate on someone that has a different skin color, religion (lack thereof), etc. then you're just being cruel and/or rude. I wouldn't call it bigotry though; however, I do think that peoples' opinions should be respected.....as long as they aren't openly racist, discriminating, etc.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 19, 2016, 04:38:43 PMSo, since there's no such thing as a bigoted opinion, I take it you don't think the KKK or Neo Nazis are bigots?
Again, I don't think I'd call them bigots. Just plain malicious and cruel.
The Ku Klux Klan was really just a stupid secret society advocating only white people. I don't know if I'd call this bigoted since they didn't go out saying "I don't agree with other white people who think black people are equal to us!!" But instead they openly and actively suppressed African-Americans. I wouldn't call this act bigotry, but cruelty.
Similarly to the KKK, the Neo-Nazis were racist. Extremely racist. They also acted radically.
Personally, I've always believed that bigots were just big talkers who were all talk and didn't act on their opinions and were intolerant toward others opinions.....even rude and prejudice. I wouldn't put the Nazis and KKK in that category, but rather in the category of cruelty and self-righteousness.
That's just my opinion and I respect anyone that doesn't agree with me :P
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 05:48:27 PMhe's not a lurker, he has a skype
duh
hi
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 05:56:02 PMI would have to agree with you here. Personally, I don't see prejudices against people based on skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. as bigotry. If you're gonna hate on someone that has a different skin color, religion (lack thereof), etc. then you're just being cruel and/or rude. I wouldn't call it bigotry though; however, I do think that peoples' opinions should be respected.....as long as they aren't openly racist, discriminating, etc.
Sebastian cmon you're flipping your position faster than Donald Trump
Being a bigot is not mutually exclusive with being cruel and malicous. And generally google is the least reliable source for definitions.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 19, 2016, 05:58:58 PMSebastian cmon you're flipping your position faster than Donald Trump
I don't follow.
Quote from: FireArrow on May 19, 2016, 06:00:17 PMBeing a bigot is not mutually exclusive with being cruel and malicious.
Well, sure. I see what you mean.
Quote from: FireArrow on May 19, 2016, 06:00:17 PMAnd generally google is the least reliable source for definitions.
Good to know for the future xD
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 06:05:58 PMI don't follow.
I guess the text in that quote wasn't bold enough.
IS THIS BOLD ENOUGH FOR YOU OLI/SEBASTIAN
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 05:56:02 PMI would have to agree with this definition, but I don't know if I agree that racists are bigots. I'll explain below.
holy shit the definition literally says "one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
I can't believe people like this exist.
smh 5 min analysis of the convo let's go
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 19, 2016, 02:08:03 PMthat bill sounds incomplete to me. In most cases, yes abortion is morally wrong, but in certain instances (read: rape) the woman may not feel comfortable with going through childbirth, and in the case of rape they didn't get a choice in the matter
EDIT: however if the woman got pregnant by fooling around that's no excuse for abortion either
"morally wrong" how? you can't define that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument
you have a habit of being ignorant with your views by selling your highly assailable opinion as how things are, which is a common flamebaiter trait. it also speaks of not being capable of accepting other views or a rational conclusion if it's against your own.
birth control can fail
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 03:17:08 PMHaving a supercilious attitude is not becoming either, especially when I haven't given my opinion on the subject. Only Nocturne has.
I originally posted this article to spark some conversation on this interesting situation: Banning of abortion in a state. Surely in this day in age, you'd think that that wouldn't happen, which is why I thought of it as fascinating; however, it seems that you guys only want to chew over the morality of abortion itself.
Again, this is the politics thread, not the religion or the "this is what I think" thread.
although it was hasty for dude to refer to you as a "guy who wants the forum to burn"(since you only posted a link), you and noc still failed to give any rational input to the conversation, which makes it justified to call a conversation it a dumb one, since all that was said was ignorant opinions and non-factual statements.
political issues can be moral issues and moral issues can be political issues, and abortion definitely belongs to both of those categories. this topic is also a place to argue, as long as you're capable of doing it instead of posting unnecessary and blatant shit like "thats wrong" without anything to back you up.
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 03:33:18 PMYou make an excellent point, but it isn't fair to call someone out on their beliefs when they haven't shared them. That's like hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject.
no one specifically targeted you personally or your unshared beliefs(literally proven by the fact that you didn't even share them). it was about the conversation in general and i already said how a conversation without reasonable input can be considered as dumb. also "hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject", i fail to see the correlation, please provide reasoning if you can. not that it's necessary because no one called out your unshared beliefs.
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 04:26:08 PMThere is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. There are only bigoted people who can't tolerate others' opinion. Being against abortion is not a bigoted or hateful opinion. If anything, it's the opposite of that, but that is beside the point. My point is, calling other peoples' opinions "bigoted" is a very hypocritical statement.
Shall we review the definition:
'Bigot'
"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
Again, there is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. It's very simple to understand. You are either for something or against something. Neither view is bigoted. Take abortion for example. Johnny is for abortion and Susie is against abortion. Which one is bigoted? Neither. Because it is an opinion.
'Opinion'
"A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
I think the lesson we can learn here is to respect each others' opinions.
there's a difference between having a justified opinion(an opinion that can be true and have reasoning behind it) and a "bigoted opinion"(let's call it that since that's the term you used) that is based on nothing factual and is factually/logically wrong, a bigoted opinion tries to sell itself as reality which it isn't. being against abortion isn't a "bigoted opinion" because it can be justified, but so far i haven't seen anyone on this topic defending the abortion ban with valid reasoning.
a justified opinion 101: an opinion done in "good faith" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith
you can't be expected to respect an unjustified opinion or even an opinion that's literally wrong, like racism.
why's blueflower lurking and asking people to shitpost on his behalf lol
login literally takes 2 seconds
who uses google word definition when you have merriam-webster just below it x)
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 05:56:02 PMI don't know if I agree that racists are bigots. I'll explain below.
what is this lmao if you only you read the merriam-webster definition
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 05:56:02 PMI would have to agree with you here. Personally, I don't see prejudices against people based on skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. as bigotry. I see it more as just plain cruelty.....if I may be perfectly honest. If you're gonna hate on someone that has a different skin color, religion (lack thereof), etc. then you're just being cruel and/or rude. I wouldn't call it bigotry though; however, I do think that peoples' opinions should be respected.....as long as they aren't openly racist, discriminating, etc.
Again, I don't think I'd call them bigots. Just plain malicious and cruel.
The Ku Klux Klan was really just a stupid secret society advocating only white people. I don't know if I'd call this bigoted since they didn't go out saying "I don't agree with other white people who think black people are equal to us!!" But instead they openly and actively suppressed African-Americans. I wouldn't call this act bigotry, but cruelty.
you said you'd "explain below" but all i see is you repeating how you don't want to call racism as bigotry instead of cruelty, yet you fail to reason what makes them different :x
Quote from: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 05:56:02 PMPersonally, I've always believed that bigots were just big talkers who were all talk and didn't act on their opinions and were intolerant toward others opinions.....even rude and prejudice. I wouldn't put the Nazis and KKK in that category, but rather in the category of cruelty and self-righteousness.
That's just my opinion and I respect anyone that doesn't agree with me :P
you're literally trying to justify justifying opinions with opinions
loool that sentence, but it's true though
Quote from: Dude on May 20, 2016, 01:28:09 AMholy shit the definition literally says "one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
I can't believe people like this exist.
not cool to be condescending towards him dude(with "people like this"), he just hasn't understood the concept correctly. we shouldn't assume malice from him when lack of knowledge will suffice.
edit that took 30 :[
Quote from: Waddle Bro on May 20, 2016, 05:59:38 AMnot cool to be condescending towards him dude(with "people like this"), he just hasn't understood the concept correctly. we shouldn't assume malice from him when lack of knowledge will suffice.
Honestly, this is the most condescending thing I think I've ever read.
It's like you just ignored the entirety of that post.
Waddle ily
To be honest, there isn't really any reason for me to argue it.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on May 20, 2016, 05:59:38 AMwho uses google word definition when you have merriam-webster just below it x)what is this lmao if you only you read the merriam-webster definitionyou said you'd "explain below" but all i see is you repeating how you don't want to call racism as bigotry instead of cruelty, yet you fail to reason what makes them different :xyou're literally trying to justify justifying opinions with opinions
loool that sentence, but it's true though
Yes, it is my opinion. I did say at the end of that paragraph that it is my opinion, so yes. I did justify opinions with opinions...as you say.
Sorry waddle, when someone is stupid I can't help but be condescending...
I mean in general, not just MLF.
Quote from: Dude on May 20, 2016, 06:47:31 AMSorry waddle, when someone is stupid I can't help but be condescending...
I mean in general, not just MLF.
Gee, thanks.
I mean, everyone has moments when they're dumb, some just have them more than others.
Wait that didn't help
See this is a time I'm being dumb!
Also I don't know why you reported that post as all I was saying was if someone is stupid I'll be condescending towards them...
I skipped the last three pages and just read this one and I don't regret it
If you read the last3 pages you might not regret that
Also what's so unacceptable about calling abortion morally wrong, hmm
waddle i love you so much ugh
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 20, 2016, 08:51:34 AMAlso what's so unacceptable about calling abortion morally wrong, hmm
Because you then assume that all abortions are made A) on a basis of morality vs practicality and B) without any conscience thought.
Quote from: Sebastian on May 20, 2016, 06:35:02 AMTo be honest, there isn't really any reason for me to argue with it
True, because you can't really argue the case against it.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 02:37:07 PMBecause you then assume that all abortions are made A) on a basis of morality vs practicality and B) without any conscience thought
I'm sorry I'm really having trouble understanding what you mean
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 02:37:07 PMTrue, because you can't really argue the case against it.
If that makes you feel better than ok.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 20, 2016, 03:02:49 PMI'm sorry I'm really having trouble understanding what you mean
Actually I realized that what I said had nothing to do with what you posted. I thought you had said something else. My apologies.
To respond though, to call abortion morally wrong, you have to define what is immoral about it. You have to determine if it's actually the taking of a life; which, until 23(ish) weeks, it is not.
oh, that explains that
even if "technically not killing something" is morally justified (lol) there's still that potential for a life that you're taking away from someone
You do the same thing by eating chicken eggs, by using contraception, or by using hand sanitizer..
That you're taking away life from something which does not have it is a weak argument. Life is not inherently sacred because we say so.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 09:23:18 PMLife is not inherently sacred because we say so.
not because we say so, no
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 09:23:18 PMYou do the same thing by eating chicken eggs, by using contraception, or by using hand sanitizer..
These aren't the best examples to use if you're accusing Noc of having a weak argument...
Well contraception is a valid comparison. You're killing off the sperm and egg that could otherwise make life, maybe even the person that cures cancer! Wish you didn't where that condom now huh?
Anyways that's besides the main point in pro-choice. No human has the right to a parasitic relationship with another without consent, though I think men including myself shouldn't have a say in this.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 09:23:18 PMYou do the same thing by eating chicken eggs, by using contraception, or by using hand sanitizer..
That you're taking away life from something which does not have it is a weak argument. Life is not inherently sacred because we say so.
Chickens aren't humans. Organisms out of sanitizer are not humans.
Can someone remind me how important an 18 year old white male's opinions are in the decision of a woman's reproductive rights?
Quote from: Sebastian on May 21, 2016, 10:51:29 AMChickens aren't humans. Organisms out of sanitizer are not humans.
Neither are fetuses
Here are things that you do that destroy a "potential human"
1) Fap
2) "those kinds of dreams"
3) Wear skinny jeans
4) Mountain Dew???
5) Miscarry naturally (been told that a really good chance of pregnancy is close to 90% so 10% of time must be duds to begin with at least)
6) Zika
7) Herpes
8 ) Flu
9) Not eating enough folate
10) Booze
11) Sitting on a radiator or hot tub
12) ...etc
There are enough things to kill sperm/fetus/babby as it is but only one is evil?
Quote from: Sebastian on May 21, 2016, 10:51:29 AMChickens aren't humans. Organisms out of sanitizer are not humans.
Organism killed by santizers*
Way to put your life above chickens...
Quote from: FireArrow on May 21, 2016, 12:22:37 AMWell contraception is a valid comparison. You're killing off the sperm and egg that could otherwise make life, maybe even the person that cures cancer! Wish you didn't where that condom now huh?
Don't you have to educate someone before they can cure cancer? What are the odds of that even happening...
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 02:37:07 PMBecause you then assume that all abortions are made A) on a basis of morality vs practicality and B) without any conscience thought.True, because you can't really argue the case against it.
I believe if we submit our morality to practicality then we forfeit our humanity. It would be better for the earth if the world population was lowered to a quarter million through mass genocide to make it as fast and effective as possible. (And there are those who do indeed desire this) To quote Alfred Molina: "Knowledge is not a privilege; it's a gift. And you use it for the good of all mankind." I was raised under the principle that practicality was supposed to coincide with morality.
Quote from: Dude on May 21, 2016, 11:05:59 AMCan someone remind me how important an 18 year old white male's opinions are in the decision of a woman's reproductive rights?
I don't mean to sound judgmental or anything when I say the following. But getting in bed with someone is a choice to take a risk. Frankly, if a woman isn't prepared for a kid, maybe she should avoid the bed. All choices have consequences be they good or bad.
Quote from: Altissimo on May 21, 2016, 11:15:54 AMNeither are fetuses
Well many of the fetuses that are aborted still manage to survive anyways. Babies are aborted later in conception than many when they are born prematurely and still live. Do fetuses survive being born before the scheduled abortion date? Because it has happened.
Quote from: FireArrow on May 21, 2016, 12:22:37 AMNo human has the right to a parasitic relationship with another without consent, though I think men including myself shouldn't have a say in this.
It wasn't too long ago that a baby was one of the best things that could happen to a person, not a problem that needs to be fixed.
Quote from: Ruto on May 21, 2016, 02:02:57 PMThere are enough things to kill sperm/fetus/babby as it is but only one is evil?
I think it's more the
deliberate waste of life that's the concern with these debates; not the method itself.
As I said, I'm not trying to be a bigot nor putting a ton of gas into my argument because I am a man. I'm just explaining my opinions and I'm open to being convinced of a contradictory argument if I can be persuaded.
Quote from: Dude on May 21, 2016, 11:05:59 AMCan someone remind me how important an 18 year old white male's opinions are in the decision of a woman's reproductive rights?
if men and women are equal then their opinions should be just as important, no?
Quote from: JDMEK5 on May 21, 2016, 02:27:53 PMIt wasn't too long ago that a baby was one of the best things that could happen to a person, not a problem that needs to be fixed.
Are you suggesting unwanted pregnancies weren't a thing or are you suggesting that parents don't love their children anymore, because neither is true.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 21, 2016, 02:30:30 PMif men and women are equal then their opinions should be just as important, no?
If doctors and lawyers are equal than their opinions on eating right should be just as important, no?
Quote from: JDMEK5 on May 21, 2016, 02:27:53 PMIt wasn't too long ago that a baby was one of the best things that could happen to a person, not a problem that needs to be fixed.
Back before the mean old government said you have to feed and send your kids to school, right? Not just let them outside to collect scrap tin for money or work for free on your farm and pants factory? People don't think about how much it costs to raise kids at all, and of course, don't even help people with their kids. That one type of person that hates the government and whines about regulation and taxes are usually the ones to tell other people to shove off because they've got theirs.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 21, 2016, 02:30:30 PMif men and women are equal then their opinions should be just as important, no?
Wear this rasta-themed codpiece to school. Don't like that? Then don't tell other people what to do with their fashion sense or bodies -.-
Quote from: JDMEK5 on May 21, 2016, 02:27:53 PMBut getting in bed with someone is a choice to take a risk. Frankly, if a woman isn't prepared for a kid, maybe she should avoid the bed. All choices have consequences be they good or bad.y argument because I am a man. I'm just explaining my opinions and I'm open to being convinced of a contradictory argument if I can be persuaded.
It's funny how you only say women should avoid beds. Women don't have the right to enjoy sex now? What if I said guys should avoid sleeping with others? I'm sure if a guy wanted out on the deal, he would be able to get out of it if it were not for those pesky DNA tests.
By stepping into a car you agree there's a chance your car will flip over and fall down a ravine...let's not drive to work because there's a chance that would happen la la la...Even with all the protective measures that exist. Sounds like a rubbish argument.
QuoteWell many of the fetuses that are aborted still manage to survive anyways. Babies are aborted later in conception than many when they are born prematurely and still live. Do fetuses survive being born before the scheduled abortion date? Because it has happened.
I do believe that there should be a cut-off date, because after a certain point it's like "ok ... really?". I won't deny that. But it should be around the time of viability, which I think is about 22/23 weeks iirc (what PDS was saying earlier). Anything before that is fair game. And actually anything after would be fair game if it turns out that something would direct put the mother's life in danger, because I think that no matter how far along the pregnancy is the woman has more of a right to her own, pre-established life, than she has an obligation to the fetus for its life that hasn't gone anywhere yet. No woman should be
forced to die for offspring.
Also:
QuoteBut getting in bed with someone is a choice to take a risk. Frankly, if a woman isn't prepared for a kid, maybe she should avoid the bed. All choices have consequences be they good or bad.
No, really,
why is it only women? Why am I suddenly not allowed to do what I want simply because I'm on the other side of things? This is a straight up horribly sexist and offensive argument, I'm sorry... and this is part of the reason why I think abortion is one sex-difference issue where I believe men should have very little say.
it's funny, because I don't ever remember JDMEK saying that guys are allowed to have sex whenever they want. You guys are putting words into our mouths
Quote from: Ruto on May 21, 2016, 02:02:57 PMHere are things that you do that destroy a "potential human"
1) Fap
2) "those kinds of dreams"
3) Wear skinny jeans
4) Mountain Dew???
5) Miscarry naturally (been told that a really good chance of pregnancy is close to 90% so 10% of time must be duds to begin with at least)
6) Zika
7) Herpes
8 ) Flu
9) Not eating enough folate
10) Booze
11) Sitting on a radiator or hot tub
12) ...etc
There are enough things to kill sperm/fetus/babby as it is but only one is evil?
lol
None of these things constitutes a baby or embryo or fetus or whatever the heck you wanna call it and none of these things will turn into a baby after how ever many months.
Abortion is
ending a life, no matter how you look at it. If you didn't abort the baby, it'd be a male/female
human in less than however many months.
Quote from: JDMEK5 on May 21, 2016, 02:27:53 PMWell many of the fetuses that are aborted still manage to survive anyways. Babies are aborted later in conception than many when they are born prematurely and still live. Do fetuses survive being born before the scheduled abortion date?
This so much.
Quote from: Altissimo on May 21, 2016, 03:19:26 PMNo, really, why is it only women? Why am I suddenly not allowed to do what I want simply because I'm on the other side of things? This is a straight up horribly sexist and offensive argument, I'm sorry... and this is part of the reason why I think abortion is one sex-difference issue where I believe men should have very little say.
It isn't only women. That's not what he meant.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 21, 2016, 03:32:59 PMit's funny, because I don't ever remember JDMEK saying that guys are allowed to have sex whenever they want. You guys are putting words into our mouths
^^
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 21, 2016, 03:32:59 PMit's funny, because I don't ever remember JDMEK saying that guys are allowed to have sex whenever they want. You guys are putting words into our mouths
Sorry but I'm pretty sure "If a woman isn't prepared for a kid, she should avoid the bed" with no mention of men's place in the issue is kind of a tacit statement that men don't have to.
Ok but if it's still putting words in your mouth which it isn't let me rephrase it: Why should I have to avoid the bed because others have decided I don't have control over my body?
@MLF: What is the difference between a sperm cell and a zygote?
you don't have to "avoid the bed", you need to understand the consequences that can come with sex n stuff
Quote from: Altissimo on May 21, 2016, 03:46:43 PM@MLF: What is the difference between a sperm cell and a zygote?
The zygote has unique DNA.
I'm not saying I don't. Putting words in my mouth, there. What I'm saying is there is a tacit implication that only women need to worry about the consequences and that only women should be ready for a kid if they are having sex. If you would like to explain to me how your argument applies to men too than I may retract my statements about calling out sexism but at the moment it doesn't look that way.
@mlf: ok? so? how does this make it any more worth saving than the sperm cell?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 21, 2016, 03:51:52 PMyou don't have to "avoid the bed", you need to understand the consequences that can come with sex n stuff
I'm sure a lot of women know that so don't assume no one does. There's birth control that lets people enjoy winking at each other, but there's a chance it doesn't work, just like how seatbelts are in your car to stop you from flying through the window in an accident. The seatbelts don't save your face every time but it's there to help.
Quote from: Sebastian on May 21, 2016, 03:52:10 PMThe zygote has unique DNA.
Nice trying to science but the real answer is 46 chromosomes. Humans *can* have identical DNA even if they're not twins, it's just a ridiculously small chance.
It's so funny that you value a "human life" instead of all those chickens you ate and stuffed into cages. If you didn't abort, the fetus will still die if it's not viable (yes this is possible). It could also be born and have a horrible life, like breathing with machines...but you still have to feed it and bathe it. Babies also don't magically come out fine and healthy. Ever heard of having to feed a pregnant woman or she would miscarry?
@Alti
Clearly men don't understand that women should be able to enjoy sex. That's so 1900.
What if a baby is born and they live a shitty life in poverty, abuse, or is put up for adoption and moved around from house to house because no family can deal with them due to the kid's poor disposition or a disability. Is that any better?
I mean people say "oh they'll cure cancer" but is that really realistic?
Clearly I'm not qualified to discuss this subject because of my religious beliefs.
@"what if they have the cure to cancer" discussion
I know this may be a shock, but fetuses do not come into this world with advanced medical science implanted into their heads. Those kinds of people are created, not born. No fetus is particularly "destined" for anything.
If you actually want our society to discover the cure to cancer, probably the best way to do it is to allocate some money for the R&D thereof.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 21, 2016, 04:57:30 PMClearly I'm not qualified to discuss this subject because of my religious beliefs.
Well, religion does tend to give a bias in this direction. But I/we are glad that you're recognizing your bias! :)
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 21, 2016, 06:10:06 PMWell, religion does tend to give a bias in this direction. But I/we are glad that you're recognizing your bias! :)
So does lack of religion.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 21, 2016, 06:10:06 PMWell, religion does tend to give a bias in this direction. But I/we are glad that you're recognizing your bias! :)
I was going to say that everyone has a religion. Everyone believes something. Everyone takes beliefs by faith. For example, evolution can't be proved; thus it's a religion just like any other. That's not a problem; it's just often mislabeled. Religion isn't bad. Everyone is religious in some form or another, even if they claim atheism.
Wrong thread buddy
Quote from: Dude on May 21, 2016, 07:00:33 PMWrong thread buddy
Lol sorry. Though it wasn't for the purpose of derailing the subject. I was applying it to this.
Quote from: Altissimo on May 21, 2016, 03:19:26 PMNo, really, why is it only women? Why am I suddenly not allowed to do what I want simply because I'm on the other side of things? This is a straight up horribly sexist and offensive argument, I'm sorry... and this is part of the reason why I think abortion is one sex-difference issue where I believe men should have very little say.
I don't mean to be offensive or anything. I'll just clarify a bit here. I'll acknowledge your reason that men shouldn't have much say in this topic, and to an extent I can agree with that. It is kinda one-sided in the way that you're saying and I understand that. But this:
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 21, 2016, 03:32:59 PMit's funny, because I don't ever remember JDMEK saying that guys are allowed to have sex whenever they want.
Guys are as accountable to what I said as girls. Any real man will take responsibility for his actions and thus won't put a woman in a position where she has to make a hard decision. I slam guys just as hard; who get a girl pregnant and then ditch, leaving her with the baby and all the responsibilities.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 21, 2016, 03:51:52 PMyou don't have to "avoid the bed", you need to understand the consequences that can come with sex n stuff
Yeah, sorry. That's what I meant. Didn't word it as well as you did.
NEW TOPIC AS EVERYONE'S OPINIONS ARE TERRIBLE: TRUMPDONALD.ORG
http://trumpdonald.org
Is this the best site or what.
Quote from: JDMEK5 on May 21, 2016, 06:56:36 PMI was going to say that everyone has a religion. Everyone believes something. Everyone takes beliefs by faith. For example, evolution can't be proved; thus it's a religion just like any other. That's not a problem; it's just often mislabeled. Religion isn't bad. Everyone is religious in some form or another, even if they claim atheism.
I don't think your terminology is correct there. I get what you're trying to say about evolution and atheism being faith-based, and while I personally disagree I don't think a belief in evolution is an example of
a religion, since, well, according to dictionary.com:
"Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,
usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Neither of these refer to a belief in evolution, or atheism. I get what you're trying to say but I think your words are wrong, and you'd be better off saying everyone has
faith in some belief (which I don't agree with but is one of those things that's impossible to argue) - more like, "everyone has faith, but not everyone has
religion".
:|
Quote from: Dude on May 21, 2016, 07:17:23 PMNEW TOPIC AS EVERYONE'S OPINIONS ARE TERRIBLE: TRUMPDONALD.ORG
http://trumpdonald.org
Is this the best site or what.
What even is this.
And why was it put together by an advertising firm.
I heard it was because the domain wasn't taken at the time so they were like "why not"
Quote from: JDMEK5 on May 21, 2016, 06:56:36 PMI was going to say that everyone has a religion. Everyone believes something. Everyone takes beliefs by faith. For example, evolution can't be proved; thus it's a religion just like any other. That's not a problem; it's just often mislabeled. Religion isn't bad. Everyone is religious in some form or another, even if they claim atheism.
Holy shit, how the hell do you think you're qualified to give any sort of medical opinion???
derpderpderp
guys I'm trying to change the topic so we don't fight about people's bad opinions. can you deal.
I can deal.
So, I heard that Trump, against all odds, gained support while I was away.
Uhhhh.
Conversation?
Is it working?
I hate him but I hate Hillary more so...
I wanted kasich buuuuut...
at least clinton is predictable and will be tied up by the majority-republican congress
Are you, of all people, telling me to vote for Hillary?
Feel the bernnnnnnn
I like him more than the other two but the chances he will make it don't seem very high...
Quote from: Dude on May 22, 2016, 11:18:16 AMI hate him but I hate Hillary more so...
I wanted kasich buuuuut...
Whoa, really? Interesting.
I'm curious, Dude, do you think Hillary is a criminal?
Quote from: Sebastian on May 22, 2016, 12:13:18 PMdo you think Hillary is a criminal?
can you stop with this lol
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 22, 2016, 12:20:46 PMcan you stop with this lol
I'm just wondering what Dude thinks. You and I talked about it enough on skype :P
No need to go into it too deeply here.
I would consider the email ordeal pretty bad, but unless the law says it led to illegal actions... idk
Letting classified information be out in the open isn't the best idea.
IMO Hillary is better in that she's somewhat predictable and will listen to her donors. Trump is an egomaniac who won't listen to anyone, and might just randomly decide to invade Turkey or something because they make fun of his hands.
As far as her potentially illegal activity, she's got about a dozen FBI agents investigating her.. So I'll leave that to them. Most all investigations have come up empty handed, though.
Hillary though isn't actually a progressive by any means. She's Republican lite on economics, and somewhat liberal on social issues. She would, however, appoint a far better SCOTUS Justice, if the Republicunts in congress won't let Obama do his constitutional duty to appoint a new one.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 22, 2016, 01:52:03 PMIMO Hillary is better in that she's somewhat predictable and will listen to her donors. Trump is an egomaniac who won't listen to anyone, and might just randomly decide to invade Turkey or something because they make fun of his hands.
As far as her potentially illegal activity, she's got about a dozen FBI agents investigating her.. So I'll leave that to them. Most all investigations have come up empty handed, though.
Hillary though isn't actually a progressive by any means. She's Republican lite on economics, and somewhat liberal on social issues. She would, however, appoint a far better SCOTUS Justice, if the Republicunts in congress won't let Obama do his constitutional duty to appoint a new one.
The president can't declare war by him/herself. Trump is bad but people over exaggerate how much of the "baddness" would actually affect us.
I'm just going hillarly becuase she isn't gonna try and undo any of the civil rights progress we've made, particularly gay marriage, and maybe lower my college tution and... that's all I really care about in politics.
edit: Bernie would be cool but I don't see it happening.
Quote from: FireArrow on May 22, 2016, 06:24:49 PMI'm just going hillarly
Hey E. Gadd, what's this adverb mean?
I'll (http://names.whitepages.com/first/Hillarly) have (https://www.facebook.com/hillarly.nyadapaminga) you (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxrUA6Kjz4Cq7Bu7bKz0zuUyvT0jmepkR) know. (https://www.howtopronounce.com/hillarly/)
But you didn't capitalize it so it has to be an adverb.
Like, "This election is going hillarly."
Plus e. Gadd is the best at words, haven't you seen his topic?
Quote from: FireArrow on May 22, 2016, 06:24:49 PMThe president can't declare war by him/herself. Trump is bad but people over exaggerate how much of the "baddness" would actually affect us.
I'm just going hillarly becuase she isn't gonna try and undo any of the civil rights progress we've made, particularly gay marriage, and maybe lower my college tution and... that's all I really care about in politics.
edit: Bernie would be cool but I don't see it happening.
Hillary wouldn't do any of them unless her donors tell her to. Just less than a decade ago, she was for DOMA; the Defense of Marriage Act, which was against same sex marriage. She's by no means a real progressive; she goes with whichever poll numbers benefit her.
Which is why I can trust her, at least more than trump, not to take my or anyone else's rights away. You can bet your bottom that whoevers in office when and if gay marriage is illegal again is gonna go down in history as one of the biggest assholes and I think Hillary knows that. Whether or not she actually wants to fight for further equality for minorities or not while in office I could care less about because the president really can't do much about that anyways.
Quote from: Dude on May 22, 2016, 08:04:31 PMBut you didn't capitalize it so it has to be an adverb.
Like, "This election is going hillarly."
Plus e. Gadd is the best at words, haven't you seen his topic?
Yeah, it's an adverb in this sense. :P
For the politics thread only Hillarly (adv.)- in support of the democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:
specifically based on a political stance/opinion
I can use whichever bathroom I want now right
I'll def vote for Trump. Finally a candidate who really represents murica.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 23, 2016, 07:49:39 AMI can use whichever bathroom I want now right
You use the one that corresponds to your gender.
Quote from: GaryOak on May 23, 2016, 10:30:24 AMI'll def vote for Trump. Finally a candidate who really represents murica.
In all its hateful xenophobia and bigotry..
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 23, 2016, 04:40:13 PMYou use the one that corresponds to your gender
today I feel like a girl
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 23, 2016, 08:46:54 PMtoday I feel like a girl
Well, unfortunately, gender isn't how you "feel like" or how you act, so much as it is how you naturally identify. Most people (with a few exceptions) identify as one gender or the other, regardless of their biology. Most of the time they align, but in rare cases, they do not. This is why people like Bruce Jenner describe doing feminine things like wearing dresses as feeling right.
The difference between "today I feel like a girl" and "I've identified as this gender since birth even though it doesn't correspond with my biological sex" goes far beyond where you piss and shit.
Well I don't think it's fair that some guys get to use the girls facilities and I don't
Land of the free
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 23, 2016, 10:44:04 PMWell I don't think it's fair that some guys get to use the girls facilities and I don't
Well then they're not a guy and thus can't use the guy facilities. Transphobia or whatever you're implying isn't cool hun.
Just because I'm curious as to what the response will be, what if he reworded it something like:
"Well I don't think it's fair that some people with dicks (lol idk) get to use the girls facilities and I don't"
Edit: If that sounds like some transphobia statement then I'm sorry but pls answer anyway lol.
Your genitals are not the determining factor for what gender you are. Biological sex =/= gender, though I suppose it would be a fair argument to say that bathrooms are designed for certain genitals and thus the right of passage should be granted based that.
I really don't know much about the topic maybe someone else can answer.
If your gender aligns with your sex, you should just use your own bathroom. If not, you should be allowed to use whatever bathroom you're comfortable with. Preference.
I'm more comfortable with the girls bathroom be cause it's cleaner and has more room and more stalls
The grass is always greener.
Idk it just seems that what was once such an easy answer has been muddied up with discrimination, gender-roles, and personal identity, etc. It's not intolerant whatsoever to say that humans are divided into male and female, which we have created separate and distinct bathrooms for that differ to better accommodate each sex. Where gender comes into this is, from what I understand, people with opposing genders and sexes feel like they should use the opposite bathroom, even though it is designed against their biology, putting this into the ballpark of personal identification rather than physical traits. So, as silly as nocturne sounds, why is granting him and others the right to also use bathrooms that don't correspond with their biology now frowned upon, when the former is such a huge topic for debate?
The reason he has for wanting to use it though is pretty stupid. If the guys room was dirty or crowded, I just wouldn't use it or go to a different restroom. It's not that hard.
But what's stopping him from claiming that this is a violation of his rights, and that he identifies as a woman?
urinals suck tbh
girls bathrooms are very not clean tbh
Nothing is stopping him from identifying as a girl and using a girls restroom if he actally identities as a girl. Him not being an asshole is what stops him from pretending to identify as a girl to use the cleaner facility (girls bathrooms from what I heard are much nastier tho.)
Quote from: Altissimo on May 24, 2016, 12:43:10 PMgirls bathrooms are very not clean tbh
I used to clean bathrooms at the grocery store, can confirm 9__9
@FA: the issue in trying to surface is that by going this route, having bathrooms separated by gender or sex is now ineffective.
Well I always thought seperated bathrooms was dumb anyways.
It had a purpose though lol. Looks like we have to renovate every bathroom in the country to be gender neutral now. Get into the plumbing business ASAP, that shit gonna boom.
Fine by me.
girls bathrooms are 80% of the time cleaner than the guys bathrooms, not necessarily clean, just cleaner
should we call the mythbusters
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 24, 2016, 01:35:34 PMgirls bathrooms are 80% of the time cleaner than the guys bathrooms, not necessarily clean, just cleaner
Lol I always experienced the opposite. Like the woman's room was generally always worse than the men's.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 24, 2016, 01:44:23 PMLol I always experienced the opposite. Like the woman's room was generally always worse than the men's.
Like they don't even use the trash cans and flood the place, right? ughhhh
I remember always getting complaints about it Dx and it wasn't even my job, I only did it when the normal sanitation people were on vacation!
Quote from: Dude on May 24, 2016, 01:37:32 PMshould we call the mythbusters
^^^
Man, here's my thoughts on the issue:
Just have all the "gender specific" bathrooms taken out, and have those bathrooms where there's only one toilet or something installed that way this issue wouldn't exist.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on May 25, 2016, 04:44:09 AMMan, here's my thoughts on the issue:
Just have all the "gender specific" bathrooms taken out, and have those bathrooms where there's only one toilet or something installed that way this issue wouldn't exist.
That'd create a loooong line xD
I know at magic events they renovate the bathrooms at whatever place they're using to be unisex
new topic: I'm freaking tired of Bernie supporters
Spoiler
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13244896_10154236374723383_3968980456540265702_n.jpg?oh=e563afe511ae998069d19876c4a72d64&oe=57DE2D4A)
Wait, are you upset that bernie supports aren't voting or that the meme the is really dumb? The former I would know about, that latter would be true of the fans for any president.
Most of them seem to think the election process is rigged
Also yes too much dank meme stash
Well with trump as the Republican candidate it kinda is. ;3
Feel entirely free to ignore this. It's what deadpool would do.
Political musings...
As a legal adult, I'm given the strange privilege of voicing a strong opinion about any matter I choose while in actuality knowing next to nothing about it. I try to refrain from that, but I am only human. You never really understand how ignorant you are. Thinking otherwise only proves the point.
Somewhere along the road I figured out I was conservative. Not incredibly conservative, but enough for me to dislike FDR's policies. Because I'm so young and ignorant, though, it almost didn't occur to me that in the US there is another political viewpoint that greatly differs from mine. That's a pretty scary thing to realize. That according to half of your country, everything you think you know about politics and economics is horribly inaccurate.
But how can they be right, when what I believe seems so natural and obvious? A fascinating facet of our government. Even when the nation was born, this schism was apparent. Some said we needed a strong central government. Others disagreed, that the people should be stronger. The Framers' incredible solution is why America's government is the longest standing in the world.
Right now America feels divided in many ways. Political, social, and economic turmoil is causing greater division. Everyone has their opinion on everything, and we're right and the others are wrong, for what other possibility is there?
But as a conservative, it becomes concerning when your supposed political representative does not share your beliefs. Even more terrifying is the support he's gaining. How can so many feel that our political system is so flawed that a man who is surely nothing more than a tyrant should be so strongly supported?
It becomes entirely more possible that it's me who has been wrong this whole time. How am I supposed to think, interpret, act, when so many say that I am simply wrong? Do I give in to the masses or hold firm?
If I am to continue believing my own thoughts and feelings, how can I do that when my options for the representative of America are a megalomaniac, one labeled by many as a criminal, or one who appears to want America to become something else entirely? Are they what America embodies?
The Declaration of Independence protects our right to revolt against tyranny. Are we on the brink of government collapse? Am I blowing things out of proportion? I suspect that no matter how bad our situation may be, America will continue. Perhaps we aren't as divided as the media would have us believe. Perhaps, though we all disagree, we, the people believe that America, as an idea, is worth preserving.
I'm sure I know little enough that to engage in the political process seems foolhardy at best. More expedient for me is to learn. I'm old enough to understand. All the problems that America and even the world seems to be facing are surely just conjurations of dissenters.
Maybe giving up is the best thing to do. We have evidence of socialistic democracies working, and if all else fails, maybe America was not meant to last. For now, though, I think giving up seems premature. I still have hope.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 25, 2016, 09:13:00 PMMost of them seem to think the election process is rigged
Also yes too much dank meme stash
Clinton and Sanders have roughly the same number of delegates (1,768 and 1,497 respectively), but Clinton has an extra 537 Superdelegates (and one might argue that if she didn't have the support of these superdelegates, more people would be willing to support Bernie)... so there's that to think about. While it's not necessarily "rigged," as far as we know, it probably couldn't be considered very fair to a lot of people.
With ongoing voter fraud investigations in multiple states, I think it's safe to say Clinton and DNC have rigged the fuck out of this primary.
droppin my homie john oliver here for now
Everyone needs to watch this.
(http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/watch/south-park-s8-e8-douche-turd/) This episode is more accurate than ever right now and south park is just amazing in general anyways.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 26, 2016, 03:56:42 AMsnip
Contrary to popular beliefs, the president doesn't have enough power to destroy the US by himself. Calling Hillary a criminal and Trump a dictator may or may not be accurate, but they aren't gonna be able to practice those things in office to an extent that will change what you know as everyday living.
Anyways, why do you talk about being conservative like it's some defining unchangeable part of who you are? You have political beliefs, those beliefs should be what you believe is right at the time based on the current evidence and what not availible to you. Your post comes across as "I was born a conservative and found out at a pretty young age therefore whenever I am presented with issues I must always choose the sides labeled "conservative" as that is who I am, however, right now the side labeled "conservative" isn't who I am and I don't know what to do because I've always been a true conservative at heart."
Like brah, just do what you think is right. Whether it be called "conservative" or "liberal" is arbitrary. You're beliefs are gonna be different from everyone else's, if ever so slightly, so just stick to "I believe what nocturne of shadow believes in" rather than "I'm conservative" and I think this entire identity crisis or whatever will solve itself.
I have a feeling politics would be a lot more popular if this is how every single speech and debate was done.
Sorry not Sorry
Brainy, I found you! 1:54
Thought of the moment:
Somewhere between 20,000 and 45,000 people die every year b/c of lack of basic healthcare.
45 people have died between 9/11 and 2015 in the U.S. from Islamic terrorism.
If these numbers were flipped, we'd probably be bombing the living hell out of the Middle East more than we are now, but tens of thousands of people die from something we can fix easily.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FwTMtqb2.jpeg&hash=37fad67e9aedc1418e02e6c3f27159c3441d421a)
terrorism numbers are always low though, it's not about killing people (I mean neither is lack of healthcare, though it is effective). Just saying that you can find a better example, like DHMO or cell phones
What about cell phones?
cell phones: the silent killers (unless they're on vibrate)
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on June 03, 2016, 01:24:12 PMIf these numbers were flipped, we'd probably be bombing the living hell out of the Middle East more than we are now, but tens of thousands of people die from something we can fix easily.
I'm not really sure if that's something that could be fixed "easily"... one could also argue that the reason why the deaths from terrorism are lower than they could be is
because governments are actively working to stop terrorism, not to mention any other deaths or costs that result from the actions of terrorist groups (i.e. war and other conflicts in the Middle East, refugees, etc.)... not to mention the fact that you can't just leave a threat like that unresolved, for several reasons (one of the most important ethically is the well-being of the people actually living in those conditions; it sure wouldn't help international relations if everybody just went "ah, screw it" and did absolutely nothing to help- I don't know if you're explicitly encouraging that, but your post seems to drastically downplay the ramifications of the situation).
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on June 03, 2016, 01:26:12 PMterrorism numbers are always low though, it's not about killing people (I mean neither is lack of healthcare, though it is effective). Just saying that you can find a better example, like DHMO or cell phones
Yeah; I never see anybody talking about DHMO, but most people don't realize how dangerous it is!!!!! I mean, inhaling it is pretty lethal!
inhaling even half a cubic foot of DHMO is deadly!
dhmo FALLS FROM THE SKY YALL
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on June 03, 2016, 01:26:12 PMterrorism numbers are always low though, it's not about killing people (I mean neither is lack of healthcare, though it is effective). Just saying that you can find a better example, like DHMO or cell phones
The reason I mentioned terrorism is because in the GOP we currently have a candidate who pledged to "bomb the hell out of ISIS", his only real contender (Cruz) saying he'd "make the sand glow".
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on June 03, 2016, 01:53:27 PMI'm not really sure if that's something that could be fixed "easily"...
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
Quoteone could also argue that the reason why the deaths from terrorism are lower than they could be is because governments are actively working to stop terrorism, not to mention any other deaths or costs that result from the actions of terrorist groups (i.e. war and other conflicts in the Middle East, refugees, etc.)...
That argument simply has no basis in reality. The "efforts" in solving terrorism have been things like the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, both of which were enormous failures.
Quotenot to mention the fact that you can't just leave a threat like that unresolved, for several reasons (one of the most important ethically is the well-being of the people actually living in those conditions; it sure wouldn't help international relations if everybody just went "ah, screw it" and did absolutely nothing to help- I don't know if you're explicitly encouraging that, but your post seems to drastically downplay the ramifications of the situation).
Of course. ISIS won't just "go away". But the US has only made the problem worse, and it's a problem we have no place in actively resolving. I have nothing against helping, say, the Kurds fight ISIS by giving them humanitarian support and under certain circumstances even using Special Forces, so long as we go through the proper legal channels. But carpet bombing and all the rest of the tactics we've used have done nothing to ISIS' numbers.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on June 03, 2016, 03:10:29 PMhttp://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
That doesn't seem like an easy fix at all, especially considering the politics behind it.
QuoteThat argument simply has no basis in reality. The "efforts" in solving terrorism have been things like the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, both of which were enormous failures.
You're oversimplifying it. Neither of those are the only thing that governments (referring to more than just the U.S. government) have done.
QuoteOf course. ISIS won't just "go away". But the US has only made the problem worse, and it's a problem we have no place in actively resolving. I have nothing against helping, say, the Kurds fight ISIS by giving them humanitarian support and under certain circumstances even using Special Forces, so long as we go through the proper legal channels. But carpet bombing and all the rest of the tactics we've used have done nothing to ISIS' numbers.
On the contrary, ISIS is losing territory, losing important members, facing increased infighting, and growing weaker (despite what my grandmother says ::) ). Just in case you doubt me, I found a few articles: Article 1 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/anonymous-declares-war-islamic-state-6839030); Article 2 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/14/exclusive-u-s-targets-isis-in-libya-airstrike.html); Article 3 (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/isis-spokesperson-reportedly-killed-syrian-army); Article 4 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-s-second-command-killed-raid-sources-n545451?cid=sm_tw); Article 5 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-suffers-heaviest-defeat-iraq-101500786.html?soc_src=copy).
Though, we can't be certain what will happen after ISIS crumbles- whether other groups will take its place, or whether there might be a brief time of peace, though I would disagree on your conclusion that other nations outside of the region shouldn't help, as the Middle East is a very unstable region and likely won't fix itself without some form of foreign aid (though, if we make the same mistakes as in the past, all efforts thus far will be pointless).
He's not saying we should be isolationist, he's saying we shouldn't carpet bomb.
Quoteit's a problem we have no place in actively resolving
Quoteall the rest of the tactics we've used have done nothing to ISIS' numbers.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on June 03, 2016, 03:10:29 PMI have nothing against helping, say, the Kurds fight ISIS by giving them humanitarian support and under certain circumstances even using Special Forces, so long as we go through the proper legal channels. But carpet bombing and all the rest of the tactics we've used have done nothing to ISIS' numbers.
His point is: ISIS is not a major threat to the U.S. right now so while helping isn't necessary, I have nothing against it. If we do help though, we should change our tactics because the way we've currently been doing things and the way Trump and Cruz propose isn't helping anyone.
And the way he is making that point is by oversimplifying and downplaying the whole situation.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on June 03, 2016, 08:10:58 PMThat doesn't seem like an easy fix at all, especially considering the politics behind it.
You're oversimplifying it. Neither of those are the only thing that governments (referring to more than just the U.S. government) have done.
On the contrary, ISIS is losing territory, losing important members, facing increased infighting, and growing weaker (despite what my grandmother says ::) ). Just in case you doubt me, I found a few articles: Article 1 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/anonymous-declares-war-islamic-state-6839030); Article 2 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/14/exclusive-u-s-targets-isis-in-libya-airstrike.html); Article 3 (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/isis-spokesperson-reportedly-killed-syrian-army); Article 4 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-s-second-command-killed-raid-sources-n545451?cid=sm_tw); Article 5 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-suffers-heaviest-defeat-iraq-101500786.html?soc_src=copy).
Though, we can't be certain what will happen after ISIS crumbles- whether other groups will take its place, or whether there might be a brief time of peace, though I would disagree on your conclusion that other nations outside of the region shouldn't help, as the Middle East is a very unstable region and likely won't fix itself without some form of foreign aid (though, if we make the same mistakes as in the past, all efforts thus far will be pointless).
The main reason ISIS is losing ground is because of their conflicts with other Islamic terror groups; the Taliban and Al Qaeda have both denounced ISIS. They've mainly lost ground in Syria, likely due in large part to their fighting with Assad.
U.S. involvement had nothing to do with ISIS' dwindling numbers.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on June 03, 2016, 10:19:30 PMAnd the way he is making that point is by oversimplifying and downplaying the whole situation.
yes god forbid I don't go into 10010% detail when I was just posting a political rant I had about the attitude towards the relative non issue of terrorism vs the actual crisis of lack of healthcare ::)
I don't think you can say one is more of an issue than the other, it doesn't seem fair to either of the people whose lives are affected by those
One is affected significantly more americans than the other. Saying terrorism is a non-issue is insulting to people who had family die in terrorist attacks, but prioritizing it over much more relevant issues to avoid "insulting them" is just dumb.
Note that I said "relative nonissue".
I walk into a politics discussion on the internet, and everything I saw was civil and not angry! I WANT MY MONEY BACK
so britian voted out of the EU just now. I hear that's a pretty bad thing for world politics
And now the pound is at a 33 year low.
A friend of mine has come up with a clever little saying that sums all of it up in two words: "Pound downed."
The Brexit movement also harbored an unsettling amount of neo fascists, for what it's worth. Granted, it wasn't the majority of the supporters, but it was a fair amount.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on June 24, 2016, 03:52:09 AMso britian voted out of the EU just now. I hear that's a pretty bad thing for world politics
Forget politics, all the world's stock markets took a massive nosedive today. The Dow Jones and the S&P 500 dropped 3.6% and 3.4% respectively, and similar indexes in Europe have dropped as much as 8% (http://www.nytimes.com/live/eu-referendum/u-s-stocks-take-a-tumble-on-brexit/). And, it's probably going to get even worse once the UK Parliament actually votes on whether or not they're actually going to leave.
maybe this will end up being good for everyone
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-finally-endorse-hillary-clinton-n607591
To my fellow progressives who feel that Bernie has betrayed you:
He hasn't. He's made the best of the situation that he's in. He's throwing his support behind a candidate who, yes, has all the Wall Street and big business connections that she does. But the alternative would have been to have been horrible about the whole thing, and what good would that actually do? He's managed to push (and keep) the democratic platform significantly to the left, whereas if he had been nasty about it and instead, say, endorsed Jill Stein, he would've both split the progressive vote more than it already is and gotten nothing done in the meantime.
The Democratic platform isn't perfect, but now it has things that liberals have been wanting for a while: a pathway to legalization of marijuana, $15 minimum wage, and language to defeat climate change.
There are plenty of things that I wish WERE in there, like ending corporate welfare and funding elections with public money, as to get rid of corruption in the system. But the notion that Bernie has sold out is false; he hasn't, he's doing what he can to make HRC and her platform as progressive as possible.
hey, thanks. this narrative of him being a sellout is so annoying
It's really only based in dislike of Clinton.
I don't like her either, she's the status quo establishment democrat that isn't really gonna do much, and will do all the same corporate welfare and favors for big business, but she's FAR better than Trump.
As for Bernie being a sellout, you need only look at his (extensive) voting record.
I think* the reason why people are calling Bernie a sellout/shill/whatever term you want to describe his support with, is because, despite (as you said) trying to mitigate the effects of a potentially harmful candidate (that goes for both of the nominees), what he's doing essentially amounts to throwing his support behind (and enabling, so to say) someone believed by many to be someone perfectly willing to screw over the American people (for lack of a more apt description) and the common welfare of the country, something that is directly contradictory to his previously-stated goals, especially when the "best" alternative would be simply to remain neutral and retain the faith of his most vocal/loyal supporters.
*(DISCLAIMER: the statements expressed in this post do not reflect my personal opinions and are simply an observation about the situation, and as such I cannot debate this any further because I am simply stating what I believe other people to think about Bernie allegedly being a "sellout" and not necessarily what I believe personally)
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on July 12, 2016, 11:19:23 PMI think* the reason why people are calling Bernie a sellout/shill/whatever term you want to describe his support with, is because, despite (as you said) trying to mitigate the effects of a potentially harmful candidate (that goes for both of the nominees), what he's doing essentially amounts to throwing his support behind (and enabling, so to say) someone believed by many to be someone perfectly willing to screw over the American people (for lack of a more apt description) and the common welfare of the country, something that is directly contradictory to his previously-stated goals, especially when the "best" alternative would be simply to remain neutral and retain the faith of his most vocal/loyal supporters.
*(DISCLAIMER: the statements expressed in this post do not reflect my personal opinions and are simply an observation about the situation, and as such I cannot debate this any further because I am simply stating what I believe other people to think about Bernie allegedly being a "sellout" and not necessarily what I believe personally)
I get where those sentiments (and I acknowledge that they aren't necessarily your own) are coming from, but they're still wrong from a political strategy standpoint. If Bernie had remained neutral, he wouldn't have pushed the democratic platform to the left as he has. Do you think Hillary would've put a 15 dollar minimum wage in there had Bernie not been campaigning for it since day 1, and not given up now at the most crucial moment? Same with climate change and marijuana legalization. Would she just randomly decide to throw those things in had Bernie not been pushing for them all throughout his campaign?
why are you all so intent on legalizing marijuana, it's kind of humorous
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 13, 2016, 07:50:46 AMwhy are you all so intent on legalizing marijuana, it's kind of humorous
It feelsz gerd mahn
I know this is kinda steering the convo off topic lmao but I was actually on board with legalizing marijuana until I hung out with a heavy smoker for a wekeend. She talked about it casually and tried to explain why it's not that bad and why she does it so much but I read between the lines and genuinely got scared for her
I mean I'm sure there's more casual users and it's not inherently bad if not abused but from how she described it it sounded like she used to be one of those casual people 6 years ago before it started slowly taking over her life.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 13, 2016, 07:50:46 AMwhy are you all so intent on legalizing marijuana, it's kind of humorous
because you wouldn't know what it's like to feel strongly about a political stance amirite
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 13, 2016, 07:50:46 AMwhy are you all so intent on legalizing marijuana, it's kind of humorous
Because a) it's none of the govt's business what substances I choose to put into my body, b) it's not nearly as dangerous a drug as already legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco (and therefore locking people up for its use is ridiculous), and c) blatant banning of substances creates a black market for them; we see this now in the Latin American drug cartels.
Quote from: Bubbles on July 13, 2016, 08:22:58 AMI know this is kinda steering the convo off topic lmao but I was actually on board with legalizing marijuana until I hung out with a heavy smoker for a wekeend. She talked about it casually and tried to explain why it's not that bad and why she does it so much but I read between the lines and genuinely got scared for her
I mean I'm sure there's more casual users and it's not inherently bad if not abused but from how she described it it sounded like she used to be one of those casual people 6 years ago before it started slowly taking over her life.
There will be people who treat it this way, of course. But the vast majority of people who use marijuana recreationally are just as in control as people who have a glass of wine with dinner.
Quote from: FireArrow on July 13, 2016, 02:26:52 PMbecause you wouldn't know what it's like to feel strongly about a political stance amirite
but marijuana is such a minor, unimportant thing to actually like complain about
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 13, 2016, 04:50:19 PMbut marijuana is such a minor, unimportant thing to actually like complain about
Except for the fact that SO many people are in prison for it and have felony charges over something that should be a nonissue.
If you're a banker on Wall Street who helped cause the recession in 08, no charges whatsoever. If you're a poor teenager in Kentucky who grows pot in his basement, 30 to life.
not to mention we have the highest prison ratio of like any country and um thats not purely violent criminal activity i can tell you that
Yup, seeing as the % of inmates who have a drug related offense as their main charge was 46.3%
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on July 13, 2016, 03:21:36 PMThere will be people who treat it this way, of course. But the vast majority of people who use marijuana recreationally are just as in control as people who have a glass of wine with dinner.
idk she literally said "people call it a gateway drug and I'm not going to lie, it is, I've gone to more serious stuff after smoking (but nothing too scary)". Aside from her and just from my own personal experience I've watched dozens of people pick it up and slowly form habits from it, which in and of itself is fine I guess, but I haven't seen a single one of them take a turn for the better or even stay in the place they were. I know too many people who got in a lot of messed up shit from it so I feel there's got to be
something there that separates it from an evening glass of wine.
If I had to pick a stance I would say don't legalize it, but at least decriminalize it. Stop imprisoning offenders and instead fine them for using or selling, start taking measures to release those already jailed. I just feel like completely legalizing it sends the wrong message that it's not as easily abused or life consuming as it is
the same could be said about alcohol tho tbh
Something being possibly addictive isn't reason to keep it banned, though; we allow cigarettes and alcohol and caffeine, even though they can all become addictive.
I also know people who smoke pot. The majority handle it fine, some don't, as with anything.
Quote from: Bubbles on July 13, 2016, 09:44:07 PMI know too many people who got in a lot of messed up shit from it so I feel there's got to be something there that separates it from an evening glass of wine.
How many people can you think of, off the top of your head, that have had issues with alcohol?
I don't want to get involved in a political discussion on an online forum lol, but I just wanted to chime in and completely agree with Bubbles. I don't necessarily think it should be legalized, but I think it should have punishments for violations significantly reduced. It really doesn't do anything except hurt people to have straight-up criminal punishments for weed. Prisons are for other people.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on July 13, 2016, 10:01:51 PMHow many people can you think of, off the top of your head, that have had issues with alcohol?
I would suggest banning alcohol as well, but the problem with that is that we're at a stage in our society where that would cause a whole lot of uproar (and I doubt that's going to change any time soon, considering the long history of people drinking the stuff :P).
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on July 13, 2016, 10:01:51 PMHow many people can you think of, off the top of your head, that have had issues with alcohol?
A whole lot less than those who have problems with weed.
I'm not saying the problem is the addictiveness necessarily, it's the results that could come from being hooked for a long time, like thinking you're comfortable with your or a friend's high self, prioritizing funds away from something else, etc. You can't compare it to being addicted to caffeine because of the state of mind the users experience--a little caffeine would have a v different effect on a driver than a little marijuana. And I'm not sure alcohol can be considered a gateway substance to anything stronger, at least not to the same extent
My friend smokes all the time while driving and she "only got in one accident!!", another was almost raped when she went smoking with a guy (and she said she almost couldn't stop him bc of how messed up she was), and I watched a very close guy friend pick it up and slowly cut himself off from everyone around him. I know there were other issues going on but I know he at least went to other people for help and seemed to want it too before he started smoking
tldr: I don't know of
anyone who smoked recreationally and didn't have it take some turn for the worse whether or not they were even aware of it. I know lots of people who can drink alcohol and caffeine without losing their sense of self but I haven't seen anything yet to make me believe weed deserves legalization
And banning alcohol?? Did you skip the 1920s in history class or
Quote from: Bubbles on July 14, 2016, 03:18:08 AMAnd banning alcohol?? Did you skip the 1920s in history class or
That was kind of an over-the-top joke because PDS (bonus quote from Altissimo!) previously said stuff like:
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on July 13, 2016, 03:20:44 PMb) it's not nearly as dangerous a drug as already legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco (and therefore locking people up for its use is ridiculous)
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on July 13, 2016, 10:01:51 PMwe allow cigarettes and alcohol and caffeine, even though they can all become addictive.
QuoteHow many people can you think of, off the top of your head, that have had issues with alcohol?
Quote from: Altissimo on July 13, 2016, 09:54:35 PMthe same could be said about alcohol tho tbh
Not to mention that you clearly missed me pointing that out anyway! :P I get your overall point, though: you're trying to say that we should keep as many addictive substances away as possible (though I also believe that our current methods of doing so are sloppy, ineffective, and impractical at best); I was merely pointing out (through attempted humor) that, even though PDS points out that alcohol is probably more dangerous, banning it is a lot more impractical when compared to something like, say, marijuana.
banning alcohol would be really dumb and impractical, anyone who doesn't realize that does need to read up on history. that said though i can dream lol
yes that is what i said
i know im just throwing in my own opinion
people will do what they want, so why bother making things illegal?
If being habit forming and potentially life altering is enough criteria to outlaw pot, then not only should we be banning alcohol and cigarettes, but video games, junk food, and sex as well. Those things, if misused, have been known to be addictive and ruin lives.
Part of living in a free country is giving people the right to fuck up their own lives I guess. Laws should be made to prevent someone from fucking up someone else's life.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 14, 2016, 10:03:24 AMpeople will do what they want, so why bother making things illegal?
I take it we should abolish murder laws, then? lol
Quote from: FireArrow on July 14, 2016, 10:18:50 AMIf being habit forming and potentially life altering is enough criteria to outlaw pot, then not only should we be banning alcohol and cigarettes, but video games, junk food, and sex as well. Those things, if misused, have been known to be addictive and ruin lives.
Part of living in a free country is giving people the right to fuck up their own lives I guess. Laws should be made to prevent someone from fucking up someone else's life.
Basically this. The fact (and medically speaking, it is a fact, regardless of how comfortable people are with it or not) that pot is FAR safer than alcohol is just a convenient point to make when we talk about which substances we should ban (I wouldn't allow crystal meth, tbh).
I'm not going to say weed is totally harmless because it really does make you paranoid. Nearly all the stoners I know believe in some paranoid conspiracy theory and they think their reasoning sounds a lot better than they actually sound -.-
(necessary PSA)
Stoners are not representative of the majority of marijuana users, just as alcoholics are not representative of most drinkers
is there something you'd like to tell us
Fine "marijuana users." It seems to be more of a constant state of paranoia which is why I think they smoke a lot.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/16/cannabis-paranoia-psychoactive-thc-mood
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/06/390143641/pot-can-trigger-psychotic-symptoms-for-some-but-do-the-effects-last
I don't think people should be in jail for it, but it's still a nuisance and actually pretty hard to keep it as a habit to yourself because of how smoke gets everywhere.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 14, 2016, 01:52:54 PMis there something you'd like to tell us
Yes; I'll be submitting a new arrangement hopefully in less than 24 hours! :D
Quote from: Ruto on July 14, 2016, 02:03:08 PMFine "marijuana users."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/16/cannabis-paranoia-psychoactive-thc-mood
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/06/390143641/pot-can-trigger-psychotic-symptoms-for-some-but-do-the-effects-last
I don't think people should be in jail for it, but it's still a nuisance and actually pretty hard to keep it as a habit to yourself because of how smoke gets everywhere.
Then we should treat it the same way as cigarettes, except acknowledge that the side effects that you listed are mostly on individuals with a predisposition to it, whereas cancer don't give a f**k.
I mean, if we're going to outlaw smoking anything, it should be tobacco. That shit's terrible. You smell like shit, you get work breaks iaf you smoke but I've been on for 5 hours and haven't even gotten a chance to eat lunch but nope the guy who's been here for an hour "needs" to smoke so you let him go outside for 15 minutes to destroy his lungs and I'm still toiling away inside in this unbearable heat and I'm very hungry because I didn't eat breakfast that morning and I'm getting very pissy because I get pissy when I'm hungry and I just want my god damn free tacos and I'm noticeably angry and then the guy from before is like "hey you want a cigarette" and so I snap at him saying things like "Sorry, I like not smelling like smoke and also I do more than some of the managers here but I only get paid $8.75/hr so I can't really afford to be spending all my money on self-destruction especially when I like video games as much as I do so maybe you can shove your fucking smokes up your goddamn ass" and I get in trouble with my boss because of that and I've been fucking done with this job since my first day and I've got my first college class starting in a week so I'm just like fuck this and then I quit.
legit
(https://imgur.com/EjCdTOa.jpg)
good luck with classes
Quote from: FireArrow on July 14, 2016, 10:18:50 AMLaws should be made to prevent someone from fucking up someone else's life.
I think this is what I was trying to say? Like of all the things you listed only alcohol has the potential to realistically influence others negatively by the effects it causes, and for that reason laws exist like a driving BAC limit, and breathalyzers to measure how far someone is, and as far as I know there's no measuring tool as timely as that for weed.
Basically we already have a lot of crazy drunks endangering people because it's legal to drink and legalizing weed (even to the same level of restriction as alcohol) would only really add to the number of public accidents.
Quote from: Bubbles on July 15, 2016, 09:34:45 AMBasically we already have a lot of crazy drunks endangering people because it's legal to drink and legalizing weed (even to the same level of restriction as alcohol) would only really add to the number of public accidents.
Except that most people while high don't really want to drive, lol. And there are tons of ways to tell if someone is even the least bit stoned; it smells to high hell, red and dilated eyes, etc.
Even if it is the case that legalizing weed is going to slightly add to the number of public accidents (which I'm skeptical of in the first place), that isn't a reason to keep it illegal. We're throwing people in jail for ridiculously long sentences for smoking when they could be just as fucked up on anything else.
By the logic of "increases public accidents" we should also criminalize cell phones and handheld electronic devices being in cars.
Well, Trump chose his VP/running mate
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on July 15, 2016, 12:37:12 PMBy the logic of "increases public accidents" we should also criminalize cell phones and handheld electronic devices being in cars.
we did
we didn't criminalize them being in cars, only being used
www.isidewith.com
accurate/fun/trustworthy?
It's an interesting quiz. I took it a while back, got like 97% Jill stein, 91% Sanders, etc..
90+% seems pretty impressive
Just took it again.
My results:
Jill Stein 98%
Bernie Sanders 97%
Hillary Clinton 75%
Gary Johnson 63%
Donald Trump 4%
4% Donald trump wow.
I just wasted too much time, so I'll post my results if anyone cares:
Garry Johnson 83%
Jill Stein 83%
Bernie Sanders 79%
Hillary Clinton 74%
Donald Trump 59%
I think I broke the ideology graph because it stuck me nearly in the middle.
sounds like you broke it
85% gary
77% donald
51% bernie
43% jill
39% hillary
I'm really curious how you got equal parts Johnson and Stein.
69% Gary Johnson
68% Donald Trump
66% Bernie Sanders
65% Jill Stein
61% Hillary Clinton
Also, a breakdown of the categories:
Spoiler
-I side with Hillary Clinton on most Science issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - More important to me.
-I side with Donald Trump on most Immigration issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - More important to me.
-I side with Bernie Sanders on most Education issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - More important to me.
-I side with Donald Trump on most Electoral issues in the 2016 Presidential Election.* - More important to me.
-I side with Gary Johnson on most Healthcare issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - Somewhat important to me.
-I side with Jill Stein on most Domestic Policy issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - Somewhat important to me.
-I side with Gary Johnson on most Foreign Policy issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - Somewhat important to me.
-I side with Gary Johnson on most Criminal issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - Somewhat important to me.
-I side with Bernie Sanders on most Environmental issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - Somewhat important to me.
-I side with Donald Trump on most Social issues in the 2016 Presidential Election.** - Somewhat important to me.
-I side with Donald Trump on most Economic issues in the 2016 Presidential Election. - Somewhat important to me.
*(apparently my answer to literally one question was the deciding factor here)
**(a lot of my answers in this category didn't fall into any of the pre-decided ones)
My popular themes:
Spoiler
Populism vs Elitism
100 Populism
You side extremely towards "Populism", meaning you very strongly believe decisions are best made when everyone has a say. This theme is more important to you.
Multiculturalism vs Assimilation
58 Assimilation
You side moderately towards "Assimilation", meaning you believe we should be a unified culture. This theme is somewhat important to you.
Isolationism vs Imperialism
16 Isolationism
You side slightly towards "Isolationism", meaning you more often believe we should focus attention on our most pressing issues at home instead of involving ourselves in non-threatening issues abroad. This theme is somewhat important to you.
Traditional vs Progressive
14 Traditional
You side slightly towards "Traditional", meaning you more often believe we should be a civilized nation that honors traditional morals and values. This theme is somewhat important to you.
Unilateralism vs Multilateralism
60 Multilateralism
You side moderately towards "Multilateralism", meaning you believe policy decisions should be made collectively with support of everyone who may be affected by the outcome of the decision. This theme is somewhat important to you.
Privacy vs Security
36 Privacy
You side moderately towards "Privacy", meaning you believe the government should not undermine the rights and privacy of its citizens under the guise of national security. This theme is somewhat important to you.
Pacifism vs Militarism
10 Pacifism
You side slightly towards "Pacifism", meaning you more often believe we should use non-violent diplomatic discussion to resolve conflicts. This theme is somewhat important to you.
If I could take the best things from Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, I might have a candidate I'd actually be willing to vote for.
Looking forward to comedy from the clown convention this week. Let the completely in-context but astoundingly ludicrous clips commence!
Spoiler
Quote from: latimesBut this year, we've got Natalie Gulbis, better known for her appearance in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue than for being the 484th-ranked female golfer in the world. Now, before you decry sexism, Italian American hunk Antonio Sabàto Jr. will also be speaking, and let us not forget that before he was a daytime television star and reality television contestant, he was an underwear model for Calvin Klein. So equal scores there. Then we've got controversial PayPal co-founder and Gawker lawsuit backer Peter Thiel. We've got Kimberlin Brown, who was a soap opera actress until she retired in 2003 and started an avocado farm. I don't totally get what these people mean to the Republican Party, but we're about to find out.
We've got no fewer than six members of the Trump family speaking, presumably to how awesome their dad/husband/self will be as president: Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Tiffany Trump, Melania Trump and Donald Trump. Oh, and don't forget Lynne Patton, vice president of the Eric Trump Foundation.
The sad thing is, this would be about the norm for politics of today.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on July 28, 2016, 05:24:19 PMThe sad thing is, this would be about the norm for politics of today.
What about this?
Little late on that little quiz thing, but my results were:
92% Darrell Castle
91% Donald Trump
74% Gary Johnson
0% Jill Stein
Is it a bad thing if I hadn't even heard of that Castle guy until this test? Anyway, most people here that have talked to me at all about politics know my support goes to Donald Trump, and the test definitely showed it (Castle's policies are very similar, and 1% is not much of a difference at all). So yeah, this was pretty accurate for me.
visual representation of trump and most of the rest of the GOP
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fesl.culips.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2FTrain-Wreck.jpg&hash=5c905efb81a73134d3a032b98d062308476d9eb7)
The conspiracy theory that Trump is an agent of the Democratic party meant to bring about the total implosion of the Republican party just seems more and more plausible by the day
Trump has policies? They sound more like ramblings of some lunatic, and then these ignorant people are just eating up his word vomit.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on August 07, 2016, 10:01:55 PMThe conspiracy theory that Trump is an agent of the Democratic party meant to bring about the total implosion of the Republican party just seems more and more plausible by the day
Honestly yeah. Especially since he's been friends with the Clintons for a long time and is just now attacking "Crooked Hillary" for a mostly bullshit scandal.
(granted yeah she was suuuuuper careless with private information and shit)
Honestly, I never cared for Trump in the first place. I think he's actually trying to make himself sound like an idiot to make sure Hillary wins. At this point, it's safe to say America's next 4 years aren't going to be so well.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on August 08, 2016, 03:59:29 AMit's safe to say America's next 4 years aren't going to be so well.
Oh, for sure.
For those that hate progress, I suppose. The real danger comes from the maniac cult of bigot extremists that Trump is cultivating. If they aren't stamped out or just fizzle out from their own incompetence, that kind of movement will cause lasting damage to this country. And that's assuming nobody is stupid enough to elect any of them.
The hateful vitriol they sputter is akin to some crazy neo-Nazi propaganda, and has the dangerous potential to set humanity back generations if allowed to fester.
I'm not a fan of Hillary by any means. But she'd make a far better president (and is far more qualified) than Trump would.
She's a business as usual, incremental change politician (and is just as bought and paid for by Wall Street as many Republicans are, and is far more hawkish than I'm comfortable with). But for all her flaws, she hasn't said to kill the families of terrorists, deport 11-13 million illegal immigrants, or ban migrants from entering the U.S. based solely on the religion they happen to hold.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on August 08, 2016, 03:59:29 AMAt this point, it's safe to say America's next 4 years aren't going to be so well.
People say these things all the time. 1000 years if you're this guy.
So Obama did win reelection, so where's the darkness? Just in the imaginations of people scared by everything.
Sure, people say it's the end of the world every time an election comes about. But this is literally the most ridiculous election in decades. George W. Bush, the man who was always seen by the left as foolish and rash during his presidency, actually sounds reasonable and respectable. Honestly, I'd gladly take another Bush term over Trump. In this case, talking about the effects of a Trump presidency aren't actually so far out there. He literally hasn't told anybody how he's going to do anything. He just says sentences with words that can be understood and appeal to the most bigoted people in America.
"We're going to build a wall between us and Mexico and they're going to pay for it."
"Oh hey, I know what walls do. And nobody seems to be able to say Mexican and respectable in the same sentence. And we don't want to spend money on anything but the military. That's a great idea."
Meanwhile, Mexico almost literally tells Trump to f off.
"We have to register and track all the Muslims in America and stop them from coming into the country."
Like... I still can't understand how this made it through somebody's brain and out their mouth. That is the most insane thing I have heard from a politician, and my friend has the Dean Scream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXKn3ZmxEfs) as a text ringtone. We're trying to prevent the radicalization of young people as part of this terrorism thing, right? What does he think is gonna happen when we tell a significant portion of the American population that they are unwelcome and need to be watched? American citizens. People who have lived here their entire lives and are now told that they're not American enough and are a danger to society just because they happen to believe in a slightly different set of events from the most popular religion in America and follow incredibly similar teachings from a different book. There was this thing a while ago that people talk about as one of the most horrific events in human history. It happened because one man decided that there was a religion, or a way of life, that was wrong and needed to be taken care of. I just don't understand it.
If Trump wins, it will be an enormous setback for the country. I don't mean that to be a fear monger and spread false ideas. It would actually be incredibly detrimental to the country. It's frightening.
I personally question how much trump is capable of doing if he gets in office. It's not only democrats that hate him, a good portion of Republicans dislike him and would only vote for him because "Hillary is a criminal" and all that stuff. I don't think any of his ideas are gonna get through our legeslative process even if most of them are republican becuase no one would vote yes on "track muslims" and "build a wall and send the bill to mexico." Even if he somehow pulls it through good luck getting anyone to enforce it.
I think it's interesting how this campaign has virtually completely dissolved into voting against the other candidate and not voting for somebody anymore. At least, that's how it appears from my perspective. Republicans voting Trump to prevent Hillary, Bernie begging his supporters to vote Hillary to prevent Trump...has any other election been this way?
Most elections have "so the other guy doesn't win" to a certain degree; but it's far more pronounced in this election than others in recent history.
This is where I'd normally say, "Just go and vote for someone independant," but the polls show that barely anyone is doing that and people won't do that when they think it's more likely that they can stop Trump by voting for Hillary.
[snip]
Tbh if we could get Gary Johnson or Jill Stein up to 15% in the polls (and thereby get them onto the presidential debate stage), I would love to see both Hillary and Trump get their asses handed to them.
Johnson isn't my cup of tea (especially with his language regarding climate change, but even moreso with his take on Citizens United), and Stein is a little too far left for me (she panders to anti vaxxers and said that wifi hurts developing kids' brains), so I'd probably vote Hillary. Or maybe Stein depending on how this pans out. But, I'd love to see how well either of the two major independent candidates would do.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 08, 2016, 06:16:23 PMStein is a little too far left for me (she panders to anti vaxxers and said that wifi hurts developing kids' brains)
I wouldn't really call that "too far left", that's just pandering to the moron vote
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on August 08, 2016, 06:31:33 PMI wouldn't really call that "too far left", that's just pandering to the moron vote
By hinting at positions that are too far left. The Anti-Vax and Anti-GMO movements alike (the latter of which I don't know Stein's position on, however) are both examples of liberals denying science (much like how many Republicans deny climate change and evolution despite them being scientific fact).
She outright said that she isn't against vaccines, but what you said is exactly the problem; she's pandering to the new age/hippy crowd who believe that alternative medicine is great and natural remedies made from a coconut oil base solves everything.
The wifi remark was also fairly serious as far as I can tell, and someone who's that misinformed (especially for a doctor) isn't getting my vote, unless Hillary Clinton goes even farther neo con than I can handle.
Okay sorry for the double post but what the actual fucking fuck
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1
England and Wales just banned "zombie knives".
What the hell?
Zombie knife? Why would someone need that?
Quote from: BrainyLucario on August 22, 2016, 06:32:13 PMZombie knife? Why would someone need that?
It's any kind of knife with "zombie" inspired design or intent....
With very little actual specification:
(From BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37080682))
"- There is no specific shape or style, but they are very ornate and intended to shock
- In varying lengths and often with a serrated edge, the knives carry logos or words that glamorise and promote violence
- They can cause greater damage due to their size
- They are being sold as collectors' items online and in some shops"
Weird how they say "no specific shape or style", followed by "they cause greater damage due to their size".
Just a senseless weapon ban, that's all.
People getting pissed off over Colin Kaepernick is the most aggraviting thing.
Colin Kaepernick did nothing wrong. He's peacefully protesting something he sees as an injustice and he is well within his right as an American citizen to do so.
One of the great things about America is we're not a totalitarian society where people are forced to stand for a song and a banner.
If you're going to be outraged about an injustice, how about the Pentagon "losing track of" over 6 billion dollars?
How about Hillary Clinton deleting all those emails and hindering a federal investigation and still being eligible for office?
What about Donald Trump's unwillingness to release tax returns?
This is my first presidential election I am eligible to vote for and both choices are shit. Our country is in more debt than ever before. An oil company is attacking native american people to try to steal their land, and you're pissed off about a man protesting injustices because you think it's just super disrespectful to your country's special song? Well, wake up and smell the shit, because America isn't fucking great. Get your head out of your ass and maybe get pissed over something worth being pissed about.
Definitely.
Forced patriotism is for North Korea.
can i sneak up in this topic i usually don't even think about
There's a chance that an opt-out system for organ donation will be implemented in The Netherlands.
So all individuals above the age of 18 will receive a letter asking if they want to be an organ donor. If this individual doesn't respond after some time/multiple letters, he/she will be registered as an organ donor automatically. This can still be changed into an "I don't want to be a donor", of course.
The bill was accepted with 75 voters for and 74 against the proposition.
For some reason I like talking about this subject, because I'm kinda interested in why people are against the idea. Personally, I'm all for it.
Ooh. Wow. Sounds fine to me.. as long as everyone is aware of it. A letter in the mail telling me to hand over a kidney would kinda ruin my day if I wasn't expecting it.
Isn't it referring to posthumous donation?
America has a pretty big issue with organ donor shortages and it's entirely because we have an opt-in versus an opt-out system. Most people are lazy and pick the option that requires the least amount of work.
There's also the option of only giving organ transplants to those who've registered to donate. :3
Quote from: shadowkirby on September 13, 2016, 02:29:14 PMIsn't it referring to posthumous donation?
Yeah I'm pretty sure.
A decent ammount don't do it because they can't specify what race or ethnicity their organs will or wont't go to. It's rather sad.
Quote from: JDMEK5 on September 13, 2016, 11:59:12 AMA letter in the mail telling me to hand over a kidney would kinda ruin my day if I wasn't expecting it.
Not really. You'd be dead.
@Bloop My issue with it is that it makes the default be not participating in a program that's objectively beneficial.
Quote from: Maelstrom on September 13, 2016, 02:44:39 PMA decent ammount don't do it because they can't specify what race or ethnicity their organs will or wont't go to. It's rather sad.
Are people so stuck up that they'd be willing to let people of other races die because they don't want "interracial" organ donations?
Yes, actually. The world sucks.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 13, 2016, 03:11:23 PMNot really. You'd be dead.
@Bloop My issue with it is that it makes the default be not participating in a program that's objectively beneficial.
why would donating a kidney mean he was dead
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 13, 2016, 05:39:02 PMwhy would donating a kidney mean he was dead
B/c we were talking about organ donation after death, were we not?
That IS what posthumous means, so yeah
Oh. If it's posthumous then that's totally cool. It makes no logical sense for me to withhold my body (that isn't doing anything to keep me alive anymore) from someone who may need it to save their own life.
So apparently Hillary Clinton declared war on Pepe today.
.__.
....wut
Oh dang, I heard about this. She says it promotes racism or something along those lines.
like bruh it's literally a poorly-drawn frog
Please tell me this is the Onion or something
He's used in a lot of anti-semetic memes or something idk
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/
Interpret this as you will.
Spoiler
Like PDS, I thought this was satire at first...
This is literally the dumbest fucking thing I've heard from HRC at any point ever.
This entire election is a goddamn joke
Kelsey keeps telling me to vote but I don't see the point tbh
if you don't vote you can say you weren't responsible for anything that happened in the next 4 years
if i liked the new southpark episode would you guys watch it?
yes because I already did
Ouch. Trump's ass is probably pretty sore, and I'm not even a Hillary fan.
(warning: rant with swear words. coming from a non-american because things have truly gone out of hand)
So um, I haven't really been following too closely (read Crippled America though, good comedy) but I do know that Trump is messing up things a bit. And then I read this.
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate
(spoiler: trump does not argue with facts and seems to care more about shooting clinton's character down than the state of the country)
If you're a big-ass politician who has the future of a country in your hands, I think it'd do those clueless voters a little more justice to check up the fucking facts and persuade them with reason and foresight, not bloody dirty tactics. Political assassination, ego politics, frikking card-stacking, and somehow this arrogant fucker was winning votes. I don't even get.
We studied Obama's speeches for our language class, and that's when I first realised US politics, despite what people seemed to always say, were pretty legit. Still didn't care about the implications of those speeches then, but right now I find myself wondering what the heck is going on.
How come we have narcissism and arrogance permeating at the level of frikking presidents and people aren't waking up their ideas? I just don't get it.
One thing's for sure though - if the US economy goes down, jobs are lost everywhere. Our side of the world saw it happen a few years back. And I don't like that idea.
I really don't like the idea of a fucking cartoon character president taking over a country and spreading hate in the wrong places, using policies that don't even work on paper, and subtly conveying the message to the people that you can be the president by bullying others and talking harshly.
Forgive the rant guys (it's a weird place to do it too ahaha), but I really don't know what's going on there anymore. I just know it'll mess up all our lives, and that really sucks.
I actually want to thank you for weighing in. It's always really interesting to see a non-American's take on all this.
@daj
Americans take pride in their history (while conveinently ignoring Native Americans), but a lot of that tradition can be seen as pretty racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Given that the world as a whole is getting a lot more progressive, people who still cherish that good ol' American culture feel like they can't do what they've always known because they'll be called a bigot everytime they try and oppose social progress. Here comes in trump, who walks up on stage and shouts "Fuck all that lets make America great again!" and everyone who before felt like they had to closet their opinions can now stand behind him.
As for whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.
Yeahhhhhh it's at this point that I'm really not looking forward to the election. Both candidates are terrible people, both equally unfit to run, but in their own ways. Ugh.
If I were American (and legally able to vote), I would've given up already. At this point, you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Have fun with that.
Can't wait to vote for Hillary. I feel like I watched a 90-minute SNL skit last night (not even that long, since I had to turn it off eventually. It started being more stressful than amusing at some point. I did go back and read a transcript with annotations from people who fact checked their claims, which proved much easier (and funnier).
Quote from: WaluigiTime64 on September 27, 2016, 04:59:02 AMIf I were American (and legally able to vote), I would've given up already. At this point, you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Have fun with that.
Yeahhhhhh I'm glad I'm not able to vote.
That means I'm allowed to complain about whoever wins this thing! YES!!But seriously, when I register to vote, the party I'm registering with will be Mario
I'mma vote for Pedro, 'cuz he'll make all our wildest dreams come true.
But seriously, I literally turn 18 two days before the election, and I'm most likely gonna be voting. At this point I would wanna vote for Trump's party and its ideals, but not for Trump himself (who'd want a meme to be President?)
I love memes but I hate this election.
vote Shadokirby for actual real life president
Quote from: dajwxp on September 26, 2016, 10:05:11 PM<snip>
Yeah if I lived outside the country I'd be wondering that too lol. Heck, I live here and still wonder that.
Quote from: dajwxp on September 26, 2016, 10:05:11 PMhttp://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate
Spoiler
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FImIIPtM.png&hash=5e90572c36fff1a1b6f24958bca578f5368d6102)
I'm concerned that Britain exited the eu and somehow the world hasn't ended as promised
Britain leaving the EU didn't leave an orange umpa-lumpa in its wake.
I don't know which candidate I'd vote for. And I don't get why people think this election is so bad. But I like Trump, he got a great character, I like how he's very quick in giving responses and very intuitive.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 27, 2016, 01:23:25 AM@daj
Americans take pride in their history (while conveinently ignoring Native Americans), but a lot of that tradition can be seen as pretty racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Given that the world as a whole is getting a lot more progressive, people who still cherish that good ol' American culture feel like they can't do what they've always known because they'll be called a bigot everytime they try and oppose social progress. Here comes in trump, who walks up on stage and shouts "Fuck all that lets make America great again!" and everyone who before felt like they had to closet their opinions can now stand behind him.
As for whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.
Ahh, things make a little more sense now that this has been laid out. Thanks FA ^^
It's just distressing that when you take all the ego politics out of the equation, Trump's policies just don't work. History has proven it, and the facts (for what they're worth) check out. Ahh, what is the world coming to?~
-
edit:
Perhaps I should explain my stance a little, ahaha. I grew up in the transparent-but-still-irky world of Singapore politics. It's a democracy on paper, and in reality it's probably one of the more legit ones out there.
We do character/ego politics too. But not with loud people. People are nice on camera, and insults are reserved for parties that don't really want to win. Our greatest politician said something nasty one year and suddenly his party lost lots of supporters, and his son had to apologise for him.
Politicians regularly walk their areas to connect with the normal folks and listen to their concerns, community centres are breeding grounds for political discussion, and we tend to value hard work and efficiency like very few countries out there.
So when I see politics based on harsh words and policies that don't work it kinda goes against everything I've known, haha.
Yeah, just sharing ^^
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on September 27, 2016, 03:28:17 PMI don't know which candidate I'd vote for. And I don't get why people think this election is so bad. But I like Trump, he got a great character, I like how he's very quick in giving responses and very intuitive.
Because Trump has responded very quickly with things like "we have to take out their families" (talking about terrorists in the Middle East).
Y but he's surprisingly quick. Usually politicians goes like "umm we have to.. etc.", or says something that sounds rehearsed. But he really seems to have an answer ready, and for a lot of questions.
Seems to me to indicate the fact that he doesn't think. Call me a crazy lib.
I see it more like he has the facts in his back head, rather than doesn't think.
Quote from: dajwxp on September 27, 2016, 03:34:46 PMsnip
you're making the mistake in assuming Americans actually care about real solutions and human decency :3
edit:
As a real response, I think it mostly has to do with the whole east = community based cultures, west = individual based cultures. People in Singapore want a solution that's best for everyone, americans want a solution that's best for them (whatever tax plan saves them the most money) and agrees with their immediate values (if I think gay marriage is wrong then it should be illegal.)
Quote from: FireArrow on September 27, 2016, 04:08:38 PMyou're making the mistake in assuming Americans actually care about real solutions and human decency :3
ayyyyyeeeee.
welp such is life.
Quoteedit:
As a real response, I think it mostly has to do with the whole east = community based cultures, west = individual based cultures. People in Singapore want a solution that's best for everyone, americans want a solution that's best for them (whatever tax plan saves them the most money) and agrees with their immediate values (if I think gay marriage is wrong then it should be illegal.)
Mm, pretty much what I've heard too. ^^ You give and take for each I guess, haha~
I guess that means having balls is one of the biggest winning values you can have as a politician over there? Obama sure had balls, ahaha.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 27, 2016, 02:34:55 PMBritain leaving the EU didn't leave an orange umpa-lumpa in its wake.
what
Edit; Daj, don't think that the media or what the 15 year olds say accurately reflects the state of our government/economy.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on September 27, 2016, 03:55:43 PMI see it more like he has the facts in his back head, rather than doesn't think.
Hardly.
Birther movement- lie.
Hillary starting the birther movement- lie.
Us giving 157 billion to Iran- lie (it was their money that we froze and then gave back to them when they signed the nuclear deal).
Trump University- essentially one big lie. He never went to the school and hired known conmen (some of whom had been to prison)
His net worth- a lie. Forbes, a right leaning magazine, put his worth at ~400 million (he claims 10 billion). Even if he has 10 billion, he would have had more if he invested all his inheritance (he'd be worth between 10 and 12 billion).
Being against free trade deals/outsourcing jobs- a lie, as he benefits from outsourcing them. His ties and furniture are made in China and Pakistan, respectively (to name just two).
Hillary wanting to take away everyone's guns via a liberal SCOTUS justice- lie. She already said she wants Merrick Garland (the guy Obama has tried to nominate), who has said NOTHING of the kind.
Just getting started..
Focusing on the real issues is what's important
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtVBWDNUIAA7dpq.jpg)
His ties are made in Thailand
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/economy/donald-trump-trade/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jul/25/funny-or-die/fact-checking-funny-or-die-video-about-trump-brand/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420443/trump-ties-made-in-china-explanation
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-made-in-the-u-s-a-spin/
From CNN:
"Most Donald J. Trump ties are made in China. Some Donald J. Trump suits are also made in China.
Donald J. Trump signature men's dress shirts are made in China, Bangladesh or "imported," meaning they were made abroad."
Die
Land.
BDS wins, everyone go home
I'll go home
to Thailand
Hey Spongebob, you know what's funnier than Thailand?
Switzerland
What's the polar bear's best place to live today?
An Exxon Mobil oil rig.
Okay man you go save the polar bears. You show those evil corporations.
I'm getting tired of all the people saying Donald trump will take away their rights and undo hundreds of years of civil rights progress. Its whiny and overreacting.
Huh. Just like he is.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 28, 2016, 05:41:03 PMI'm getting tired of all the people saying Donald trump will take away their rights and undo hundreds of years of civil rights progress. Its whiny and overreacting.
Yeah, people don't understand that he's probably not gonna do anything he says he's gonna.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 28, 2016, 06:50:54 PMYeah, people don't understand that he's probably not gonna do anything he says he's gonna.
This is the funniest thing that I've ever read.
Also can we talk about the sexism of the debate the other night. Like imagine if Hillary has constantly burst in with "WRONG" over him speaking over and over like a child. She would have been called a bitch. But she had to be respectful and listen to HIS entire awful inaccurate argument before she could make a rebuttal, when he didn't have to do the same (also, her arguments were actually well put together, so there really was no cause for him to do so). I fucking hate casual sexism.
More like Donald trump doesn't care, while she was being respectful and considerate. Two things he may not have heard of. He would be like that regardless of his opponent.
I mean it's kind of unfair to hold a 69 year old orange toddler to the same standard as someone who's been in the field their whole life (for better or worse).
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/6653ad94c030f5ad49cf9ad8e08c2d1b/tumblr_oe99eapxt81r4o2f9o1_540.jpg)
I MADE THIS MEME, BUT FEEL FREE TO STEAL
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 28, 2016, 05:41:03 PMI'm getting tired of all the people saying Donald trump will take away their rights and undo hundreds of years of civil rights progress. Its whiny and overreacting.
Agrees.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 28, 2016, 08:29:17 PMThis is the funniest thing that I've ever read.
Also can we talk about the sexism of the debate the other night. Like imagine if Hillary has constantly burst in with "WRONG" over him speaking over and over like a child. She would have been called a bitch. But she had to be respectful and listen to HIS entire awful inaccurate argument before she could make a rebuttal, when he didn't have to do the same (also, her arguments were actually well put together, so there really was no cause for him to do so). I fucking hate casual sexism.
I also think that it's more because of Trump's attitude, when he shouted "Wrong" to Clinton, not because he's a man. When you think about it, would Bernie Sanders have done it, or Jeb Bush?? And I don't think people would have cared if Clinton interrupted Trump saying "wrong". So I don't think it would've made much difference tbh. Maybe she'd be called some bad words, but they're probably people who already called Trump a number of bad words, for his "wrong", or for other things he has said.
It's nice that you're a troll tobbeh but at least try something more believable than being a trump supporter, you don't even have any ALLCAPS conspiracy/hillary is literally hitler macros
Or maybe I don't want to bash Hillary... Imo she's not that bad. Poor Democrats that don't got Obama, now when he has ruled 8 years so he couldn't be nominated again. I also really don't get what you mean with troll. I didn't write anything to troll anyone.
Trump is a joke, and Clinton can't take a joke (i.e. Pepe). Welcome to Meme Wars: The Election Strikes Back.
Quote from: Bespinben on September 29, 2016, 12:44:10 PMTrump is a joke, and Clinton can't take a joke (i.e. Pepe). Welcome to Meme Wars: The Election Strikes Back.
It's one hell of entertaining movie!
On the plus side we'll be able to tell our kids we survived the 2016 election
Worse than any apocalypse theory!!!
Quote from: Bespinben on September 29, 2016, 12:44:10 PMTrump is a joke, and Clinton can't take a joke (i.e. Pepe). Welcome to Meme Wars: The Election Strikes Back.
What
Ben talks about something controversial?
God this is the worst election we've had
Sometimes even Ben loses his cool
For those of you not following politics, Donald Trump's 1995 tax returns were released, and they prove that he's literally Hitler.
He also lost close to a billion dollars in one year (hence why he didn't pay taxes for the next several years). Not exactly a great businessman.
Granted, the way he used the system is completely legal. It's just that the way the tax code is written is very much for the rich.
I was joking cause everyone thinks hes doing something horribly illegal
I just assumed you weren't serious bc you never are. Really all I did was use you as a springboard.
Welcome to the political forum- AKA the Halls of Triggerdness.
Really though, if you look at the NationStates' forum, its probably about 2,000 times more triggered. Who else is watching the toddler fi- ER I MEAN Presidential Debate Round II?
well, the packers giants game is airing at the same time, so hopefully nobody
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fgravityfalls%2Fimages%2F8%2F83%2FS1e16_baby_fights.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20130406214928&hash=50de9aae7a65c846c0b870840c219f68b166a192)
Quote from: shadowkirby on October 09, 2016, 07:25:08 PM(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fgravityfalls%2Fimages%2F8%2F83%2FS1e16_baby_fights.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20130406214928&hash=50de9aae7a65c846c0b870840c219f68b166a192)
xD What's that from?
Gravity Falls. watch it.
I'd almost be willing to wage that this election will yield the first president to be both impeached and removed from office -_-'
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on October 10, 2016, 02:26:32 PMIf almost be willing to wage that this election will yield the first president to be both impeached and removed from office -_-'
I love how when that guy asked them two qualities they like about each other, Clinton couldn't think of a compliment for Trump, and Trump just BS'd his way out of it.
I don't get why people dislikes the candidates so much? They seem both pretty ok, nothing too bad imo.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 10, 2016, 02:28:42 PMI don't get why people dislikes the candidates so much? They seem both pretty ok, nothing too bad imo.
big lol
LOL
Tobbeh, sometimes you scare the fuck right out of me.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on October 10, 2016, 02:40:21 PMTobbeh, sometimes you scare the fuck right out of me.
This gave me such a big laugh
My personal favorite quote is when Trump said "She just went about twenty-five seconds over her time!" and Martha Raddatz replied "She did not." At this point I was like "is this real?" and after pondering the situation for five seconds decided not to do so anymore.
Y the debate was kind of bad, I agree. But the candidates overall. I don't think they're that bad.
O_o why though?
We've got a woman who put an entire country at risk by privatizing state secrets and not cooperating with investigators, and we've got a man who is a recorded and vehement racist and sexist who's really just in this for the money and power. Both people have a history of lying and changing stances based on circumstances. Both people will probably value themselves over the safety and security of their country. And both are running for the nation's highest office. Do you really not see the problem, Tobbeh?
Y, I agree that both have had some scandals. But I think both are great leaders, and serious politicians care a lot about the people and the society, and want to make the it better. And I think that's really important as being the president.
Quote from: Dudeman on October 10, 2016, 02:50:58 PMWe've got a woman who put an entire country at risk by privatizing state secrets and not cooperating with investigators, and we've got a man who is a recorded and vehement racist and sexist who's really just in this for the money and power. Both people have a history of lying and changing stances based on circumstances. Both people will probably value themselves over the safety and security of their country. And both are running for the nation's highest office. Do you really not see the problem, Tobbeh?
She put us at risk indirectly; Trump straight up told the Russians to hack us over in the US- AND THEY DID!
So, who's the bigger criminal?
When did Trump tell the Russians to hack the US?
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 10, 2016, 03:05:12 PMWhen did Trump tell the Russians to hack the US?
I forget exactly when, but it was a few months ago, after something happened with the Clinton investigation.
Tobbeh, your lack of knowledge in this topic both justifies your ignorance to the problems and puts me a bit more at ease lmao.
Quote from: Magalamoto18 on October 10, 2016, 03:00:46 PMShe put us at risk indirectly; Trump straight up told the Russians to hack us over in the US- AND THEY DID!
So, who's the bigger criminal?
Uh, that was sarcasm? He definitely would not be legitimately asking the Russians to hack us. Last time I checked, sarcasm (even with bad timing) is not criminal. Sending loads of private emails and then destroying the evidence when investigations start? Yeah, that's a crime. So to answer your question, Hillary remains the bigger criminal.
(For the record, here's (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/758335147183788032) the link to the tweet about asking Russia to hack us.)
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 10, 2016, 03:50:40 PMUh, that was sarcasm? He definitely would not be legitimately asking the Russians to hack us. Last time I checked, sarcasm (even with bad timing) is not criminal. Sending loads of private emails and then destroying the evidence when investigations start? Yeah, that's a crime. So to answer your question, Hillary remains the bigger criminal.
(For the record, here's (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/758335147183788032) the link to the tweet about asking Russia to hack us.)
Yeah, I know he was being sarcastic at the time. The reason why I'm not laughing is because they actually went and hacked some American networks and stole information.
Quote from: Magalamoto18 on October 10, 2016, 03:52:53 PMYeah, I know he was being sarcastic at the time. The reason why I'm not laughing is because they actually went and hacked some American networks and stole information.
Did they? Or did Hillary just
say they did? I know Obama officially accused the Russians, but I'm still not certain if that accusation was justified. I guess I'll have to take their word for it for now, but I'm remaining skeptical about the whole thing.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 10, 2016, 02:46:42 PMY the debate was kind of bad, I agree. But the candidates overall. I don't think they're that bad.
Actually, they're both shit, just like your opinion.
yeah, that was a bit dickish, but the point still stands. Neither of them would be good for this country.
Like, Clinton's probably better than Trump (at the very least I'd rather her have the nuclear codes than Trump)
But they're both terrible people and the fact that THOSE are our options is depressing.
This whole election makes me tired :-\
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 10, 2016, 04:02:51 PMDid they? Or did Hillary just say they did? I know Obama officially accused the Russians, but I'm still not certain if that accusation was justified. I guess I'll have to take their word for it for now, but I'm remaining skeptical about the whole thing.
DNC cyber security staff said the hacking started in St Petersburg.
That entire debate was just shit..
The entire election is shit, buddy.
The least shitty for someone like me is Stein and even she has her flaws... I think this is the first time in... Ever that I agree with you
It probably helps that I'm that the point that I'm so done with this shit that I'm not even up to shitposting.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 10, 2016, 03:50:40 PMUh, that was sarcasm? He definitely would not be legitimately asking the Russians to hack us. Last time I checked, sarcasm (even with bad timing) is not criminal. Sending loads of private emails and then destroying the evidence when investigations start? Yeah, that's a crime. So to answer your question, Hillary remains the bigger criminal.
(For the record, here's (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/758335147183788032) the link to the tweet about asking Russia to hack us.)
No one halfway intelligent is legitamently trying to paint him as a criminal for that (trust me there's a lot of other things he did if you wanted to go that route...)
Thing is someone who sarcastically tells forgein countries to hack us (along with is other "temperment" issues, such as threatening imprisonment on his opponent) should
never be president. That's like knowingly hiring someone with anger issues into a customer service job - you just don't.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 10, 2016, 05:52:19 PMThe least shitty for someone like me is Stein and even she has her flaws... I think this is the first time in... Ever that I agree with you
Steins wants to cut military spending by over 50% to promote peace. I'm all for peace and I'm all for cutting our military spending but that seems a bit excessive.
(I tried to answer as many people as I could in here; I got too lazy to try to quote stuff on my iPad. If I missed anything, ask again and I'll answer.)
Man, I must really be in the minority in my belief that yesterday was actually a somewhat decent debate. It was better than the first, at least imo. (I'm used to people disagreeing with what I believe, so go for it.) The fact that Donald was able to rattle a career politician who gives some of the most scripted answers you've ever heard was actually impressive. I mean come on, even that fly didn't phase her when it landed on her face mid-response. Many people have called Trump a bully in the past, and I can't exactly disagree with that. However, the material he used to rock Secretary Clinton last night was pure truth. The fact that she stuttered and asked the moderator to move on from the email questions was a pretty big hint that whatever is hidden in those deleted emails is pretty bad.
It is fair to say that a decent percentage of voters this year consider themselves anti-Trump or anti-Clinton, rather than actually supporting the other candidate. Although I will miss the chance to vote by a few months, I am proud to be a supporter of Donald Trump (as is the great majority of my family). I am not here to attempt to convince you to change your votes; rather, I am more curious to see why those that talk politics on this forum support the candidate that they do. By the same token, I am open to honestly answering any questions about my stances on issues. I leave you with one final thought: The purpose of the presidential election is to allow its citizens to choose who they believe is the best man or woman to lead and represent the United States. Voting is a responsibility, and it is imperative that the citizens of this country take the time to thoroughly research all options and to choose based on reason, not emotion. Whether we choose to Make America Great Again, or contend that America will remain great if we are Together with Her, let us hope that our choice moves the country forward.
Quote from: FireArrow on October 10, 2016, 08:33:07 PM(trust me there's a lot of other things he did if you wanted to go that route...)
I'd like to hear more about this...(not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure exactly what you're referring to).
I'm not anti-Hillary. Very pro-Hillary. :) just filled out my absentee ballot today! Can't wait until that clown that republicans consider a potential leader loses the election.
I'm certaintly not against Hillary. One thing that I like about her is that she seems to be putting in a genuine effort to reach out and understand various marginalized groups, which is frankly quite the accomplishment for an old straight white women. It's just a matter if she intends to actually do anything once in office.
QuoteI'd like to hear more about this...(not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure exactly what you're referring to).
Namely his taxes and potential history of being a sexual predator.
Regarless, my point isn't that he's a criminal; it's that if I wanted to make him out to be one there's other ways of doing so that would be much more fruitful. Unfortunately, I could care less whether the candidates are technically classified as a criminal or not (which neither currently are.) I'll be my own judge of their character and actions.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 10, 2016, 08:45:12 PMI'm not anti-Hillary. Very pro-Hillary. :) just filled out my absentee ballot today! Can't wait until that clown that republicans consider a potential leader loses the election.
I'll try to disregard the second half of that comment.....I guess it's better than the typical racist, sexist, xenophobic, [insert something here]-ophobic comments that I normally hear (which I would be willing to debunk at some point). As I said before, I'm quite curious as to what motivates people to select one candidate or the other. Would you mind if I asked you what particular policies draw you to Secretary Clinton? While I may compare and contrast your views with mine afterwards, I am certainly willing to respect your opinions/reasons, as long as it is not "She's not Trump." To me, that's not a real reason and it demonstrates lack of research on the other candidate. However, your enthusiasm suggests that you are not one of those people, so please, I'm all ears! (Well, this is on a screen, so eyes...whatever. XD)
Quote from: FireArrow on October 10, 2016, 09:01:39 PMNamely his taxes and potential history of being a sexual predator.
Regarless, my point isn't that he's a criminal; it's that if I wanted to make him out to be one there's other ways of doing so that would be much more fruitful. Unfortunately, I could care less whether the candidates are technically classified as a criminal or not (which neither currently are.) I'll be my own judge of their character and actions.
I won't go too much into this because you don't seem to be worried about this topic, but what Donald did with his taxes was perfectly legal. He was able to avoid some tax payment due to the fact that he took a loss of nearly $1 billion dollars in his company. If you wanted to sit down and read the tax code, you could find in there the loophole that allowed him to do this. Is that a messed up situation? Absolutely. The man is not the problem; it's the code. Oops I said I wouldn't go too much into this...sorry.
On a side note, since you are another Clinton supporter, I guess I'll ask a different question. Have any of the email scandals change your opinion of her at all? Did you trust that the decision that was made about the whole thing, or are there still some grey areas in that situation?
Has Donald Trump talking about how he sexually assaults women changed your opinion of him at all?
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 10, 2016, 09:15:41 PMThe man is not the problem; it's the code.
I think if you actively exploit a loophole in a tax code to avoid repercussions, that says quite a bit about your values...
1) anything Hillary Clinton did with emails was legal but stupid. She's stupid.
2) Anything Donald trump did to avoid paying taxes wasn't jumping through loopholes, it's how taxes work.
3) What makes the things Donald trump has said any worse than any of the vulgarities that any of you guys say?
Keep these in mind while debating, can't wait to see where this one ends up (good luck tmp)
There's a difference between me constantly using expletives and Trump discussing how he sexually assaults women. The two aren't even comparable.
It's like saying giggling at a very loud fart and showing someone a video of a person literally eating shit are the same thing because they both involve stuff that comes out the butthole.
I'm not excusing his language as it was vulgar and offensive. I just think the things other people say are equally offensive (Clinton is actually a big potty mouth btw ).
An important part of what I want in a president is morals and cleanliness and neither of the bipartisan candidates are exactly good examples of that
Even the republican investigators looking into the email scandal concluded that there was no evidence of any serious wrongdoing or enough to warrant serious charges.
As for Donald Trump being worse than us: what we (or at least I) partake in might contain profanity, but it's constitutional profanity. Most of our disagreements (speaking directly to Noc about this) have, I believe, stemmed from how seriously I value and advocate the separation of church and state, and the belief that everyone is entitled to freedom FROM religion just as much as freedom OF religion. If I've said something offensive that's not rooted in logic or constitutional freedoms, I'd really appreciate you pointing it out to me so I can apologize. I try to be logical and fair as much as I can. With Trump, however, it's not the "vulgarities" that anger me. It's the remarks and behaviors that are so blatantly racist or xenophobic (see: literally any comments about Muslims, which directly mirror Hitler's comments about Jews), or more commonly--and currently in more of a spotlight because of the tape from 2005 of a 59-year-old Trump talking about sexually forcing himself on women who can't or won't refuse him because of his wealth and power--incredibly sexist. The way he was circling Clinton during the debate and constantly interrupting her shows a man who not only doesn't respect women, but doesn't respect anyone who opposes him. I legitimately believe he's a dangerous and downright horrible candidate. Clinton is not perfect, of course, and anyone who says she is basically doesn't know what they're talking about. But I trust her infinitely more as a capable leader, and don't believe that the email scandal or her husband's extramarital affairs have anything to do with her ability to lead a country effectively.
Worth adding that Trump calling it "locker room talk" is the kind of mentality that produces athletes like Brock Turner.
Also the most important point.
We aren't running for president.
Must be a strange election that I agree with you. From what I've read, Clinton has an on tv personality and an off tv personality. She treats her inferiors absolutely horribly. She at least has a filter for when she's on national TV, something that you can't say about Donald trump. I'm starting to wonder if he might actually have a disability at this point (not being mean or offensive, I could actually see it)
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 11, 2016, 11:04:24 AMMust be a strange election that I agree with you. From what I've read, Clinton has an on tv personality and an off tv personality. She treats her inferiors absolutely horribly. She at least has a filter for when she's on national TV, something that you can't say about Donald trump. I'm starting to wonder if he might actually have a disability at this point (not being mean or offensive, I could actually see it)
There's talk that he might have narcissistic personality disorder. FWIW, my older brother has the same condition and all the symptoms he exhibits (despite being left leaning) are also there in Trump.
With Trump's taxes, yeah, he payed zero in taxes to benefit his business.. But why could he do that? Horrible tax code aside, it's because in a single year he lost nearly a BILLION dollars. Talk about a successful businessman, amirite?
As far as Bill's extramarital affairs, yeah, what he did was bad and Hillary coming out and demonizing Monica was bad. However, it simply isn't the same (nor nearly as recent) as Donald Trump FORCING himself onto women who can do nothing to resist it because of his wealth and power.
@TMP
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 10, 2016, 09:15:41 PMI'll try to disregard the second half of that comment.....I guess it's better than the typical racist, sexist, xenophobic, [insert something here]-ophobic comments that I normally hear (which I would be willing to debunk at some point). As I said before, I'm quite curious as to what motivates people to select one candidate or the other.
You don't have to be a racist, sexist, or xenophobe to support Trump, but you do have to be okay with those things.
QuoteWould you mind if I asked you what particular policies draw you to Secretary Clinton? While I may compare and contrast your views with mine afterwards, I am certainly willing to respect your opinions/reasons, as long as it is not "She's not Trump." To me, that's not a real reason and it demonstrates lack of research on the other candidate. However, your enthusiasm suggests that you are not one of those people, so please, I'm all ears! (Well, this is on a screen, so eyes...whatever. XD)
I know you were asking Slow, but I'll also take some time to respond since he and I are fairly similar on this (though I'm sure we disagree in certain areas).
Policies/other areas that Clinton is objectively better with:
- Climate Change
- Freedom of (from) Religion
- Gun regulations
- Ending the Drug War- neither of them are likely to end it, I think, but HRC will almost certainly do a better job.
- General international relationships; for all her faults, Hillary can at least act presidential, and has a fair amount of experience as Secretary of State.
- Healthcare
- College tuition + debt
- Police Violence
- All social issues
In addition, consider that Trump wants to appoint the equivalent of Antonin Scalia (who literally said that blacks should go to "slower tracked schools"). While I'm not hugely a fan of Merrick Garland, he's a far better pick.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 10, 2016, 08:38:57 PMHowever, the material he used to rock Secretary Clinton last night was pure truth.
Not exactly.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/09/fact-checks-second-presidential-debate/
QuoteThe fact that she stuttered and asked the moderator to move on from the email questions was a pretty big hint that whatever is hidden in those deleted emails is pretty bad.
Possibly. It's also possible that it was because that 25 minutes into the first debate, there were no discussions on policy substance.
QuoteIt is fair to say that a decent percentage of voters this year consider themselves anti-Trump or anti-Clinton, rather than actually supporting the other candidate.
Definitely fair to say, and I'm probably in this category more than I admit.
QuoteAlthough I will miss the chance to vote by a few months, I am proud to be a supporter of Donald Trump (as is the great majority of my family).
So, you're proud to be a supporter of someone who you admitted earlier is probably a bully, and who was caught on tape talking about how he sexually assaults women?
QuoteI am not here to attempt to convince you to change your votes; rather, I am more curious to see why those that talk politics on this forum support the candidate that they do. By the same token, I am open to honestly answering any questions about my stances on issues.
All fair enough.
QuoteI leave you with one final thought: The purpose of the presidential election is to allow its citizens to choose who they believe is the best man or woman to lead and represent the United States. Voting is a responsibility, and it is imperative that the citizens of this country take the time to thoroughly research all options and to choose based on reason, not emotion. Whether we choose to Make America Great Again, or contend that America will remain great if we are Together with Her, let us hope that our choice moves the country forward.
Preferably by not moving it backwards.
Clinton doesn't actually care about current social issues, and trump is actually More liberal than her, just in a different way
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 10, 2016, 08:45:12 PMI'm not anti-Hillary. Very pro-Hillary. :) just filled out my absentee ballot today! Can't wait until that clown that republicans consider a potential leader loses the election.
Don't know why you're so ecstatic about this. Regardless of who wins, we all lose.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 11, 2016, 11:28:44 AMClinton doesn't actually care about current social issues, and trump is actually More liberal than her, just in a different way
I can't say I disagree; I don't think she feels a vested interest in the struggles of some black woman in Timbucktoo.
That said, she isn't going to upset the current trends, and she might throw a bone or two to the LGBT+ community or do something good like mandate body cameras to try and appear more liberal than she is. She certainly wouldn't go against the trend Obama has set up (who is sort of her model for her next presidency at this point).
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on October 11, 2016, 11:40:29 AMDon't know why you're so ecstatic about this. Regardless of who wins, we all lose.
Except for the memes
In all seriousness, equating the bad things of Trump and Clinton is sort of like saying that while in a fight, getting a jab to the gut every once in a while is the same as being uppercutted.
It's also important that the supreme court stays conservative leaning.
Why, exactly?
Because I'm conservative and like the constitution the way it is. Obviously
I don't think anyone has any intention of changing the constitution.
I don't have the knowledge off the top of my head to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet that some very influential/important constitutional amendments wouldn't have been passed by a "more conservative" supreme court. Also I doubt a "more conservative" supreme court would have repealed the 18th amendment (prohibition).
ninja'd, this was aimed at Noc
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 11, 2016, 12:45:05 PMBecause I'm conservative and like the constitution the way it is. Obviously
Aside from the obvious fact that the SCOTUS should remain purely constitutional and not ideological, the constitution doesn't lean conservatively or liberally. It just states how we function. In addition, the majority of the Courts job is not to rewrite or alter the constitution (they cant even do that), it's only to determine if laws and bills are unconstitutional, take appeals, etc.
Congress isn't rewriting the constitution.
If you wanna be technical, the Constitution leans to the federalists and the Bill of Rights to the antifederalists
The supreme court interprets the constitution. Conservative justices will naturally interpret it more literally. That's all I mean.
Why do you feel a more literal interpretation is important? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (though I do think that the correlation you propose is incorrect), but I'm curious as to why the literalist view is the one you seem to prefer. If you want to go completely literal 1776 style, then we should be only counting 3 votes for every 5 black voters.
Quote from: shadowkirby on October 10, 2016, 09:29:02 PMHas Donald Trump talking about how he sexually assaults women changed your opinion of him at all?
No, because he stated in the debate that it was all talk, no action. Some off hand comments don't bother me as much as some of the things that have occurred on the Democrat side in the past 6 months or so. I admit that they were wrong and inappropriate, but no, doesn't change my opinion much at all. And in case you haven't noticed, the women that were bothered by those remarks were voting for Clinton anyway; women for Trump weigh those 11 year old private statements against Hillary Clinton and still believe he is the better option.
Quote from: Dudeman on October 10, 2016, 09:58:14 PMI think if you actively exploit a loophole in a tax code to avoid repercussions, that says quite a bit about your values...
What, you should be punished for losing $1 billion dollars? I don't understand how following the laws within the tax code says anything negative about his values at all...It's a good thing to follow the law, right?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 10, 2016, 10:45:15 PM1) anything Hillary Clinton did with emails was legal but stupid. She's stupid.
I still question the legality of everything there. I mean, it's very possible that she paid some certain people off to get away with what she did. Plus, government workers know they need her in office to keep their unfair benefits coming in. If Trump gets elected, they may have to do some actual work :o.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 11, 2016, 07:17:46 AMEven the republican investigators looking into the email scandal concluded that there was no evidence of any serious wrongdoing or enough to warrant serious charges.
As for Donald Trump being worse than us: what we (or at least I) partake in might contain profanity, but it's constitutional profanity. Most of our disagreements (speaking directly to Noc about this) have, I believe, stemmed from how seriously I value and advocate the separation of church and state, and the belief that everyone is entitled to freedom FROM religion just as much as freedom OF religion. If I've said something offensive that's not rooted in logic or constitutional freedoms, I'd really appreciate you pointing it out to me so I can apologize. I try to be logical and fair as much as I can. With Trump, however, it's not the "vulgarities" that anger me. It's the remarks and behaviors that are so blatantly racist or xenophobic (see: literally any comments about Muslims, which directly mirror Hitler's comments about Jews), or more commonly--and currently in more of a spotlight because of the tape from 2005 of a 59-year-old Trump talking about sexually forcing himself on women who can't or won't refuse him because of his wealth and power--incredibly sexist. The way he was circling Clinton during the debate and constantly interrupting her shows a man who not only doesn't respect women, but doesn't respect anyone who opposes him. I legitimately believe he's a dangerous and downright horrible candidate. Clinton is not perfect, of course, and anyone who says she is basically doesn't know what they're talking about. But I trust her infinitely more as a capable leader, and don't believe that the email scandal or her husband's extramarital affairs have anything to do with her ability to lead a country effectively.
There they are. Knew the typical anti-Trump words had to come up eventually. I'll come back to racist in a second because I want to talk about xenophobic first. The definition of xenophobia is an
irrational or intense dislike or fear of foreigners. Now you tell me; is it irrational to be afraid of a terrorist group that is decapitating innocent people and bombing cities on a daily basis? I wouldn't care if the group was African-American, Asian, Arab, Mexican, Hispanic, etc. If a group of people is mass murdering other people, it isn't wrong for me to fear them. The problem is that people believe that Trump hates/fears all Muslims because of what happens in the Middle East; this is simply not true. The same could be said about his beliefs about Mexicans. I can be afraid of the drug dealers and rapists that illegally cross the border and steal welfare checks from us without hating everyday Mexican-Americans who are simply trying to better their lives in this country. However, anti-Trump protesters portray him as anti-Mexican, just because he is against the ones who blatantly break the law. If you feel you have a comment or quote that contradicts this, by all means do share. (Actually, racist kind of fits in here, so I don't really need to say it again.)
As for the sexist remark, I covered my basic opinion on the matter earlier when answering shadowkirby; if you want me to go deeper into disproving Trump's sexism in general, just say the word.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 11, 2016, 10:59:32 AMAlso the most important point.
We aren't running for president.
(Looks like I'll be quoting you a lot.) I'm lost, who was implying that we were?
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 11, 2016, 11:22:57 AM@TMP
You don't have to be a racist, sexist, or xenophobe to support Trump, but you do have to be okay with those things.
No, you don't. As I've mentioned above, I don't believe that Trump is any of those things. From my standpoint, you can be completely against all three of those things and support Trump (and everyone should be against those things).
I know you were asking Slow, but I'll also take some time to respond since he and I are fairly similar on this (though I'm sure we disagree in certain areas).
Policies/other areas that Clinton is objectively better with:
- Climate Change
- Freedom of (from) Religion
- Gun regulations
- Ending the Drug War- neither of them are likely to end it, I think, but HRC will almost certainly do a better job.
- General international relationships; for all her faults, Hillary can at least act presidential, and has a fair amount of experience as Secretary of State.
- Healthcare
- College tuition + debt
- Police Violence
- All social issues
In addition, consider that Trump wants to appoint the equivalent of Antonin Scalia (who literally said that blacks should go to "slower tracked schools"). While I'm not hugely a fan of Merrick Garland, he's a far better pick.
For climate change, I understand that it is important that we don't intentionally worsen the conditions (that would just be stupid), but at the same time we don't need to be spending billions of dollars on it like we do.
Ah, for religion I assume you're referencing the Roe v. Wade stuff. That one we'll have to disagree on, as I am pro-life (and Catholic, for that matter). No sense arguing that one because we won't get anywhere.
Well...I'm completely for the Second Amendment. My family has never owned a gun, but I don't see why any law abiding citizen should be deterred from having one if they so choose. Gun control doesn't stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
Hmm...I haven't considered the drug war that much (other than obviously we need to stop it). To echo my climate change belief, we shouldn't waste a lot of government money on it.
Hmm, let's see...Secretary of State experience...Benghazi, Iran...good times. In all seriousness, my belief is that no political experience is better than 4 poor ones. Besides, its not like Trump has never negotiated with foreign countries before. I'll agree 100% that Hillary can act presidential...key word ACT. She is not very presidential behind the scenes...Noc mentioned her potty-mouth before.
Seems like I'm repeating myself here...I do not believe that government should be in complete control of healthcare. I am all for the idea of privatizing it and removing the invisible borders between states. I just believe it will be better for us economically.
Now for the Supreme Court Justice. Of course, you pick out one bad instance in this guy's career and apply it to his entire career. That is not what Trump was implying; he just wants to nominate a good, conservative judge that will interpret the Constitution like he or she should.
Not exactly.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/09/fact-checks-second-presidential-debate/
I guess I'll give you that. Still says he was half true on the topic I was referring to (emails).
Possibly. It's also possible that it was because that 25 minutes into the first debate, there were no discussions on policy substance.
Fair enough.
So, you're proud to be a supporter of someone who you admitted earlier is probably a bully, and who was caught on tape talking about how he sexually assaults women?
Probably a bully? That's not how I remember saying it...If that's what you got out of it, what I meant was that I more or less understood where people were coming from with that argument. Still didn't necessarily agree, but I get it.
Preferably by not moving it backwards.
Just depends on who you believe will move it forward. Or perhaps combining the modern system with a few ideas from about 25 years ago wouldn't be such a bad idea. We'll see what happens.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 11, 2016, 05:10:32 PMThe supreme court interprets the constitution. Conservative justices will naturally interpret it more literally. That's all I mean.
Literal Supreme Court Justices. That's something we need.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 11, 2016, 05:17:22 PMWhy do you feel a more literal interpretation is important? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (though I do think that the correlation you propose is incorrect), but I'm curious as to why the literalist view is the one you seem to prefer. If you want to go completely literal 1776 style, then we should be only counting 3 votes for every 5 black voters.
Ahem, I believe you mean 1787. Anyway, that's kind of extrapolating there. Noc is definitely not implying that we interpret the Constitution exactly how it was written almost two and a half centuries ago. However, when an amendment says citizens have "the right to bear arms," that should be taken as it is written. There's no argument like "That was at a time of war" or "Well handguns are ok but these ones aren't." That's the kind of thing that should be taken literally. And if you take it literally, you will notice that the Three Fifths Compromise is no longer applicable. So it doesn't matter.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 11, 2016, 05:40:27 PMNo, because he stated in the debate that it was all talk, no action.
And he was talking about how he had acted in the past..
QuoteSome off hand comments don't bother me as much as some of the things that have occurred on the Democrat side in the past 6 months or so.
That's not the argument. The question is solely whether or not what he said was bad, not whether what any democrat did was worse (which, if you're referring to the "basket of deplorables" comment, could be interpreted as an off hand comment far easier than what Trump said can be).
QuoteI admit that they were wrong and inappropriate,
Good! Then we agree.
Quotebut no, doesn't change my opinion much at all.
...Oh. So these statements don't matter enough to you to change your mind?
QuoteAnd in case you haven't noticed, the women that were bothered by those remarks were voting for Clinton anyway; women for Trump weigh those 11 year old private statements against Hillary Clinton and still believe he is the better option.
Citation needed, as you can't speak for EVERY woman who supported Trump. I personally know at least 2 who formerly did support Trump and are now sitting out the election after those comments. No doubt that the statements aren't going to shake up his entire base but a) there are many on the fence voters for whom it could be a deal breaker and b) the discussion is, again, the MORALITY of such statements.
QuoteWhat, you should be punished for losing $1 billion dollars? I don't understand how following the laws within the tax code says anything negative about his values at all...It's a good thing to follow the law, right?
Not exactly. The fact that he turned a horrible business decision which resulted in a billion dollar loss into an excuse to not pay taxes for the next 10 years is my issue with him.
QuoteI still question the legality of everything there. I mean, it's very possible that she paid some certain people off to get away with what she did.
And you don't think that after 9 separate investigations, many of them Republican lead, that wouldn't have been uncovered?
QuotePlus, government workers know they need her in office to keep their unfair benefits coming in. If Trump gets elected, they may have to do some actual work :o.
Lmao. Stereotyping all government workers right before you complain about being stereotyped.
QuoteThere they are. Knew the typical anti-Trump words had to come up eventually.
Mostly because they're fairly accurate, at least of Trump if not his supporters.
QuoteThe definition of xenophobia is an irrational or intense dislike or fear of foreigners. Now you tell me; is it irrational to be afraid of a terrorist group that is decapitating innocent people and bombing cities on a daily basis?
Well, just to be devil's advocate, you could then justify people in Iran saying "Death to America" on the grounds of how much carpet bombing and drone operations we do completely extra-judicially (to say nothing of invading a sovereign nation that didn't attack us and killing minimum 200,000 civilians).
And I'm sorry to bring out the "b-word", but that statement is just bigoted. You're equating all Muslims with ISIS. The statement Trump made was as follows:
"Donald Trump is calling for a complete shutdown of
all Muslims entering this country until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on"
You can argue the validity of that statement, but you can't deny that he's talking about all Muslims. To equate this irrational statement with something he says about ISIS is a bigoted statement, because you're immediately inferring that when he talks about all Muslims, he's talking about ISIS.
QuoteI wouldn't care if the group was African-American, Asian, Arab, Mexican, Hispanic, etc. If a group of people is mass murdering other people, it isn't wrong for me to fear them.
Do you fear the US Military then? We've certainly had our share of mass murder.
QuoteThe problem is that people believe that Trump hates/fears all Muslims because of what happens in the Middle East; this is simply not true.
If he didn't, he wouldn't say that every Muslim coming into this country (who, by the way, are vetted quite thoroughly) needed to be kept out. We know what the hell is going on; while 1 American death from ISIS is too many, it still isn't nearly the public health crisis that ideological terrorism is (see Planned Parenthood shooting and the like).
QuoteThe same could be said about his beliefs about Mexicans.
No, it can't, because they aren't NEARLY the threat that he makes them out to be.
QuoteI can be afraid of the drug dealers and rapists that illegally cross the border and steal welfare checks from us without hating everyday Mexican-Americans who are simply trying to better their lives in this country.
Jesus fuck the stereotyping.
We already have a policy that deports illegal immigrants who commit crimes (which isn't what Trump proposed- he wants to deport ALL 12 million illegals), this idea that people can commit crimes and not get sent back if they're undocumented is purely bullshit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/02/trumps-fuzzy-math-on-undocumented-immigrants-convicted-of-crimes/
According to the most accurate data currently possessed, it's around 850,000 or so undocumented immigrants who are criminals. 7.1% of all 12 million (far less if you think there's more than that). In addition, if you want to talk about the cartels, our drug war is largely to blame for how much they import into the US.
QuoteHowever, anti-Trump protesters portray him as anti-Mexican, just because he is against the ones who blatantly break the law. If you feel you have a comment or quote that contradicts this, by all means do share. (Actually, racist kind of fits in here, so I don't really need to say it again.)
How about "when Mexico sends its people, they aren't sending their best. They're bringing drugs, they're criminals, they're rapists"?
QuoteAs for the sexist remark, I covered my basic opinion on the matter earlier when answering shadowkirby
And you did anything but "disprove" his sexism; if anything you just said that yeah, it was probably inappropriate but it doesn't bother you enough because "democrats are worse"
Quoteif you want me to go deeper into disproving Trump's sexism in general, just say the word.
Please do.
(Looks like I'll be quoting you a lot.) I'm lost, who was implying that we were?
QuoteAhem, I believe you mean 1787.
I was referring to the birth of America's independence (pre war) in 1776, but yeah, it's probably more accurate to give the actual date of writing the Constitution, so fair enough.
QuoteNoc is definitely not implying that we interpret the Constitution exactly how it was written almost two and a half centuries ago. However, when an amendment says citizens have "the right to bear arms," that should be taken as it is written. There's no argument like "That was at a time of war" or "Well handguns are ok but these ones aren't."
Except there's such a thing as nuance. Firstly, considering the context in which the amendments were written is extremely important; the founders were not all knowing gods. Secondly, no constitutional right is absolute; Free Speech is a right, but not for libel, slander, or direct threats of violence; protection from self incrimination is a right, but police can still force you to take a breathalyzer test. The list goes on.
QuoteThat's the kind of thing that should be taken literally. And if you take it literally, you will notice that the Three Fifths Compromise is no longer applicable. So it doesn't matter.
Actually, had we been taking it literally this whole time, many of those "interpretations" that allowed for equal protections for blacks wouldn't be a thing, to say nothing of the 13th amendment.
Wait, when did TMP show up? :o
He came back to make a few pretty bad points.
@ TMP: Basically what PDS said, but I'd like to add: do you not realize that suggesting some Mexicans who cross the border are rapists and drug dealers that's literally racial profiling which is inherently racist and bad
Also, yes I used the "classic Trump insults" for the same reason everyone else does: they're literally proven to be true
Not necessarily completely literally, but whenever a point of ambiguity comes up, err towards knowing that the fou ding fathers were a heck of a lot smarter than any of us
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 11, 2016, 07:48:08 PMNot necessarily completely literally, but whenever a point of ambiguity comes up, err towards knowing that the fou ding fathers were a heck of a lot smarter than any of us
They were also smarter than us in a time where it was okay to hold slaves (as many did).
To me, the founding fathers were the intellectual supertitans of their era; many of them were college educated (which less than 1% of the population was back then) and they were all ridiculously intelligent, but it doesn't mean they can't be wrong. Instead of putting these men on pedestals like gods, I treat them like philosophers who wrote the fabric(s) of our nation.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 11, 2016, 07:28:43 PMAlso, yes I used the "classic Trump insults" for the same reason everyone else does: they're literally proven to be true
Yes this so much
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on October 11, 2016, 06:29:50 PMWait, when did TMP show up? :o
Politics happened. Ok, on to the big stuff.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 11, 2016, 06:21:56 PMAnd he was talking about how he had acted in the past..
Really, it was kind of childish on Donald's part. Why he talked that way, I'll honestly never know. The thing is, if he had actually done something of that nature, we would hear multiple reports from victims (as there were when Clinton had his "fun" in the Oval Office). As of now, almost nothing has been brought up against him. (No, I did not forget the case about the 13-year-old. You can mention that all you want, but I wouldn't be shocked if that case doesn't go anywhere. If I find out later that I was wrong, yeah, that would change my stance on Trump's morals. But I honestly don't believe that the case will find him guilty at all.)
That's not the argument. The question is solely whether or not what he said was bad, not whether what any democrat did was worse (which, if you're referring to the "basket of deplorables" comment, could be interpreted as an off hand comment far easier than what Trump said can be).
Actually, that's not what I was referring to. The whole point I was making was that Trump may have said some things that were out of line, but the Democrat party has actually DONE some pretty scandalous things. The Podesta email leak and the DNC email leak definitely display the duality of Hillary Clinton and the rigged primaries that poor Bernie was destined to lose...I could also go into the things that Hillary did in the past (including those in relation to Bill) but I figured that I would stay in the very recent past for now.
Good! Then we agree.
...Oh. So these statements don't matter enough to you to change your mind?
At no point did I disagree with the fact that the words themselves were...shall I say deplorable? I know it's hard for me to talk from the perspective of a woman because obviously I am not one, but based on what I've heard from female pro-Trump supporters, it didn't matter to them because he was just talking with the guys. If he had directly insulted a woman that way (basically a worse insult than the Miss Universe incident), then it would have been a different story. Again, I can't comment as accurately because I can't really relate. Let me try to put it this way: If a tape was released showing Hillary talking with some ladies and saying equally vulgar things about men, it wouldn't bother me that much. It would not make me any more anti-Hillary than I already am. How would such a situation make you feel if it were to happen? (Bill has said she curses like a sailor; don't try to say it isn't believable.)
Citation needed, as you can't speak for EVERY woman who supported Trump. I personally know at least 2 who formerly did support Trump and are now sitting out the election after those comments. No doubt that the statements aren't going to shake up his entire base but a) there are many on the fence voters for whom it could be a deal breaker and b) the discussion is, again, the MORALITY of such statements.
Kinda went into this topic in the last answer. I have conceded that I can't speak for all women. On a side note, I would advise you to attempt to convince those two women to vote. I mean, it's like the biggest responsibility we have as American citizens. If you're going to go into morality; however, that makes this a different ballgame. We've discussed a couple moral issues before, and I know our morals are polar opposites in some instances. To me, being pro-life is probably one of my strongest beliefs. My morals would never allow me to vote for someone as strongly pro-choice as Secretary Clinton.
Not exactly. The fact that he turned a horrible business decision which resulted in a billion dollar loss into an excuse to not pay taxes for the next 10 years is my issue with him.
Now words like "exploit" and "excuse" give a negative connotation, as if he did something wrong or illegal. He didn't. Everything he did was completely within the law. If you're truly disgusted that he was able to do that, maybe the law should be fixed so that people can't do that anymore.
And you don't think that after 9 separate investigations, many of them Republican lead, that wouldn't have been uncovered?
"Hmm, what do I want, expose Hillary Clinton, or get millions of dollars?" Ok in all seriousness that didn't happen, and I guess the investigations have been "conclusive." I'll stop pushing this one, but it doesn't mean that I agree.
Lmao. Stereotyping all government workers right before you complain about being stereotyped.
Yeah, that stereotype was a bad idea. I'm starting to sound like my dad...Stuff like this makes me sound even less intelligent; you're right to laugh...
Mostly because they're fairly accurate, at least of Trump if not his supporters.
You claim they are accurate, but I still do not believe that they are. I'll try to clarify more specifically down below where it makes more sense to do so.
Well, just to be devil's advocate, you could then justify people in Iran saying "Death to America" on the grounds of how much carpet bombing and drone operations we do completely extra-judicially (to say nothing of invading a sovereign nation that didn't attack us and killing minimum 200,000 civilians).
And I'm sorry to bring out the "b-word", but that statement is just bigoted. You're equating all Muslims with ISIS. The statement Trump made was as follows:
"Donald Trump is calling for a complete shutdown of all Muslims entering this country until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on"
You can argue the validity of that statement, but you can't deny that he's talking about all Muslims. To equate this irrational statement with something he says about ISIS is a bigoted statement, because you're immediately inferring that when he talks about all Muslims, he's talking about ISIS.
Ok, devil's advocate, you got me on that. But from there on I disagree. I was not using that statement in relation to any term Donald used to describe them. I was describing my personal fear of ISIS. Moving on to the complete shutdown of Muslim immigration. If he had said that with no actual reason, it would be racist or religion-ist or whatever you want to call it. However, ISIS is a major threat, and let's face it: we wouldn't be able to tell if a terrorist was among the immigrants. So basically, the Muslim ban is not meant to be an act of hate towards Muslims; rather, it is an act of protection for our country from the few bad ones that would try to sneak in. Once we figure out some way to differentiate (or we take out ISIS for good), we lift the ban.
Do you fear the US Military then? We've certainly had our share of mass murder.
Come on, man....is that even remotely a fair argument? I thought I didn't need to clarify this but i guess I do...UNJUSTIFIED mass killing.
If he didn't, he wouldn't say that every Muslim coming into this country (who, by the way, are vetted quite thoroughly) needed to be kept out. We know what the hell is going on; while 1 American death from ISIS is too many, it still isn't nearly the public health crisis that ideological terrorism is (see Planned Parenthood shooting and the like).
Yes, he would. For reasons mentioned above.
No, it can't, because they aren't NEARLY the threat that he makes them out to be.
No, they are not the same threat in terms of criminal activity as ISIS is. I'll agree to that. The threat is more the fact that people illegally cross our border and then apply for welfare. They may eventually take a job as well. In the end, the threat is to the American economy and workers. Trump does exaggerate the crime rate, but by no means can the issue of illegal immigration be ignored.
Jesus fuck the stereotyping.
We already have a policy that deports illegal immigrants who commit crimes (which isn't what Trump proposed- he wants to deport ALL 12 million illegals), this idea that people can commit crimes and not get sent back if they're undocumented is purely bullshit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/02/trumps-fuzzy-math-on-undocumented-immigrants-convicted-of-crimes/
According to the most accurate data currently possessed, it's around 850,000 or so undocumented immigrants who are criminals. 7.1% of all 12 million (far less if you think there's more than that). In addition, if you want to talk about the cartels, our drug war is largely to blame for how much they import into the US.
How about "when Mexico sends its people, they aren't sending their best. They're bringing drugs, they're criminals, they're rapists"?
Stories like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/29/donald-trump/trump-says-1800-people-who-were-going-be-deported-/) are the ones that scare me. I know this was an isolated incident, but there are unreported incidents of illegal immigrants that commit crimes and don't get sent back. I don't have a number right now, but give me a day and I'll find you some statistics. Also, Trump has eased back on the "send them all back" thing. Now he's really only guaranteeing that those who commit crimes as illegal immigrants will be deported. Which honestly, I could live with some illegal immigrants living here that don't engage in criminal activity. I still think its wrong, but once the wall goes up the illegal crossing will certainly be reduced.
And you did anything but "disprove" his sexism; if anything you just said that yeah, it was probably inappropriate but it doesn't bother you enough because "democrats are worse"
I think I covered this stuff earlier on, but my brain is getting kinda foggy because it's late. If I notice tomorrow that I left this out, I'll add it.
Except there's such a thing as nuance. Firstly, considering the context in which the amendments were written is extremely important; the founders were not all knowing gods. Secondly, no constitutional right is absolute; Free Speech is a right, but not for libel, slander, or direct threats of violence; protection from self incrimination is a right, but police can still force you to take a breathalyzer test. The list goes on.
Well then, owning a firearm for hunting or protection is a right, but if you use it to commit a murder then it is a crime. Is that example any different? (I know this wasn't originally a Second Amendment thing, but I kinda turned it into one.)
Actually, had we been taking it literally this whole time, many of those "interpretations" that allowed for equal protections for blacks wouldn't be a thing, to say nothing of the 13th amendment.
Well, I can't say that's wrong. I guess for me it more or less depends on the issue. I feel strongly about the Second Amendment, for example.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 11, 2016, 07:28:43 PMHe came back to make a few pretty bad points.
@ TMP: Basically what PDS said, but I'd like to add: do you not realize that suggesting some Mexicans who cross the border are rapists and drug dealers that's literally racial profiling which is inherently racist and bad
Also, yes I used the "classic Trump insults" for the same reason everyone else does: they're literally proven to be true
Dang man, maybe I shouldn't have come back....
Anyway, it would be racial profiling if I said ALL Mexicans were rapists and drug dealers. But that's not what I said. Firstly, I limited it to illegal immigrants into the US, which is quite small compared to the entire population of Mexicans. Secondly, I said it was only a portion of the illegal immigrants. Mind you, I'm not saying they are rapists/drug dealers because they are Mexican. I'm basing my arguments off of actual statistics. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/10/rape-deniers-9-facts-about-illegal-alien-crime-the-media-covers-up/) As for the insults, the only one you might have even a little proof for is the sexism one, because he has said a couple questionable things about women. The "proof" of the other ones is purely based off of improper interpretations of Donald Trump quotes. Or perhaps large doses of CNN.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 11, 2016, 08:03:16 PMThey were also smarter than us in a time where it was okay to hold slaves (as many did).
To me, the founding fathers were the intellectual supertitans of their era; many of them were college educated (which less than 1% of the population was back then) and they were all ridiculously intelligent, but it doesn't mean they can't be wrong. Instead of putting these men on pedestals like gods, I treat them like philosophers who wrote the fabric(s) of our nation.
Serious question: What does slavery have to do with their intelligence?
Anyway, there are a couple things that maybe aren't applicable to modern society, but like I said earlier, it depends on the issue.
We need to stop writing so much; it's literally taking me like an hour to type all of this stuff. ;D
We can talk over Skype sometime soon :)
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 11, 2016, 08:50:43 PMWe can talk over Skype sometime soon :)
please do, my scroll wheel is wearing out
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 11, 2016, 08:50:43 PMWe can talk over Skype sometime soon :)
Sounds good!
Quote from: Dudeman on October 11, 2016, 09:09:59 PMplease do, my scroll wheel is wearing out
I'm on my phone reading this; definitely sprained my right thumb ;D.
Quote from: Dudeman on October 11, 2016, 09:09:59 PMplease do, my scroll wheel is wearing out
yeah this maybe spoiler tag the last two pages
PDS, I personally guarantee you that any one of the founding fathers was much more intelligent than you or me and had a much more massive working understanding of how politics ought to be. They may not be gods but they certainly deserve our greatest respect.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 11, 2016, 05:40:27 PMThere they are. Knew the typical anti-Trump words had to come up eventually. I'll come back to racist in a second because I want to talk about xenophobic first. The definition of xenophobia is an irrational or intense dislike or fear of foreigners. Now you tell me; is it irrational to be afraid of a terrorist group that is decapitating innocent people and bombing cities on a daily basis? I wouldn't care if the group was African-American, Asian, Arab, Mexican, Hispanic, etc. If a group of people is mass murdering other people, it isn't wrong for me to fear them. The problem is that people believe that Trump hates/fears all Muslims because of what happens in the Middle East; this is simply not true. The same could be said about his beliefs about Mexicans. I can be afraid of the drug dealers and rapists that illegally cross the border and steal welfare checks from us without hating everyday Mexican-Americans who are simply trying to better their lives in this country. However, anti-Trump protesters portray him as anti-Mexican, just because he is against the ones who blatantly break the law. If you feel you have a comment or quote that contradicts this, by all means do share. (Actually, racist kind of fits in here, so I don't really need to say it again.)
As for the sexist remark, I covered my basic opinion on the matter earlier when answering shadowkirby; if you want me to go deeper into disproving Trump's sexism in general, just say the word.
I don't really wanna partake in this too much, but I need to call you out on this.
Being afraid of Isis isn't racist. Holding uninvolved muslims (or even vitcims) more responsible for it then random white Americans
is racist, and
that's exactle what Trump is doing. If you have another explanation for his suggestion of tracking muslim-americans than be my guest.
Being afraid of rapists and drug-dealers isn't bad. Associating that with mexicans is (hint: iirc white americans, despite their lower conviction rates, do not have a lower crime rate than mexicans.)
Quote from: FireArrow on October 11, 2016, 11:35:18 PMI don't really wanna partake in this too much, but I need to call you out on this.
Being afraid of Isis isn't racist. Holding uninvolved muslims (or even vitcims) more responsible for it then random white Americans is racist, and that's exactle what Trump is doing. If you have another explanation for his suggestion of tracking muslim-americans than be my guest.
Being afraid of rapists and drug-dealers isn't bad. Associating that with mexicans is (hint: iirc white americans, despite their lower conviction rates, do not have a lower crime rate than mexicans.)
If you read above, I gave my explanation for why temporarily holding innocent Muslims. He isn't holding them because he thinks they are responsible, he's holding them because the people who are responsible could sneak in among the innocent and cause some major problems. Same with the Mexicans. He does not state that all illegal immigrants are bad. He is simply acknowledging the fact that there have been some bad people among those who cross illegally. It is not a racial issue.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 12, 2016, 10:55:45 AMIf you read above, I gave my explanation for why temporarily holding innocent Muslims. He isn't holding them because he thinks they are responsible, he's holding them because the people who are responsible could sneak in among the innocent and cause some major problems. Same with the Mexicans. He does not state that all illegal immigrants are bad. He is simply acknowledging the fact that there have been some bad people among those who cross illegally. It is not a racial issue.
It's exactly a racial issue. Just because ISIS happens to be made up of Muslims, Trump is suggesting this punishment for ALL Muslims. Can you imagine if Christians were given the same treatment? Or white people? No, you can't. Because that kind of discrimination doesn't happen to those groups.
There are rapists and drug dealers who cross the border? There are rapists and drug dealers in every town in the United States. It's racism. Try not to be so ignorant, I'm not sure what part you're not really getting.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 12, 2016, 11:01:54 AMCan you imagine if Christians were given the same treatment? No, you can't. Because that kind of discrimination doesn't happen to those groups.
it did
But it doesn't. There's no cause for Christians to try playing the victim card. They make up a massive percentage of the population (70%) and when separation of church and state fails in America it's almost always in favor of Christianity. What you're talking about isn't relevant to this discussion.
it doesn't happen in america, at least
lol this
http://www.theonion.com/interactive/state-by-state-election-guide
^I laughed pretty hard at that when I saw it earlier. The Onion can be pretty funny.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 12, 2016, 10:55:45 AMIf you read above, I gave my explanation for why temporarily holding innocent Muslims. He isn't holding them because he thinks they are responsible, he's holding them because the people who are responsible could sneak in among the innocent and cause some major problems. Same with the Mexicans. He does not state that all illegal immigrants are bad. He is simply acknowledging the fact that there have been some bad people among those who cross illegally. It is not a racial issue.
Let me clarify where trump and now you are being racist: A Muslim or Mexican coming into America isn't any more likely to be a criminal than anyone else, even those born american.
At least you don't verbalize it in cruel ways, but please try not to create that equivalence in the first place. It's like saying all christins are bigots because of the Westboro Baptist church and therefore the government needs to take extra steps specifically targeting Christian to prevent hate crime.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 12, 2016, 11:01:54 AMIt's exactly a racial issue. Just because ISIS happens to be made up of Muslims, Trump is suggesting this punishment for ALL Muslims. Can you imagine if Christians were given the same treatment? Or white people? No, you can't. Because that kind of discrimination doesn't happen to those groups.
There are rapists and drug dealers who cross the border? There are rapists and drug dealers in every town in the United States. It's racism. Try not to be so ignorant, I'm not sure what part you're not really getting.
Well viewing it as a punishment doesn't help. The Syrian refugees want to come here to escape what's going on in the Middle East, right? If we let them in right now, ISIS could very easily plant terrorists into the group of refugees. So in essence the problem they are trying to escape from would just follow them here. NOTE: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT MUSLIMS IN GENERAL HAVE A HIGHER CHANCE OF BEING TERRORISTS. I AM SAYING THAT ISIS WILL USE THE SYRIAN REFUGEES AS A MEANS TO TRANSPORT THEIR SOLDIERS INTO THE US. This is not even just a suspicion, ISIS has threatened to do this. It's not made up. So again, I contend that it is not racism. And to answer your question about Christians, I would say this. Let's say that there was a group of radical Catholic terrorists scaring the world. I would probably leave the faith if that were going on because I don't want to be associated with that group. I'm not calling Muslims to change their faith, but it would be nice if maybe they realized we are anti-terrorism, not anti-Muslim.
Fair enough, but I still never said that Mexicans are more inclined to be criminals. The thing that makes me mad is the illegals that do commit crimes don't always get deported back. I mean, if you're undocumented and you get caught breaking the law, you should be sent back 100% of the time. NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THAT TRUMP WANTS TO BUILD A WALL TO KEEP OUT THE MEXICANS BECAUSE THEY ARE RAPISTS AND DRUG DEALERS. THE PURPOSE OF THE WALL IS TO DECREASE THE OCCURENCES OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REGARDLESS OF INTENTION. Illegal immigration is
illegal. Why don't we start treating it that way?
Quote from: FireArrow on October 12, 2016, 01:04:39 PMLet me clarify where trump and now you are being racist: A Muslim or Mexican coming into America isn't any more likely to be a criminal than anyone else, even those born american.
At least you don't verbalize it in cruel ways, but please try not to create that equivalence in the first place. It's like saying all christins are bigots because of the Westboro Baptist church and therefore the government needs to take extra steps specifically targeting Christian to prevent hate crime.
I think I covered this enough while answering Slow, but I did not mean to imply that crimes are more prevalent due to their race. If I did, I apologize.
Problem with building a wall is that foot traffic over the border is mostly comprised of people leaving the us
Trump has it all wrong, though. We do need a wall, but on the OTHER side! We don't need any other Justin Biebers sneaking across >:/
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on October 12, 2016, 04:56:15 PMWe do need a wall, but on the OTHER side!
...um, a wall is a wall, sir.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on October 12, 2016, 04:56:15 PMTrump has it all wrong, though. We do need a wall, but on the OTHER side! We don't need any other Justin Biebers sneaking across >:/
Lol y! We can build a wall that let's everybody in, EXCEPT for Justin Beiver! God I hate him and his music so much!! It's plain awful! >:(
Kids these days...
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 12, 2016, 04:50:04 PMProblem with building a wall is that foot traffic over the border is mostly comprised of people leaving the us
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on October 12, 2016, 04:56:15 PMTrump has it all wrong, though. We do need a wall, but on the OTHER side! We don't need any other Justin Biebers sneaking across >:/
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 12, 2016, 05:02:25 PMLol y! We can build a wall that let's everybody in, EXCEPT for Justin Beiver! God I hate him and his music so much!! It's plain awful! >:(
Amen to that! XD His stuff doesn't really qualify as music in my book. He had maybe one song that I thought was halfway mediocre, but the rest were just trash.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on October 12, 2016, 04:56:15 PMTrump has it all wrong, though. We do need a wall, but on the OTHER side! We don't need any other Justin Biebers sneaking across >:/
Expect retaliation.
We are preparing our moose army.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on October 12, 2016, 04:58:38 PM...um, a wall is a wall, sir.
Other side/border of America :P
Quote from: InsigTurtle on October 12, 2016, 07:30:03 PMExpect retaliation.
We are preparing our moose army.
Hmmmm... Maybe that'll be a reasonable excuse to leave the US and travel abroad...
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 12, 2016, 01:51:39 PMsnip
What you're saying is not the same thing as what Trump is saying.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 11, 2016, 08:46:29 PM. I'm basing my arguments off of actual statistics. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/10/rape-deniers-9-facts-about-illegal-alien-crime-the-media-covers-up/)
DID YOU JUST CITE BREITBART???
Lmao and you expect to be taken seriously...come back when you can read a real newspaper.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on October 12, 2016, 07:26:07 PMAmen to that! XD His stuff doesn't really qualify as music in my book. He had maybe one song that I thought was halfway mediocre, but the rest were just trash.
Totally agrees with you! :)
btw about the election. I just realized what I think makes this election really bad. Not the candidates, but the people. There seem to have been a great dislike for the other candidate from both sides, but now when I watch it seem to be more like hate. Which is sad I think. Because I think the election should more be focused on the ideas and politics you want to shape the society with, and not bashing the other candidate about how bad he/she is. And I've also heard that there are a lot of people who say they're voting for x candidate because of being "anti-Trump/Hilary" rather than "Pro-Trump/Hilary". Which I think is kind of sad, as they're voting more because of dislike for the other candidate, rather than voting because they like they're candidate.
I'm actually super interested in what foreigners think of our current election, because all they really see is the media
I swear the Politics thread has the longest pages on the forum
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 13, 2016, 07:13:11 AMI'm actually super interested in what foreigners think of our current election, because all they really see is the media
Some people I talked with here in Sweden seem to think that the election is terrible. Saying things like "poor USA, having to chose between 2 awful candidates", and about the second debate that "Both candidates acted little kids bashing each other".
We rely on just as much media(and social media) coverage for info as you do, locally we have independent and p unbiased news outlets(bc there's really no reason to for bias). i think the elections are just not so much in our faces as i think they are for you.
it's not that the media draws the image to the people like you might think based on your wording, but rather that it informs people well enough to draw them to draw their own conclusions.
Omg just found this stuff. This stuff is pure gold! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Waddle Bro on October 13, 2016, 02:13:01 PMWe rely on just as much media(and social media) coverage for info as you do, locally we have independent and p unbiased news outlets(bc there's really no reason to for bias). i think the elections are just not so much in our faces as i think they are for you.
it's not that the media draws the image to the people like you might think based on your wording, but rather that it informs people well enough to draw them to draw their own conclusions.
the media here doesn't really inform, it twists facts to manipulate people's emotions
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 13, 2016, 07:49:52 PMthe media here doesn't really inform, it twists facts to manipulate people's emotions
This is also true, you get vastly different accounts of events from different news sources
The media is making this whole thing out to be like some kind of reality show.
Will a fly land on Clinton's face? Will Trump invade her personal space? Find out next time on Prime Time Debates!
Back when Australia had Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, it was a show about "What dumb thing is Mr Abbott going to do next?", featuring him EATING A RAW ONION.
I usually spout off nonsense and hope nobody calls me out on it
That does explain a fair amount
are you calling me out?
I only look forward to the bad lip reading of the debates now.
Everything else sucks.
Quote from: Dude on October 14, 2016, 02:07:54 PMI only look forward to the bad lip reading of the debates now.
Everything else sucks.
There is so much truth to this^^
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2016/10/personal-political
lol it was clearly written by someone with not much experience with mormons as well
What issue do you take from that article. It's portraying Mormons as a group that actually stand up for what they believe in rather than going "Even though Trump is the epitome of what my religon is against, gotta vote for him cuz conservative."
I don't have any issue with the article
🙄I'm ready for all these political advertisements to be gone. It's getting old.
It's going to be pretty intense up until the last moment.
it's going to go to house of representatives this year
Ooh! Something we haven't seen since Adams was elected!
I learned some things about Clinton and now I'm really uncomfortable with either candidate in office. Going third party shoot me...
Which were those, exactly? I'm curious which one it was that triggered the more negative view.
I have absolutely 0 problems with her platform other than the fact that it involves spending way too much money
but...
IMO probably the best way to cut all that spending and still retain a sound country would be to reform military spending. I understand that having a strong military is a good thing to keep peace imminent, but things like the completely unnecessary wars literally everywhere in Asia and projects that take trillions but never do anything important.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 04, 2016, 09:58:57 PMIMO probably the best way to cut all that spending and still retain a sound country would be to reform military spending. I understand that having a strong military is a good thing to keep peace imminent, but things like the completely unnecessary wars literally everywhere in Asia and projects that take trillions but never do anything important.
I agree with you so much here. It just sucks that anyone who says that will get torn apart during the race by fear mongering and the like saying, "this candidate doesn't believe you should be safe." It sucks, because this is the best place to get funding, and could easily balance the budget, and start on that debt.
That's the biggest spending argument I hear and let's be honest, most of the money is constantly being spent on roadways and bridges. Military spending can't realistically be "cut drastically", many people's livelihood depends on it. Meanwhile we're still using tar and crap for roadways, which lasts for about a year and gets destroyed in the winter
Discretionary spending allocated to the military is going to roadways and bridges? I guess that explains why our infrastructure gets a D- from the American Civil Society of Engineers...
I'd be all for reallocating funds from the military to things like infrastructure, bailing out some student loan debt, NASA, etc..
We'd probably get a B+ if it wasn't for Pennsylvania.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 05, 2016, 12:43:44 AMWe'd probably get a B+ if it wasn't for Pennsylvania.
I take offence
And don't know what you're talking about
*Patiently waits for those people to realize that the election won't significantly change the outcomes of minorities' lives*
Trump puts new people in supreme court and they overturn the ruling on marriage equaility. Gay people once again have to travel to certain states to get married.
If trump pulls through on his deportation promise,a lot of Mexican families are gonna be split apart.
If trump can get the governmentto go through with his plans for Muslims that's gonna suck pretty hard for them.
Repealing Obama care would leave a lot of poor people without healthcare. This impacts racial minorities more than whites as due to inequality they are disproportionately poor. Hell, any economic policies that furthers economic status quo harms minorities.
Trump has no plans on making anti-discrimination laws for gay people federal. Then again, I don't think clinton does either.
This is not an argument why clinton is better than trump, they both suck. I'm just clarifying that trump could negatively impact civil rights and that it's a legit concern.
I think that, at the very least, Hillary Clinton should go to juvie
A lot of ifs in that argument. Neither of the candidates will do a whole lot for or even care about minorities, but the thought that Donald trump can undo civil progress is absurd. Discrimination from any factors is already illegal, and the prez can't say "all ye shall not be racist" and have it realistically happen. Either way, if trump wins the election his despicable personality will be put in check. If Clinton wins, minus the supreme court, her progressivism should also be put in check
Quote from: FireArrow on November 07, 2016, 10:35:08 AMTrump puts new people in supreme court and they overturn the ruling on marriage equaility. Gay people once again have to travel to certain states to get married.
I don't think they'd go as far as to overturn that ruling, but that's just what I think.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 07, 2016, 11:18:14 AMIf Clinton wins, minus the supreme court, her progressivism should also be put in check
What progressivism lmao
The sad thing is no one knows what Trump thinks.
Probably not even himself.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 07, 2016, 12:04:07 PMI don't think they'd go as far as to overturn that ruling, but that's just what I think.
Trump says he fully intends to appoint people who would go that far. A vote for trump is a vote against marriage equality, assuming his words mean anything.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 07, 2016, 11:18:14 AMA lot of ifs in that argument. Neither of the candidates will do a whole lot for or even care about minorities, but the thought that Donald trump can undo civil progress is absurd. Discrimination from any factors is already illegal, and the prez can't say "all ye shall not be racist" and have it realistically happen. Either way, if trump wins the election his despicable personality will be put in check. If Clinton wins, minus the supreme court, her progressivism should also be put in check
1. Discrimination against gays is certaintly legal. There are states where it's legal to fire someone or deny service for no other reason than "they're gay."
2. The damage trump can do to civil rights is exaggerated by his opponents, but he can and will damage it if congress lets him. He did say he was willing to use exectutive order to undo everything obama did - hopefully none of that involves civil rights.
3. Clinton claims to want to help minorities, althought she obviously has no idea on how to do so. I agree there.
4.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 07, 2016, 02:25:40 PMWhat progressivism lmao
We're fucked either way
So make today a good day
I'm referring to the progressivism she's pushing to try to win the socialists
Maybe your state laws are different because every time I've gotten a job one of the legal forms I've filled out involves equal opportunity employment and that's always included sex and sexuality
I've never seen sexual orientation listed on things that employers can't base their decision of hiring you or not in Ohio.
That's pretty much the main reason I'm not 'out' in public.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 07, 2016, 04:35:21 PMI'm referring to the progressivism she's pushing to try to win the socialists
Maybe your state laws are different because every time I've gotten a job one of the legal forms I've filled out involves equal opportunity employment and that's always included sex and sexuality
2015 map:
Spoiler
(https://images.newrepublic.com/e1df0e661f1d01f4f66e181c7dc59d4b3a370909.png?w=1000&q=65&dpi=1.25&h=788)
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 07, 2016, 04:35:21 PMI'm referring to the progressivism she's pushing to try to win the socialists
The progressivism she'll ditch on day one in favor of neo liberalism?
QuoteMaybe your state laws are different because every time I've gotten a job one of the legal forms I've filled out involves equal opportunity employment and that's always included sex and sexuality
As FireArrow posted, most states don't require this.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on November 07, 2016, 11:11:33 AMI think that, at the very least, Hillary Clinton should go to juvie
this was a joke and also it was funny
Can you explain it to me I'm a bit slow
No pun intended I swear
It's a nonsense comment like instead of prison I'm saying she should at least be put in juvenile detention and I'll settle for that if she can't be put in prison
Oh, ok then
*Polite laugh*
I'm not voting this year, which is probably a good thing, cause I didn't get a chance to read up on any candidates other than mia love, who I was definitely not going to ever ever vote for
Congrats to whoever wins.
I'm going to bed because I don't want to agonize over it for the next few hours.
If you believe Nostradamus, he seems to say Trump will win
Quote from: Dude on November 08, 2016, 03:06:00 PMCongrats to whoever wins.
I'm going to bed because I don't want to agonize over it for the next few hours.
I wish I could, but I can't make myself.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on November 08, 2016, 03:34:19 PMIf you believe Nostradamus, he seems to say Trump will win
You do realized political analysts are going for self-fulfilling prophecies than actual predictions, right?
Quote from: Maelstrom on November 08, 2016, 03:46:02 PMI wish I could, but I can't make myself.
You do realized political analysts are going for self-fulfilling prophecies than actual predictions, right?
you uh, know who nostradamus is right
No. I take it I'm a little uninformed in my statement.
I'll give you hint: he lived and died in the 1500s.
oh
Which means the prediction is complete and utter garbage and just people twisting generalizations to interpret it whichever way they want
Edit: inb4 "but he predicted 9/11. And ww2!" no he didn't
*Prays that California, the entire northwest, and the rest of the east flip blue but trump gets another 100 votes*
The Canadian Immigration page just crashed
Quote from: Maelstrom on November 08, 2016, 08:08:26 PMThe Canadian Immigration page just crashed
That says a lot about this election.
Welp if what I know about politics is true trump has won even if Utah flips independent
Yeah. Clinton not only needs to take Michigan back but Wisconson and Arizona as well. Not happening.
Fuck it I give up
Y'know, I didn't think Wisconsin was going to be a critical swing state in this election...
Boy, was I wrooooooooooooooooooooong fuck
wooooohoooooooo I wanna fuckin' die
how
just how
Pokemon comes out November 18th the world isn't over yettttt~
and lol PA just went red
Quote from: FireArrow on November 08, 2016, 09:17:44 PMPokemon comes out November 18th the world isn't over yettttt~
I needed this. Hope restored.
ahahahaha we're all fucked
the camp is in an uproar~
Quote from: Dudeman on November 08, 2016, 09:12:34 PMwooooohoooooooo I wanna fuckin' die
how
just how
I mean if you didn't vote for Hillary you can't really act like you did everything you could to prevent a Trump presidency haha
Not that it really matters, I've honestly just regressed into weak laughter and am not quite sure where the situation will go from here
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m394mfxSjO1qji7h5o5_r1_500.png&hash=b5d5612ad18240ed86f990cba205358309e0e026)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35209091/Photo%20Oct%2029%2C%203%2059%2035%20PM.png) "The world of darkness is going to be wonderful, President."
ggwp.
Welp. A bunch of friends and i are going drinking tonight, and we're not even on that side of the world.
Google is saying Trump needs 6, Clinton 55. It's hilarious how quickly all the headlines changed.
and the stock markets are falling who would have thought
That's it folks, we officially have a victor.
The next President of the United States will be Donald J. Trump.
I would make a statement about it, but I'm still too in shock to say anything.
Welp.
This is now one of the reasons why I'm ashamed of the human species.
Normally in instances like these, I would just laugh at America. In this particular situation, Australia will probably be affected too, so I can't say anything nasty. What a disappointment.
So.
Can't wait to start purging Facebook friends.
I watched my friends rethink their lives tonight. Not in a hyperbolic way. Literally. This overwhelmingly conservative election is terrifying. And it's not just four years or eight years. The checks and balances we're supposed to have are being dissolved in across-the-board majorities. How can people look at this outcome and all its implications and know that it's the best option? I'm tired. I can't understand.
If you look carefully, public opinion is becoming more progressive even though a lot of traditionally blue states flipped red this year. I'm taking this to mean that conservativism is becoming closer to liberalism, which is technically a good thing.
Also one of my coworkers was suppressing tears because he's from Bosnia, but I'm pretty sure everyone will be fine
Well, that's not all. Trump did win, but we ALSO have Republican majority in both houses of Congress
Congress was already majority red from the last election and our president is still liberal
Yeah, I know. Are you referring to Obama or Trump? <<Concerning liberality
Trump
I'm moving in with Insig
I hate this
I'm pretty sure I've said this once here, but just in case,
This is what happens when you rig the fucking primaries and prop up a candidate that few people actually like.
Quote from: Latios212 on November 09, 2016, 04:27:21 AMI'm moving in with Insig
Could you drop by & pick me up?
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on November 09, 2016, 07:38:22 AMCould you drop by & pick me up?
I'm closest to Insig, I get first priority. TAKE ME WITH YOU
Quote from: Dudeman on November 09, 2016, 08:07:41 AMI'm closest to Insig, I get first priority. TAKE ME WITH YOU
How's that work? You can drive up there more quickly (and you can legally drive)!
I'm gonna take a minute to laugh at the ensuing chaos. But in seriousness, I think you guys will realize in a few years that the world has not flipped upside down like you seem to think it has.
Amen.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 10:03:26 AMI'm gonna take a minute to laugh at the ensuing chaos. But in seriousness, I think you guys will realize in a few years that the world has not flipped upside down like you seem to think it has.
Hopefully trump fucks us up just enough for ya'll to realize that voting an idiot into office is not the solution to dissatisfaction with the government without going too far.
and that sentence is terrible deal with it
Fun fact:
We now have a:
Democrat President
Democrat Congress
Democrat House
Quote from: FireArrow on November 09, 2016, 10:25:43 AMHopefully trump fucks us up just enough for ya'll to realize that voting an idiot into office is not the solution to dissatisfaction with the government without going too far.
and that sentence is terrible deal with it
I don't think an idiot could win the election against the political experience and manipulation of Hillary Clinton. I'd say he's smarter than you give him credit for. Disregarding the idiot part, are you saying that the solution to dissatisfaction with the government is to vote for somebody who will keep enforcing the same policies? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Based on that, voting for change should be the
only way to express dissatisfaction.
hey if some of you ever considered moving to the netherlands and help us combat our own little, anti-Semitic version of Trump (http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I0000e4LHzF_PpQE/fit=1000x750/Wilders-Pen.jpg), now would be the time
Voting for change in the opposite direction (relative to what most progressives want) isn't the right solution either.
I know you're a Trump fan, so I'm sure you're joyful (and no harm in that, your candidate won, I get it).
The good news for progressives is that we can use this as an opportunity to administer a swift death to neoliberalism (IE why Hillary Clinton, and to some extent Obama, are such weak candidates).
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 11:32:56 AMI'd say he's smarter than you give him credit for.
Not so much. A certain population is dumber than I give them credit for.
He thinks running an economy is the same as running a buisness. Do you have a better word?
Quote from: WaluigiTime64 on November 09, 2016, 11:57:43 AMNot so much. A certain population is dumber than I give them credit for.
I think we can all agree, at least, that trump's campaign manager was the star of this election. I'm pretty sure nobody even knows her name really though
Yeah, she was a genius.
Quote from: Maelstrom on November 09, 2016, 11:02:30 AMFun fact:
We now have a:
Democrat President
Democrat Congress
Democrat House
no, congress is conservative right now
@Maelstrom We had the situation you described during the first two years of Obama's first term (hence why we could actually pass progressive legislation like Obamacare).
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 09, 2016, 12:07:01 PMI think we can all agree, at least, that trump's campaign manager was the star of this election. I'm pretty sure nobody even knows her name really though
Kellyanne Conway, I think? She definitely helped a lot.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 11:32:56 AMI don't think an idiot could win the election against the political experience and manipulation of Hillary Clinton. I'd say he's smarter than you give him credit for. Disregarding the idiot part, are you saying that the solution to dissatisfaction with the government is to vote for somebody who will keep enforcing the same policies? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Based on that, voting for change should be the only way to express dissatisfaction.
The sad thing is it was that everyone hated her more than they hated Trump. I mean I hate them both and am not super surprised by the outcome, although I'm disappointed.
The next step is to either get him out of office or pray that he dies.
Quote from: Dude on November 09, 2016, 12:56:03 PMThe sad thing is it was that everyone hated her more than they hated Trump. I mean I hate them both and am not super surprised by the outcome, although I'm disappointed.
The next step is to either get him out of office or pray that he dies.
Can't you at least give him a year or 2 before you jump straight to impeachment talk? Oh, and even if he dies, you're left with Mike Pence. It's downright morbid that you would pray for somebody to die, and you don't have any grounds for impeachment right now. The country voiced what it wanted. It's how democracy works.
People seem all crazy about the election. My facebook feed is literally full of people like "What the hell has happened to the world" or "don't know if I want to live on planet Earth anymore", or something in those lines. Personally I don't let it bother me too much. Maybe that is because we, in Sweden, had a national-conservative party, called the Sweden democrats (SD) getting passed the 4% barrier in like 8 years or so and has grown to a big party now, having like 18% of the votes. So I have experienced the chaos that was during those times. But now it all seem a bit cooler, but maybe that's just me. Because SD had all these big lines and strong opinions about immigration, law and criminality and Swedish traditions and culture. But now they've been there in like 8 years, and nothing really has happened imo, mostly it seems like some parties have taken inspiration from they're key issues and focused more on immigration for example, but having their own take on it. So the party seems kind of empty and very pretentious imo.
So I think in a way that people make it to what it is. If people make it all panicy, it will be panicy, if people take it easy and are reasonable, it will be calmer. Obviously that is way more easier that done, some people even get anxious for pretty minor issues.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 01:16:55 PMThe country voiced what it wanted. It's how democracy works.
well if i recall correctly, the reason trump won was because of the electoral college, not the actual popular vote
There were more individual votes for Clillary, but because of a stupid voting system, Trump won.
You guys need the preferential voting system.
Quote from: Bloop on November 09, 2016, 01:22:30 PMwell if i recall correctly, the reason trump won was because of the electoral college, not the actual popular vote
There were more individual votes for Clillary, but because of a stupid voting system, Trump won.
Well, that is true. But, if he has to play the broken system, so be it. I agree that the system is a bad one, but regardless he won fairly according to it.
Quote from: Bloop on November 09, 2016, 01:22:30 PMwell if i recall correctly, the reason trump won was because of the electoral college, not the actual popular vote
There were more individual votes for Clillary, but because of a stupid voting system, Trump won.
this isn't the case
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 01:16:55 PMCan't you at least give him a year or 2 before you jump straight to impeachment talk? Oh, and even if he dies, you're left with Mike Pence. It's downright morbid that you would pray for somebody to die, and you don't have any grounds for impeachment right now. The country voiced what it wanted. It's how democracy works.
$10 says you'd be saying what I said if Hillary won.
Quote from: Dude on November 09, 2016, 01:31:56 PM$10 says you'd be saying what I said if Hillary won.
maybe not the dying part, but he'd definitely be calling impeachment
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 01:30:29 PMWell, that is true. But, if he has to play the broken system, so be it. I agree that the system is a bad one, but regardless he won fairly according to it.
It still means you can't really conclude it's "what the people wants". Same goes if Clinton won, though; you're still dealing with almost half of American citizens who don't like their outcome.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 09, 2016, 01:31:04 PMthis isn't the case
It isn't?
Quote from: Bloop on November 09, 2016, 01:36:56 PMIt still means you can't really conclude it's "what the people wants". Same goes if Clinton won, though; you're still dealing with almost half of American citizens who don't like their outcome.
It isn't?
trump was ahead in the popular vote the whole time, I think the extra votes came from minnesota or something. Michigan and New Hampshire weren't counted either, I think.
The electoral college system isn't broken, it's the side effect of having 50 mini-states within a big state. For example, it was obvious Clinton would win NY and CA by a wide margin because they're just so left that they'll always vote blue, they don't care. What happens is that this margin is wide enough that the value of your vote decreases as long as you're surrounded by people who vote the same way as you.
It's better when each state has their votes counted as a whole because each state is their own government, having all the people vote individually is negative because it could influence the outcomes of other states in a way that state wouldn't want to.
Maybe, but having all the votes go to one person simply because they got 1% more of the vote is stupid.
There's no way around that.
trump won because enough people hated clinton, not much you can do about it
But we're talking about the president of the whole country, and not each individual state, right? I think it'd be much more sensible if the people were able to vote for the president directly, without going through a state-medium.
Electoral colleges served a purpose when we didn't have the technology to count individual votes across the nation. Its probably outdated but trump still won fairly.
I'm just really disapointed that people decided Trump was a good way to be anti-establishment. Thats like having Justin Bieber perform your appendectomy because you think surgeons are corrupt.
Quote from: Bloop on November 09, 2016, 01:57:22 PMBut we're talking about the president of the whole country, and not each individual state, right? I think it'd be much more sensible if the people were able to vote for the president directly, without going through a state-medium.
^ This makes a lot of sense. I mean, Australia has a similar system, except there are only 7 states, not 50-whatever it was.
Praise my knowledge of America
...um, 50.
Yeah, I've never cared about American geography.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 09, 2016, 01:31:04 PMthis isn't the case
You are aware that Clinton won the popular vote, right?
It's not that enough people hated Clinton to vote for Trump, it's that enough people
who also happened to be in key states hated Clinton enough to vote for Trump.
Also,
Quote from: Maelstrom on November 09, 2016, 01:53:08 PMMaybe, but having all the votes go to one person simply because they got 1% more of the vote is stupid.
There's no way around that.
this argument applies to the popular vote as well. Bloop, the 50 states are meant to be largely independent of each other with federal government there to regulate the states. Kind of like the EU.
If I were to advocate a new system, I would still keep the electoral college. However, the winner take all system is what is broken. It means that Democrat votes in Texas and Republican votes in California and New York are almost pointless. Personally I would divide up the electoral votes by congressional districts. I feel it would be a better way to determine how different parts of each state voted, and that it gives a more accurate picture of the country's opinions. I definitely would not be in favor of a direct popular election though. If you did that, candidates could simply gather support at large population centers and ignore decent portions of the country. The current system is broken, but a direct election would be broken in a different way. I think a congressional district system would be a sort of compromise between the two. Obviously, a candidate shouldn't win 100% of the state's electoral vote if they win the state 50.1 to 49.9; wouldn't it be a similar problem if it was possible to win the entire country by just as slim of a margin?
Quote from: FireArrow on November 09, 2016, 02:08:47 PMI'm just really disapointed that people decided Trump was a good way to be anti-establishment. Thats like having Justin Bieber perform your appendectomy because you think surgeons are corrupt.
Well...what other anti-establishment options did we have? I guess if you were on the Democrat side, you had Bernie Sanders, and Trump probably would have lost to him. In all honesty, Bernie and Trump had a common theme, and that was their anti-establishment message. I was actually a fan of Ben Carson early in the Republican primaries because he was also separated from the establishment. After he went down, I realized that people like Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush were just typical establishment candidates. No matter what they said, there is no way they would be able to swing the African American and Latino votes enough to win against either of the Democrats. Trump stood out to me (mainly because of more air time), and I began to agree with his message as I paid more attention to the stances of all the candidates. I actually got the chance to see him live when he stopped in Akron (Ohio), and I was able to compare his actual speech to the media coverage afterwards. It was astounding how much the words of his speech had been skewed and misinterpreted. Also, if his comments towards African Americans and Latinos were apparently "racist," how did he manage to demolish Romney's results in those two demographics? They obviously didn't believe the comments were as harmful as the media portrayed them to be.
As much as I hate Donald, Mike Pence is about fifty times worse. So if Donald dies, I hope Pence does too. Not that I do hope Donald dies.
Quote from: WaluigiTime64 on November 09, 2016, 02:20:45 PMYeah, I've never cared about American geography.
This was really refreshing to me
People say Trump would put civil rights back 100 years. Pence actually would.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 04:05:18 PMWell...what other anti-establishment options did we have? I guess if you were on the Democrat side, you had Bernie Sanders, and Trump probably would have lost to him. In all honesty, Bernie and Trump had a common theme, and that was their anti-establishment message. I was actually a fan of Ben Carson early in the Republican primaries because he was also separated from the establishment. After he went down, I realized that people like Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush were just typical establishment candidates. No matter what they said, there is no way they would be able to swing the African American and Latino votes enough to win against either of the Democrats. Trump stood out to me (mainly because of more air time), and I began to agree with his message as I paid more attention to the stances of all the candidates. I actually got the chance to see him live when he stopped in Akron (Ohio), and I was able to compare his actual speech to the media coverage afterwards. It was astounding how much the words of his speech had been skewed and misinterpreted. Also, if his comments towards African Americans and Latinos were apparently "racist," how did he manage to demolish Romney's results in those two demographics? They obviously didn't believe the comments were as harmful as the media portrayed them to be.
Just because pharmaceutical companies are corrupt does not mean alternative medicine is a good idea.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that discrimination bill he tried to pass in Indiana.
...at least Trump's victory speech wasn't boastful or anything so that seemed like a plus.
I'm just irritated that for the next 4 years the face of the country will be an oompa loompa. If he would get like plastic surgery or something to look more attractive I might be ok but it makes me think the US is a laughing stock
Quote from: Dude on November 09, 2016, 05:32:06 PMI'm just irritated that for the next 4 years the face of the country will be an oompa loompa. If he would get like plastic surgery or something to look more attractive I might be ok but it makes me think the US is a laughing stock
okay can we start an initiative to make this happen because now I want this
Quote from: FireArrow on November 09, 2016, 05:21:38 PMPeople say Trump would put civil rights back 100 years. Pence actually would.
Just because pharmaceutical companies are corrupt does not mean alternative medicine is a good idea.
Wait I'm confused...improving African American and Latino communities is putting civil rights...backwards? Unless he is reintroducing segregation and repealing the 19th Amendment, I don't see anything going backwards. Oh, and just so you know, using the same exact metaphor with a different subject doesn't change my opinion.
Quote from: Dude on November 09, 2016, 01:31:56 PM$10 says you'd be saying what I said if Hillary won.
I forgot to comment on this earlier. Hillary shouldn't have legally been allowed to run due to Section 2071 of the US Revised code. Trump hasn't done anything illegal that disqualifies him from running for office. So yes, I would say these things, and have a legitimate, justified reason for saying them. Your claims are mainly based off of opinion, and the woman who accused Trump of rape (the one piece of physical evidence that you had) dropped the claim because the story was fabricated.
Quote from: Dude on November 09, 2016, 05:32:06 PMOh yeah, I forgot about that discrimination bill he tried to pass in Indiana.
...at least Trump's victory speech wasn't boastful or anything so that seemed like a plus.
I'm just irritated that for the next 4 years the face of the country will be an oompa loompa. If he would get like plastic surgery or something to look more attractive I might be ok but it makes me think the US is a laughing stock
For Christ's sake; he isn't THAT orange. And he won't be a laughingstock for long if he gets shit done.
Quote from: Dudeman on November 09, 2016, 05:35:48 PMokay can we start an initiative to make this happen because now I want this
"I'm sorry, Mr President, but the public has spoken. They can't have a president who's ugly as fuck so we need you to put this paper bag over your head to speak and on your next vacation we'll schedule a visit to a plastic surgeon."
Quote from: Maelstrom on November 09, 2016, 01:53:08 PMMaybe, but having all the votes go to one person simply because they got 1% more of the vote is stupid.
There's no way around that.
^^The simple fact of how close the results were in several states show how divided the American people really are. Disheartening, at the least. :/
On to a general statement:
Now, understand that while I don't like Trump, I'm happy the rest of the gov't is red. But I'm going to watch how this unfolds; I'm giving Trump one year of my semi-support (not that my support matters), and after that, based on what he does, I'll decide from there. Concerning the general thought that "all hell is going to break loose" with this, bear in mind that there are checks & balances. Sure, we do have Republican majority in all of Congress (and soon to be the Supreme Court), but bear in mind that to do anything SUPER MAJOR, a 2/3 vote is needed, and the Republicans don't have that big of a majority. Also, if Trump tries to do something super crazy, remember how many republicans are against him. And if he tries to do anything insane on some nonexistent power he thinks he has, Congress has the impeachment power & can use it if needed. So I don't quite think we'll see all these insane things happening as feared by many.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 05:41:34 PMWait I'm confused...improving African American and Latino communities is putting civil rights...backwards? Unless he is reintroducing segregation and repealing the 19th Amendment, I don't see anything going backwards. Oh, and just so you know, using the same exact metaphor with a different subject doesn't change my opinion.
I can't think of a good way to answer you.
You know what, If Trump doesn't promote the "anti-pc" bigotry culture, doesn't negatively impact gay and women's rights, improves the lives of minorities, and god forbid doesn't destory our alliances or start any dumb wars then I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 05:41:34 PMhe isn't THAT orange.
bruh, he's more orange than a sunset the same color as a tangerine.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 09, 2016, 06:47:17 PMI can't think of a good way to answer you.
You know what, If Trump doesn't promote the "anti-pc" bigotry culture, doesn't negatively impact gay and women's rights, improves the lives of minorities, and god forbid doesn't destory our alliances or start any dumb wars then I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
Bigotry culture: I know Trump did spend a lot of his time saying stuff like "We don't have time to be politically correct." But I don't believe the purpose of this message was to be anti-politically correct. I think he was so worried about stressing the importance of his own issues that he disliked being ridiculed for accidentally using a blunt or "incorrect" term for someone or some group. Maybe he did take it too far sometimes, but I think he'll stay more within the bounds of political correctness as President. Don't expect him to lie or talk around things though.
Gay/Women's rights: I think I've already learned that we differ in opinion here. I believe that both gay marriage and abortion laws should be decided at the state level. I would also support the defunding of Planned Parenthood, but my Catholicism may be showing itself a bit too much here. With a conservative Supreme Court likely to be formed under Trump, these things could come into play. This is not meant to spark debate (it very well may) but I'm just stating where I stand. We don't know much about Trump other than the facts that he is pro-life and is against abortion except for cases of incest and ones where the health of the mother is at risk. But yeah, my beliefs here are religion-based. I guess...whatever happens, happens.
Other Things: Pretty much agree with those. Nothing to really comment on. It's really nice to finally hear someone who was against him be somewhat willing to accept him if he does well. Haven't really heard any of that today.
Quote from: shadowkirby on November 09, 2016, 06:56:20 PMbruh, he's more orange than a sunset the same color as a tangerine.
If this actually becomes an argument even remotely related to the legitimacy of his candidacy, I think I'll die. He could be blue for all I care. If he rules the country well, I don't care what he looks like.
"Rules" this country. You might want to avoid phrasing it that way in the future. And no one is going to hold anything agaisnt Trump if he does a good job. We're just really scared that he won't.
Maybe it says something about my character that physical attractiveness is an important quality for me. He's so orange it looks like he got trapped in a tanning bed overnight
And based off of a few Twitter posts shared on Facebook that may or may not be false, this election was just an outlet for thinly veiled discrimination to come forward, which is a good thing anyway
Quote from: FireArrow on November 09, 2016, 07:29:49 PM"Rules" this country. You might want to avoid phrasing it that way in the future. And no one is going to hold anything agaisnt Trump if he does a good job. We're just really scared that he won't.
Noted. And I definitely understand your fear. Even I have a shade of worry that he won't be able to do stuff as well as he wants. It's natural to fear the unpredictable.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on November 09, 2016, 05:50:07 PMThe simple fact of how close the results were in several states show how divided the American people really are. Disheartening, at the least. :/
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on November 09, 2016, 05:50:07 PMhow divided the American people really are.
Considering there are 50 states I feel like it should come as no surprise.
Also I don't care about how orange the idiot looks. Insulting someone someone based on the colour of their skin reminds me of something else anyway. His voice is annoying though.
I always thought it was a spray tan gone horribly wrong but it's been this way for so long it could just be him.
Although him having to get plastic surgery in order to appease the public would make a pretty good south park episode.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 07:22:59 PMHe could be blue for all I care.
With being blue, he wouldn't be an Oompa Loompa so much as Violet Beauregarde.
He'd be Trumpy Smurf
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on November 09, 2016, 07:56:57 PMWith being blue, he wouldn't be an Oompa Loompa so much as Violet Beauregarde.
Quote from: Dude on November 09, 2016, 07:58:03 PMHe'd be Trumpy Smurf
Sorry I think E Gadd wins this one.
im shocked you think that
I snorted
Half of our country directly endorses, supports, and sustains domestic terrorism. I'd say we're in pretty shit shape.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 09, 2016, 05:41:34 PMTrump hasn't done anything illegal that disqualifies him from running for office.
Sexual assault and tax fraud are felonies tho so
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on November 09, 2016, 09:28:27 PMHalf of our country directly endorses, supports, and sustains domestic terrorism. I'd say we're in pretty shit shape.
Less than that, since Clinton won the popular vote.
QuoteSexual assault and tax fraud are felonies tho so
He didn't commit tax fraud, though. What he did, while poor business, was completely legal (if we're talking about the returns the NY Times released). In addition, technically speaking, the sexual assault is unproven.
That said, he goes on trial for fraud on the 28th, and for potential child rape on the 13th (which will likely settle before then). He also directly incited violence at many rallies; see "I'd like to punch him in the face".
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 09, 2016, 10:30:57 PMLess than that, since Clinton won the popular vote.
A) we're not done counting yet. B) the 200 some thousand votes for mcmullin were all conservative Mormons who otherwise would have most likely voted trump
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 09, 2016, 10:35:17 PMA) we're not done counting yet.
No, but the trends are pretty clear and will most likely stay constant with small percentage of uncounted votes
QuoteB) the 200 some thousand votes for mcmullin were all conservative Mormons who otherwise would have most likely voted trump
...but they didn't. They voted for Mcmullin.
That's just to shut up the haters to say "Clinton would have won if it wasn't for idiots voting third party"
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on November 09, 2016, 09:28:27 PMHalf of our country directly endorses, supports, and sustains domestic terrorism. I'd say we're in pretty shit shape.
Sexual assault and tax fraud are felonies tho so
.....Domestic terrorism? That's a new one. I seriously wonder where people get these interpretations of Trump's policies. Honestly I don't even know which part of his policy you are citing. I'm lost. Also, PDS covered most of my arguments on the two "illegal" things. I love it when people mention his supposed "tax fraud." Did he "cheat," to some extent? Yes. But he did not break the law. That's seriously how fucked up the tax code is. If you think it's crazy that someone is able to do that, don't worry. I do too. That's why I supported a guy that plans to rewrite the tax code to make it more simple and free of loopholes.
Quote from: Dude on November 09, 2016, 08:34:26 PMim shocked you think that
Relax, I thought they were both pretty funny!
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 10, 2016, 01:23:53 AMThat's just to shut up the haters to say "Clinton would have won if it wasn't for idiots voting third party"
To further that argument, even if all 200,000 voted for Clinton and she won Utah, Trump still has 272.
Encouraging direct protest violence, violent racism, constant falsified statements promoting xenophobia, sexism, etc. It's an obvious trend both of personal character and the type of action and persona he legitimizes. He has set back our society years by making it justified for someone to be a bigot and a bully. The views he holds, or at least promotes, are those of the lowest and most disgusting tier of human existence.
There's a reason that college educated individuals trended strongly towards Clinton.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on November 10, 2016, 06:53:14 AMEncouraging direct protest violence, violent racism, constant falsified statements promoting xenophobia, sexism, etc. It's an obvious trend both of personal character and the type of action and persona he legitimizes. He has set back our society years by making it justified for someone to be a bigot and a bully. The views he holds, or at least promotes, are those of the lowest and most disgusting tier of human existence.
There's a reason that college educated individuals trended strongly towards Clinton.
^THIS!!!! There's a reason that so many people with a shred of higher education support Clinton.
Also @TMP domestic terrorism exists. It refers to an act of terrorism against one's own country. An example is the Pulse club in Orlando that was the site of a mass shooting in June--perpetrated by an American, but any acts of domestic violence intended to have a terroristic effect qualify.
None of us have much of a clue how a Trump presidency will actually be. He might be horrible, he might not be. It's hard to differentiate the policy from the rhetoric. However, the main problem brought about by this election is the divide between people. We no longer can just disagree with each other, we have to hate and look down upon those who disagree with us. We can't undo the election, and we can't influence policy much at this point. We can, all of us, work on the social divide though. Whether someone voted for Trump, or Clinton, they should be treated with same respect as you'd want. I doubt most people who voted for Trump did so with the mentality of "Oh man, I love how racist, misogynistic and evil this guy is!". Some may have, but those people are going to be like that anyway. Most Trump supporters have legitimate reasons, even if they are ideologically different than ours. It's cool.
All of the things we criticize Trump for, we can personally work to defeat by being accepting and respectful of each other. Engaging with each other in meaningful dialogue and not reducing each other to basic stereotypes and assumptions.
Quote from: Nep-Nep on November 10, 2016, 11:06:53 AMHowever, the main problem brought about by this election is the divide between people. We no longer can just disagree with each other, we have to hate and look down upon those who disagree with us.
I noticed this too. It really is sad.
I, for one, have been (as of recently [approx. 1 year prior] and from here on out) trying to be more accepting towards people that I disagree with. I don't only want to tolerate people, but also want to accept and love people that I don't agree with, just as much as I accept and love those I
do agree with. I've noticed that nothing gets done when fighting, hate, etc. goes on. I used to be pretty bad in real life, and even here on NSM, but I've put in a huge effort over the past year to change. I believe I have succeeded.
I say this now because of this election. This election has done nothing, but cement these feelings of mine: Acceptance and love towards
all.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 10, 2016, 11:16:45 AMI noticed this too.
Same here.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 10, 2016, 11:16:45 AMAcceptance and love towards all.
Except JerryI mean, I always thought America was rather divided, but
apparently it's worse than it was before. Not that I can help with anything, I live in Australia.
if you're not religious you can feel free to disregard this, but a lot of the things happening right now were seen by prophets like Paul, Isaiah, and Peter. Everything coming to pass is just a sign of you know what
I'd have to agree with you there, Nocturne. That's why I'm at peace about this whole thing.
Definitely. I agree wholeheartedly.
Oh there's no denying domestic terrorism not only exists but gets a free pass. Look at the Oregon terrorists who took over the wildlife refuge, all of them armed, and shot a police officer. They were just acquitted a few weeks ago of any charges.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 10, 2016, 12:58:10 PMLook at the Oregon terrorists who took over the wildlife refuge, all of them armed, and shot a police officer. They were just acquitted a few weeks ago of any charges.
Wait,
WHAT
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on November 10, 2016, 06:53:14 AMEncouraging direct protest violence, violent racism, constant falsified statements promoting xenophobia, sexism, etc. It's an obvious trend both of personal character and the type of action and persona he legitimizes. He has set back our society years by making it justified for someone to be a bigot and a bully. The views he holds, or at least promotes, are those of the lowest and most disgusting tier of human existence.
There's a reason that college educated individuals trended strongly towards Clinton.
Oh, I believe there's a reason college educated individuals trended her way. I don't think we have the same reason, however. Since March of this year, I've been doing some college visits since I'm currently in my senior year of high school. I've been to schools in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, and there is one common theme that they love to stress: diversity. (Preface: Regardless of how I word this, I will probably be labeled as a racist. I just want to say now that I do not believe that any one race is more or less qualified to be accepted into college; don't interpret me as saying that. In fact, I hold to heart the Christian teaching that there is only one race: the human race. The color of our skin or our accent does not make us better or worse than someone else. With that being said, back to the argument.) Almost every college I went to boasted that they had this percentage of African American students and another percentage of Asian students. Sometimes I wonder if they are so obsessed with keeping these percentages the same that they will admit lesser qualified students over more qualified ones just so they can add another country to their list. If I were to run a university that was going to accept 10,000 students, I would review the applications and select the 10,000 applicants that are the best qualified. However, to me I feel that colleges sort their applicants by demographic before quality. Ok, that was longer than I wanted; the point was supposed to be that colleges have become liberalized. I'm sure most college students on here can confirm that if they ever saw a political rally on campus, it was either for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I have seen many a video on Youtube where campuses actually shut down Trump rallies, thereby
infringing upon the First Amendment. If a rally was actually violent, that would be one thing. But peaceful rallies should not be shut down just because some students disagree with the candidate. Another example of the "liberalization" of colleges is the introduction of safe zones. God, these things drive me insane. What, are people not allowed to debate anymore? Is a difference of opinion illegal? How much do we need to shelter people? Isn't college supposed to help transition young adults from the school life into the real world? What will happen 5 years down the road if someone disagrees with them in a meeting? They won't even know how to respond to disagreement! (In case you were wondering, my dislike of safe zones is kind of extreme.) Again, violence and screaming is unnecessary, but people shouldn't be forced into silencing their opinion just because someone "might get their feelings hurt."
Oh, and another thing. Trump is supposedly the one that incites violence, right? What about this?
If you find a way to back up or play down this one, I'm truly sickened. You can't call pro-Trump violence bad and anti-Trump violence good.
Oh, and finally, I want to touch on the use of "bigotry." As I'm sure you all know, bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Now let me pull a quote from President-elect Donald Trump's victory speech early Wednesday morning:
"Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.
It is time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be President for all of Americans, and this is so important to me. For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country."
I don't know about you, but this doesn't sound like a bigot to me. You know what sounds like bigotry to me? People blocking highways and roads with protests because they are
intolerant toward the eventual President and his supporters for having differences of opinion. Be careful throwing around terms like that.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on November 10, 2016, 07:16:36 AM^THIS!!!! There's a reason that so many people with a shred of higher education support Clinton.
Also @TMP domestic terrorism exists. It refers to an act of terrorism against one's own country. An example is the Pulse club in Orlando that was the site of a mass shooting in June--perpetrated by an American, but any acts of domestic violence intended to have a terroristic effect qualify.
I never said domestic terrorism doesn't exist. I had just never heard of it applied to the positions of the Trump campaign.
One final thought. Currently, Clinton leads Trump by 301,002 votes in the popular vote (for some reason they STILL aren't done). If you remove California from the picture, Trump is ahead by 2,219,717 votes. So he won by a landslide in 98% of the country's votes. So California, if you're really serious about this secession thing, go right on ahead. No one (especially the Republicans) is going to stop you. However, I did some research and found that even if Californians were in favor of leaving the USA, they wouldn't be able to be fully independent until 2019. Maybe by then, Mr. Trump will change your opinion. Deep down, everyone in the country should want him to do well. Wishing for him to fail is like hoping that the pilot of a plane you are on crashes because he gave you a dirty look when you boarded. So while I would never attempt to stop you from leaving, I wish you would open your minds a little bit and give this guy a chance. We've had a Republican in office before. (I know, I know, Trump is not a typical Republican. But still, my point holds.)
Quote from: Maelstrom on November 10, 2016, 01:58:11 PMWait, WHAT
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499668126/defendants-in-oregon-wildlife-refuge-occupation-found-not-guilty
@TMP, it's called affirmative action, they do accept muslims african americans and asians over white people because social circumstances make those minorities less likely to be able to go to college is their reasoning
I don't think it's something to be proud of though "yes this state is 80% white but half of our campus is black"
Where was Hillary in that video saying she wanted them to beat that guy? I can't seem to find her.
Quote from: Dude on November 10, 2016, 03:38:27 PMWhere was Hillary in that video saying she wanted them to beat that guy? I can't seem to find her.
Trump never actually told anyone to commit a violent act towards someone. He did sarcastically say it once, but he never actually wanted people to become violent.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 10, 2016, 03:49:55 PMTrump never actually told anyone to commit a violent act towards someone. He did sarcastically say it once, but he never actually wanted people to become violent.
Saying you'll pay for someone's legal fees if they assault someone isn't "sarcastic", it's encouraging violence.
I'm finding something strange in society, and I want to understand what's going on. This is a legitimate question with the intention of getting honest answers. Also, the only reason I ask is because this seems to also be a political issue:
It seems as the more liberal group preaches and lives by tolerance, is this not so? And yet, I know a lot of liberals that, though they preach tolerance at everyone else, and they expect tolerance from everyone else, they don't return the favor. Why is this? Can any of you explain this to me? I'm wanting to know if there's a way to "equalize" things, as it's causing a great tension at school. Some of my friends of the liberal persuasion are beginning to turn on me with this same message, although I'd like to think I'm being tolerant to some degree or other.
@ TMP Donald Trump's speech had very little to do with his actual campaign.
@ E. Gadd Industries extremists on both sides are bad and ignore common sense. A lot of republicans preach that they want what's best for America but also go against basic human decency. It goes both ways and both extremes are really stupid.
Hmmm... that's a bit troubling, but I guess people will be people :/
not all conservatives are christian
Also keep in mind that the reason that many liberals don't tolerate Trump is because tolerance of intolerance is opposite to liberal values.
does the overuse of the word "bigot" bother anybody else
so um, the silent majority has spoken.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/21-heartbreaking-things-happened-people-color-one-day-trumps-win/
Ahh, it doesn't matter what Trump proposed anymore. Forget the bigotry and the economic destruction. But look at this.
People aren't seeing his presidency as a "change to the status quo", as they said. It's a mandate for white supremacy.
All the best, Americans. World's watching~
@daj I'm hoping that's just dumb racist people falsely thinking that it's ok to do that now. If not, uh, yeah...
Quote from: Nep-Nep on November 10, 2016, 11:06:53 AM-stuff about being divided-
That's really easy for white straight people (or really anyone that's) not directly impacted by these policies. I'm gay, how am I supposed to look at people that want to ban gay marriage. If someone says they don't think gay marriage should be legal, they're not just stating their opinion, they're literally saying to my face that I should not be allowed to get married and disguising that with "oh it's muh opinion don't judge me for it." This division is created by people proposing policies that directly harm groups of people and those people fighting back. So what's your solution, for us to bend over (metaphorically...) and let our human rights be voted away for the sake of unity?
Both sides are guilty of this, so just ask yourself. Does Trump have any intention of ending this cycle or is he just gonna vouch for the conservative side of the story?
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on November 10, 2016, 04:00:08 PMIt seems as the more liberal group preaches and lives by tolerance, is this not so? And yet, I know a lot of liberals that, though they preach tolerance at everyone else, and they expect tolerance from everyone else, they don't return the favor. Why is this? Can any of you explain this to me? I'm wanting to know if there's a way to "equalize" things, as it's causing a great tension at school. Some of my friends of the liberal persuasion are beginning to turn on me with this same message, although I'd like to think I'm being tolerant to some degree or other.
Either you're thinking of a vocal minority or you're falsely equating intolerance of intolerance with intolerance of specific groups of people.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 10, 2016, 03:16:01 PM(Preface: Regardless of how I word this, I will probably be labeled as a racist. I just want to say now that I do not believe that any one race is more or less qualified to be accepted into college; don't interpret me as saying that. In fact, I hold to heart the Christian teaching that there is only one race: the human race. The color of our skin or our accent does not make us better or worse than someone else. With that being said, back to the argument.)
You're delusional if you think that's a Christian value. It's just poorly phrased human decency.
I say poorly phrased because phrased because acting like race doesn't exist creates issues, but the sentiment behind your statement is good. Not trying to insult you.QuoteOne final thought. Currently, Clinton leads Trump by 301,002 votes in the popular vote (for some reason they STILL aren't done). If you remove California from the picture, Trump is ahead by 2,219,717 votes. So he won by a landslide in 98% of the country's votes. So California, if you're really serious about this secession thing, go right on ahead. No one (especially the Republicans) is going to stop you. However, I did some research and found that even if Californians were in favor of leaving the USA, they wouldn't be able to be fully independent until 2019. Maybe by then, Mr. Trump will change your opinion. Deep down, everyone in the country should want him to do well. Wishing for him to fail is like hoping that the pilot of a plane you are on crashes because he gave you a dirty look when you boarded. So while I would never attempt to stop you from leaving, I wish you would open your minds a little bit and give this guy a chance. We've had a Republican in office before. (I know, I know, Trump is not a typical Republican. But still, my point holds.)
I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt and assume I misunderstood you because this sounds incredibly dumb.
1. Yes, there is something stopping California from seceding. It's called the government. Come on dude, remember the civil war?
2. Or do you mean no one is gonna stop us because Trump and his supporters don't want us? So much for the entire argument you've been making (plus ya'll would be screwed without California's economy.)
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 10, 2016, 04:37:20 PMdoes the overuse of the word "bigot" bother anybody else
I suppose people could try and widen their vocabulary.
the things happening right now are from a handful of idiots who don't know anything. The ones that are actually happening, anyway
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 10, 2016, 03:49:55 PMTrump never actually told anyone to commit a violent act towards someone. He did sarcastically say it once, but he never actually wanted people to become violent.
k, I speak sarcasm as my first language so I know when I say that wasn't fuckin sarcasm.
Quote from: Dude on November 10, 2016, 06:42:54 PMk, I speak sarcasm as my first language so I know when I say that wasn't fuckin sarcasm.
I didn't hear what he said in this instance but I can confirm that dude is one of the leading authorities on sarcasm and backhandedness
Bitch, ya got that right.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 10, 2016, 11:25:19 AMif you're not religious you can feel free to disregard this, but a lot of the things happening right now were seen by prophets like Paul, Isaiah, and Peter. Everything coming to pass is just a sign of you know what
If you had studied early-to-mid 20th century history, you would also know exactly what is going on. The majority of our country is incapable of making decisions beyond that which is in their individual interest.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on November 11, 2016, 07:54:23 AMIf you had studied early-to-mid 20th century history, you would also know exactly what is going on.
I mean you could also just say 1917 Russia and 1930s Germany ;)
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 10, 2016, 03:16:01 PMPreface: Regardless of how I word this, I will probably be labeled as a racist.
Anytime you have to create a preface of how your next thought isn't racist.....it's gonna be racist.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 10, 2016, 03:16:01 PMthey will admit lesser qualified students over more qualified ones just so they can add another country to their list.
Qualified HOW? Because they had better GPA's? Because they grew up in a situation where they have an overwhelming advantage over others?
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 10, 2016, 03:16:01 PMbigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Now let me pull a few quotes from President-elect Donald Trump's personal history.
""When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bring crime. They're rapists..."
"Our great African-American President hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore."
"Jeb Bush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife."
I don't know about you, but this sounds like a bigot to me.
Quote from: Concerto No.20 in D minor on November 11, 2016, 01:06:36 PMI don't know about you, but this sounds like a bigot to me.
to me it sounds like a racist.
WRONG. WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG sounds more like bigotry than that
Isn't this one of those things we talk about where R is B but B is not necessarily R
Edit: I changed the letters for easier understanding.
All racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racists, yes.
Ok yeah, I don't think you needed to fill in the blanks as I figured it was pretty obvious, but ok.
Quote from: Concerto No.20 in D minor on November 11, 2016, 01:06:36 PMAnytime you have to create a preface of how your next thought isn't racist.....it's gonna be racist.
Not true at all. I've seen what networks like CNN have done to Trump's words long enough to know that non-racist comments can be twisted to sound racist. Misinterpretation is very possible, especially as we appear to be on different sides of the political spectrum.
Quote from: Concerto No.20 in D minor on November 11, 2016, 01:06:36 PMQualified HOW? Because they had better GPA's? Because they grew up in a situation where they have an overwhelming advantage over others?
Better GPAs and test scores, yes. I understand that there is a correlation between life situations and ability to put up those grades and scores, but explain this to me. I get these college letters all the time from fairly prestigious universities that promise full rides if you get somewhat decent grades and test scores but your parents make <$60,000 a year. (Mind you, these tuition costs can range from $20,000-$60,000 per year.) Meanwhile, I can have a 4.2 GPA, 35 ACT, and a 1560 SAT (out of 1600), but I am barely able to get any scholarship $$$ out of these schools (half tuition at most) because my parents "unfortunately" are moderately successful middle class citizens. I know I don't have to choose these schools, but something seems not exactly right with this situation.
Quote from: Concerto No.20 in D minor on November 11, 2016, 01:06:36 PMNow let me pull a few quotes from President-elect Donald Trump's personal history.
""When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bring crime. They're rapists..."
"Our great African-American President hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore."
"Jeb Bush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife."
I don't know about you, but this sounds like a bigot to me.
Uh, no, it doesn't. Like Noc said, if anything it is racism. Racism is intolerance towards different ethnic groups, while bigotry is intolerance towards people with differences of opinion. They are not the same thing. And aside from the last quote, I really don't view those as racist anyway. They are quite blunt, but they aren't really lies....
Ok I still don't think you all understand what bigotry is.
Bigotry contains at least one or more of those words that breaks people into groups and like makes one better than the rest.
Example time!!
Racism is when people are split by race.
Sexism is when people are split by sex
Homophobia...ism is when people are split up by sexual orientation... Or something.
They can all be grouped under bigotry, but bigotry itself is not all of those things.
K?
Google says:
big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
I'm not defending TMP here, but we're clearly working with two different definitions of these terms. Y'all might want to figure out which one to use: intolerance towards other opinions, or discrimination. They aren't the same thing.
☆★Dude★☆ - Today 6:40 PM
> I can't wait till someone posts a dictionary definition of bigotry in the politics topic to try to counter me
☆★Dude★☆ - Today 6:41 PM
> I'm calling it rn
☆★Dude★☆ - Today 6:49 PM
> Holy fucking shit
☆★Dude★☆ - Today 6:49 PM
> Holy
☆★Dude★☆ - Today 6:49 PM
> Fucking
Alti - Today 6:49 PM
> did ti happen?
☆★Dude★☆ - Today 6:49 PM
> Shit
☆★Dude★☆ - Today 6:49 PM
> Yes
☆★Dude★☆ - Today 6:49 PM
> I'm dying
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Full Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
YEAH FUCK YOUR GOOGLE DEFINITION.
*MIC DROP*
I mean, instead of fussing over the word "bigot", you could just say "<discriminative> prick" or something else more obvious.
Dude I'm so glad to have you back xD lol rekt
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 11, 2016, 03:00:51 PM(Mind you, these tuition costs can range from $20,000-$60,000 per year.) Meanwhile, I can have a 4.2 GPA, 35 ACT, and a 1560 SAT (out of 1600), but I am barely able to get any scholarship $$$ out of these schools (half tuition at most) because my parents "unfortunately" are moderately successful middle class citizens.
Are you telling me that as an upper middle class family you don't qualify for finacial aid?! What a horrible injustice, how dare it be difficult for well off families to get more than... half tuition (seriously?)!
Quote from: Olimar12345 on November 11, 2016, 04:27:31 PMDude I'm so glad to have you back xD lol rekt
sorry i get really worked up over definitions
Quote from: Olimar12345 on November 11, 2016, 04:27:31 PMDude I'm so glad to have you back xD lol rekt
THIS
It was maybe a bit calmer but it didn't feel like NSM without you dude
Quote from: Dude on November 11, 2016, 04:33:38 PMsorry i get really worked up over definitions
I like this quote. XD
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 11, 2016, 03:00:51 PMNot true at all. I've seen what networks like CNN have done to Trump's words long enough to know that non-racist comments can be twisted to sound racist. Misinterpretation is very possible, especially as we appear to be on different sides of the political spectrum.
Better GPAs and test scores, yes. I understand that there is a correlation between life situations and ability to put up those grades and scores, but explain this to me. I get these college letters all the time from fairly prestigious universities that promise full rides if you get somewhat decent grades and test scores but your parents make <$60,000 a year. (Mind you, these tuition costs can range from $20,000-$60,000 per year.) Meanwhile, I can have a 4.2 GPA, 35 ACT, and a 1560 SAT (out of 1600), but I am barely able to get any scholarship $$$ out of these schools (half tuition at most) because my parents "unfortunately" are moderately successful middle class citizens. I know I don't have to choose these schools, but something seems not exactly right with this situation.
Imagine this. Javier is an 18 year old, high school graduate, looking to get into University. He sent out his papers, and he had a 3.5 GPA, a good 27 ACT score. His parents make only $55,000 a year between them, both working full time jobs. Javier and his family have had to rely on food stamps to get by for the past few years, and one of his parents is an immigrant and neither have gone to college. Javier started working at 13 for pocket money and to support his family.
Now picture this. Jake is an 18 year old, high school graduate looking to get into University. He sent out his papers, (he doesn't know why he has to do it right now, he really wants to go back packing in Europe with his friends for 6 months, so he can "experience the world," he had a 3.9 GPA and a 32 ACT score. His parents make $150,000 between them, both of them are working full-time, with great benefits, and they shop at Whole Foods twice a week. Both of Jake's parents have college degrees. Jake has worked the past two summers part-time to save up money for his trip, but he's worried he's going to have to work part-time while going to college to afford it, because his parents are only willing to give him $5000 a semester and his scholarship only covers half.
Both kids are accepted to the same school, Javier with a full ride, and Jake with about half of his tuition payed for. Now can you explain to me WHY?
Quote from: ConcertoQuote from: Concerto No.20 in D minor on November 11, 2016, 14:06:36
Anytime you have to create a preface of how your next thought isn't racist.....it's gonna be racist.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on November 11, 2016, 03:00:51 PMNot true at all. I've seen what networks like CNN have done to Trump's words long enough to know that non-racist comments can be twisted to sound racist. Misinterpretation is very possible, especially as we appear to be on different sides of the political spectrum.
That is not even a response. I said, whenever you have to preface something with, "Now I know this is going to sound racist, but it's not," You're gonna have a bad time. I'm telling you this for your benefit. I'm not saying, nor was implying that Trump was racist in that quote, and I wasn't making a statement about media twisting words. I'm telling you that you should not warn people that, although your next idea might sound racist that it really isn't, because it most likely will be.
I find it useful to share a post by Nevada Senator Harry Reid. It covers most of what we are trying to say I feel. The gist of it is this: Donald Trump not only has incited racial, sexual, and other terroristic violence, but has himself directly condoned personally committing those acts. This disgusting bigotry only energizes and enables the scum of this country that follows those points of view.
If Trump truly "didn't mean it", if he really "wouldn't do those things", the very first thing he needs to do, for anyone across the globe to consider him as any more than a dangerous lunatic, would be to immediately publicly reject those views, and speak out in a way that informs those supporters of his that did hold them that he is not and will never be the representative of hatred.
Quote from: Senator Harry ReidI have personally been on the ballot in Nevada for 26 elections and I have never seen anything like the reaction to the election completed last Tuesday. The election of Donald Trump has emboldened the forces of hate and bigotry in America.
White nationalists, Vladimir Putin and ISIS are celebrating Donald Trump's victory, while innocent, law-abiding Americans are wracked with fear – especially African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, LGBT Americans and Asian Americans. Watching white nationalists celebrate while innocent Americans cry tears of fear does not feel like America.
I have heard more stories in the past 48 hours of Americans living in fear of their own government and their fellow Americans than I can remember hearing in five decades in politics. Hispanic Americans who fear their families will be torn apart, African Americans being heckled on the street, Muslim Americans afraid to wear a headscarf, gay and lesbian couples having slurs hurled at them and feeling afraid to walk down the street holding hands. American children waking up in the middle of the night crying, terrified that Trump will take their parents away. Young girls unable to understand why a man who brags about sexually assaulting women has been elected president.
I have a large family. I have one daughter and twelve granddaughters. The texts, emails and phone calls I have received from them have been filled with fear – fear for themselves, fear for their Hispanic and African American friends, for their Muslim and Jewish friends, for their LBGT friends, for their Asian friends. I've felt their tears and I've felt their fear.
We as a nation must find a way to move forward without consigning those who Trump has threatened to the shadows. Their fear is entirely rational, because Donald Trump has talked openly about doing terrible things to them. Every news piece that breathlessly obsesses over inauguration preparations compounds their fear by normalizing a man who has threatened to tear families apart, who has bragged about sexually assaulting women and who has directed crowds of thousands to intimidate reporters and assault African Americans. Their fear is legitimate and we must refuse to let it fall through the cracks between the fluff pieces.
If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. Winning the electoral college does not absolve Trump of the grave sins he committed against millions of Americans. Donald Trump may not possess the capacity to assuage those fears, but he owes it to this nation to try.
If Trump wants to roll back tide of hate he unleashed, he has a tremendous amount of work to do and he must begin immediately.
I've been hearing those stories too, but automatically discounting the ones that are "someone left this note on my car" and all the ones on tumblr, cause tumblr is just a bunch of attention whores.
At the same time, there's a lot of rioting, protesting, and flag burning. Neither are ok and both are the results of idiots, not the president
^agree with everything, except for two parts:
1. Peaceful protest is perfectly okay and legitimate and is what our country is all about. It's only the rioting and violence that's awful.
2. Flag burning is an absolutely acceptable form of protest and self-expression.
But your part about tumblr is pretty accurate. There are decent people there but mostly it's just kids wanting attention--that's fine, but not always to be taken seriously.
Yeah, peaceful protest =/= hate crimes done in the name of the president.
flag burning means you hate america right? So why are you still here, please leave if it's so bad
that's my logic anyway
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 12, 2016, 01:05:50 PMflag burning means you hate america right?
...isn't that no different than any
other act of protest happening right now? Plenty of people are saying they hate America right now in a variety of ways; burning a flag or two isn't any more extreme. If anything, I'd say burning an effigy sends a much stronger message, and I know that's happening.
burning an effigy means you hate the person you just burned.
maybe I'm just thinking too nationalistically cause it seems very disrespectful in the extreme
Flags are symbols of what your country stands for; to me, flag burning as a result of this election is trying to communicate that what our country just did is NOT in alignment with your values.
Sure, it's a bit extreme.
It's not like anyone tried to protest similar things by just taking a knee at a football game, did they?
You know what else is extreme? Having a president endorsed by the KKK, who's going on trial for fraud and has inspired the worst niches of America to be public.
The flag burning thing is more of a (dis)respect thing iirc
The analytical view: the burning of the American flag is the protest's way to exclaim in the most direct and explicit way possible their feeling of total disconnect in the direction the nation is degressing towards, and what the USA was meant to stand for as a nation. It is a declaration that a nation under the rule of an icon of bigotry is no longer America.
The realistic view: mob mentality
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 12, 2016, 02:05:55 PMHaving a president endorsed by the KKK
Hillary Clinton was literally
mentored by a Klansman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan). Trump has zero control over who endorses him.
BLUE
PLEASE STAY
See, this is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Dodging the problem at hand and throwing out meaningless connections like that makes you no less guilty than the ones calling for lynchings. If you think that kind of hatred isn't acceptable, then you should call out anyone and everyone, regardless of their affiliation.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on November 12, 2016, 05:12:47 PMSee, this is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Dodging the problem at hand and throwing out meaningless connections like that makes you no less guilty than the ones calling for lynchings.
Uh, no. Blueflower literally responded to PDS' post which isn't "dodging" in any way.
Refusing to see that Hillary has the same issue doesn't mean she doesn't have it. I don't think that that is a "meaningless connection."
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on November 12, 2016, 05:12:47 PMIf you think that kind of hatred isn't acceptable, then you should call out anyone and everyone, regardless of their affiliation.
Once again, you can't control whom you're endorsed by. Being endorsed by the KKK doesn't constitute "hate" on Trump's part.
Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxFH2N9UAAAn9z9.jpg:large)
Lol, the ol' "I can't be a ____ist, I have a ___ friend!"
Quote from: Olimar12345 on November 12, 2016, 05:37:01 PMLol, the ol' "I can't be a ____ist, I have a ___ friend!"
I can't be a humanist, I have a human friend!
Quote from: Olimar12345 on November 12, 2016, 05:37:01 PMLol, the ol' "I can't be a ____ist, I have a ___ friend!"
I don't know about Trump, but personally I wouldn't want ____ friends if I was a _____ist.
Quote from: blueflower999 on November 12, 2016, 04:44:25 PMHillary Clinton was literally mentored by a Klansman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan). Trump has zero control over who endorses him.
Never did I defend Hillary. In fact I think her stances on race issues are generally speaking fairly conservative (see the super predators remark). The fact, though, that the first response when an obvious red flag is pointed out is "Hillary is worse" is stupid. It's like when WikiLeaks exposed the awful shit going on with the Clinton Foundation, everyone went out and said "But Trump's is worse!!".
Also I like how you didn't respond to to the rest of it lol.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 12, 2016, 05:24:35 PMUh, no. Blueflower literally responded to PDS' post which isn't "dodging" in any way.
Refusing to see that Hillary has the same issue doesn't mean she doesn't have it. I don't think that that is a "meaningless connection."
When Hillary is see
QuoteOnce again, you can't control whom you're endorsed by. Being endorsed by the KKK doesn't constitute "hate" on Trump's part.
Firstly, it should be either "by whom you're endorsed" (don't end sentences with prepositions) or "who you're endorsed by" ;)
Grammar pickiness aside, the fact that his rhetoric is such that the KKK finds it appealing is DEFINITELY an issue, and it's not like they're just picking out random quotes and twisting it. When you say about Mexicans "they're bringing drugs, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people" (smearing the majority and saying only some are good people when the logical thing is the opposite), that's not something that has to be misinterpreted to be racist; it inherently is.
QuoteSpoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxFH2N9UAAAn9z9.jpg:large)
Lmao, this is as good an argument as "but my best friend is black". If you want bigoted people in his administration, try his VP for Christ's sake.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 12, 2016, 05:41:11 PMI don't know about Trump, but personally I wouldn't want ____ friends if I was a _____ist.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 12, 2016, 05:41:11 PMI don't know about Trump, but personally I wouldn't want any friends if I was an artist.
Oooh, exploitable (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/exploitables)
FoF: Some people shouldn't be allowed to argue
Quote from: Olimar12345 on November 12, 2016, 05:37:01 PMLol, the ol' "I can't be a ____ist, I have a ___ friend!"
Quote from: Sebastian on November 12, 2016, 05:41:11 PMI don't know about Trump, but personally I wouldn't want ____ friends if I was a _____ist.
As it is said, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
Quote from: blueflower999 on November 12, 2016, 04:44:25 PMHillary Clinton was literally mentored by a Klansman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan). Trump has zero control over who endorses him.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 12, 2016, 05:24:35 PMUh, no. Blueflower literally responded to PDS' post which isn't "dodging" in any way.
Refusing to see that Hillary has the same issue doesn't mean she doesn't have it. I don't think that that is a "meaningless connection."
Once again, you can't control whom you're endorsed by. Being endorsed by the KKK doesn't constitute "hate" on Trump's part.
You're both 100% right in the most irrelevant way. We're not talking about trump being a bigot, we're talking about Trump symbolizing bigotry therefore making a bunch of bigots come out and do horrible things under the justification of "Trump got elected." Kefka is saying that Trump should step up and say he doesn't support those things so they can all fuck off before any more hate crimes happen; but for some reason he has yet to do so.
pls don't get triggered by my use of the b word noc
Quote from: FireArrow on November 12, 2016, 06:14:42 PMpls don't get triggered by my use of the b word noc
its ok I established what it means.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 12, 2016, 05:41:11 PMI don't know about Trump, but personally I wouldn't want ____ friends if I was a _____ist.
My comment went right over your head, so I'll try to explain this as clearly as possible. Often people who are obviously prejudice in some form will use the age-old excuse that the accusations made against them can in no way be true on the grounds that they have some form of affiliation with that group of people. For example, it is common to hear a response similar to this when someone is accused of being a racist: "I'm not a racist! One of my best friends is black!" Setting aside the inability to confirm or deny the legitimacy of this person's reasoning, it is obvious that this individual is only saying this to diminish the claims made against them. Simply responding in this manner proves in no way how you feel about a certain group of people, and is more often seen as an spineless excuse. So, if this example person really was a racist and used that response as an excuse to diminish the situation, does this mean that there is no way they can be a racist?
So going back to your picture: that image is extremely stupid and meaningless because it is saying that Trump's tangible bigotry can easily be dismissed because he is affiliated with these people.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on November 12, 2016, 06:23:13 PMMy comment went right over your head, so I'll try to explain this as clearly as possible. Often people who are obviously prejudice in some form will use the age-old excuse that the accusations made against them can in no way be true on the grounds that they have some form of affiliation with that group of people. For example, it is common to hear a response similar to this when someone is accused of being a racist: "I'm not a racist! One of my best friends is black!" Setting aside the inability to confirm or deny the legitimacy of this person's reasoning, it is obvious that this individual is only saying this to diminish the claims made against them. Simply responding in this manner proves in no way how you feel about a certain group of people, and is more often seen as an spineless excuse. So, if this example person really was a racist and used that response as an excuse to diminish the situation, does this mean that there is no way they can be a racist?
Ah, ok. I understand what you mean. I do agree with you as well.
I also agree that most of the time they say something like this, they are speaking over their actions. Actions speak louder than words in my opinion.
Quote from: Sebastian on November 12, 2016, 06:31:07 PMActions speak louder than words in my opinion.
like grabbing women by the pussy, right
We should just stop talking about all the terrible things he's ever done or said. We've already heard it all, we've already pointed it all out, and we've already made all the hair, orange face, and small hands jokes we could possibly think of
We need to dig deeper..
Quote from: Dude on November 12, 2016, 06:46:44 PMWe need to dig deeper..
*loud Inception BWEEEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
Am I the only one noticing that there seems to be GREAT Change in the world at the moment?
In the US, you seem to have a republican candidate "standing up for the people" and the liberal candidate seems to be "part of the establishment". And here in Sweden weird stuff has happened as well, we, for the pretty much first time in history has had a "strong" nationalistic party rise up to like 17% of votes. You can also se here how the socialistic "Socialdemokraterna" are becoming more "afraid" and has a politic revolved around saving lots of money and they just seem very weak as a party, going out "flirting" with companies and trying to be very much in the middle. And the Liberal/Konservative party "Moderaterna" was before trying to market itself as "the new worker's party" (which obviously pissed off the Socialdemokraterna). Then you have the left environmental party "Miljöpartiet" which has just dropped down from like 10-13% to like 4% and they're barely in the parliament (we have a 4% bar for what party can enter the parliament). And on the other hand you have the Liberal green party "Centern" gaining lots of ground and they're now up in like 10% or so. Other changes in the Swedish politics include: The decline (and name-change) of the social-liberal party "Liberalerna" (former known as "Folkpartiet") from like over 10% back some 8 years ago, to like 6% now; The increase of the Socialistic/Communistic "Vänstern", they're usually a small party around 4%, but now they've gone up to like 8% now; The increase of the Feministic party "Feministiskt Initiative" from barely being a party at all to having an effect at the parliament as they're up in 3% now.
To draw some conclusion about what has happened in the Swedish politics, and perhaps also the politics in the world:
-The increase of extreme-parties, whether left or right, or environmental, feministic or liberal.
-The decline of established parties, and also a more timid approach from the "middle parties".
I personally think we live in a time of strong change, but not necessarily a bad one. I think it'll be exiting to se what the future can hold for us, with Trump as president, the increase of right-extreme movements and parties, the anxiety, self-reasoning and divisiveness in the left, having 2 strong nominations for the election: Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton. So we'll see what happens in the future! :)
Exciting? Oh yes.....it will be....."exciting."
Quote from: Sebastian on November 27, 2016, 05:36:06 AMExciting? Oh yes.....it will be....."exciting."
Lol I actually mean it! Idk about you but personally I see stuff happening all the time. I was shopping a pair of jeans today at Dressman. I was there for like 2 weeks or a month ago and I thought that the "Men's fashion" seems to have been more picky and more like "Women's fashion" where you buy all kinds of accessories and stuff, it's not that you just buy a nice Shirt and a pair of Jeans and you're fine. When I was there, a couple of weeks ago, and wanted to try a shirt I was going to buy, the staff were kind of picky and cared a lot about the security it seemed. I have to get to the counter and tell the staff about what shirt I exactly wanted to try out in order to try it. Before when I go to a different Dressman at the suburbs where I live, I have always been able to just try out stuff I want to. And to get to the point, now when I shopped, I could just pick a pair of jeans a try them, nothing crazy at all, nothing about asking the staff and all that stuff, simple and easy. And it seems just one thing of many things that has happened lately. The enviromental movement seemed to have risen again. Yu-Gi-Oh is coming back again, they're even going to make a new movie I think. So times seems to change, and change very quickly! And that, I think is exciting.
yugioh is coming back?
gross
I don't think it ever left.
it left when we all left second grade
wut about dueling on bikes tho
design issues aside, both pokemon and yugioh have succumbed to power creep, as it's the only way they can continue to sell new cards
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 27, 2016, 02:32:44 PMdesign issues aside, both pokemon and yugioh have succumbed to power creep, as it's the only way they can continue to sell new cards
Y, maybe. I personally like Yu-Gi-Oh, so I like it's return. :)
ya need to try magic. It's a lot more complex to learn and requires more thought than yugioh, but the development and world building space is much deeper so they don't need to resort to power creep to sell cards
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 27, 2016, 12:53:08 PMit left when we all left second grade
I'm laughing holy crap this was so savage
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 27, 2016, 03:10:59 PMya need to try magic. It's a lot more complex to learn and requires more thought than yugioh, but the development and world building space is much deeper so they don't need to resort to power creep to sell cards
Lol Noc you know I play CF in Melee! 8)
Also, did you hear about Fidel Castro's death a few days ago?
well that's awkward I saw a meme about it but no actual news
are you america
no im shadowkirby
Hi shadowkirby, I'm Grand dad
I've been thinking about the idea that extremist groups arise in desperate times. It seems like were in a time which "is lead" by "strong leaders". And I want to have my opinion about it. Most "extremist groups" are lead by some "strong leader" holding the bonds or inflaming ideas, but the big question is why does this exist and for what purpose? And I believe that it is because in desperate times people feel hopeless they're like sitting at the pub saying stuff like "well i lost my job, lot's immigrants are coming into our country, and blahblah changes are happening and my life is bad and I don't seem to be able to help it". So what they then turn to when they can't help themselves is... a "strong leader", they see someone perfect and fine, with great karisma and wealth and thinks "that guy seems pretty happy and fine and has no problems, maybe he's the answer to these desperate times". And if there is one thing most "strong leaders" seem to have in common is their ability to "take actions under pressure" and their ability to "ignore the people and only care about themselves and their will". And the reason they thrive under hard situation in bad living standards is because the "stage" is basically set for their strong abilities which make them stick out. And I think that in a way even they care about the people thinking "I've had enough of these desperate times! There needs to be a change, here and now! And it needs to be a big change because people aren't living happily the way it's going now! And I am the only one who can do it!".
And I think that it is important to understand that when we got Trump as the American president, and various extreme parties rising up, and various random influential politician rising up from nowhere, like that French right-wing politician. And maybe don't approach this situation with fear but instead understanding saying "If you, the strong leader, can fix our problems, then fine do so! But if your just planning on loafing around with your power, then we, the people, we'll take initiative and take over the power and take control and bring forward solutions to our problems ourselves!"
Harsh times create good people.
Good people create good times.
Good times create weak people.
Weak people create harsh times.
I don't necessarily agree but it sounds good so
Y it was a bit similar to what I meant.
I want to continue on my previous topic on "strong leaders".
This time I want to talk about how "we" can avoid them, if that is "our" goal. And I think the answer is actually pretty simple, if people don't want authoritarian "strong" leaders then we, the people, have to strong ourselves. We have to stand up to what we think is right and deny what we think is wrong. Sometimes I feel a lot of people reason in fear when voting for a political party, like "I'm voting for x party, because I hate y party and they're (lots of accusive bad words)" rather than "I vote for this party because I really think they're politics are important and that they stand for the values that I stand for and bring for questions that I see important and think that we should focus on". And not only do I dislike this fear and anger within the people because I think that people just simply make more poor decisions when they vote with fear or anger. But I think the entire society just grows more tense and stiff when the people are filled with fear and anger, it becomes a society when people starts to think that "That guy seem like an (bad word), can't trust him for sure", or "x (bad people) are growing more influential these days, horrifying to see this". Rather than a more positive society where people think like "hmm that guy seems kind of different to me, I don't personally like it but maybe he cares about things I don't see as important" or "these groups are growing more popular these days, I wonder why it is so and what and if it can bring something positive to society, even though I maybe don't see it that way".
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 02, 2016, 02:37:45 PMHarsh times create good people.
Good people create good times.
Good times create weak people.
Weak people create harsh times.
I don't necessarily agree but it sounds good so
this logic is exactly why fdr was full of crap
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 03, 2016, 05:26:00 PMthis logic is exactly why fdr was full of crap
With all that economic growth and being re-elected twice yeah
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 03, 2016, 05:26:00 PMthis logic is exactly why fdr was full of crap
He's full of crap because of his japanese internment camps. Any other reason is just the conservative monolouge of "big government, must hate."
So I've gotten more interested in politics lately, so I thought looking around on facebook for some interesting group discussing politics. And I found this one (https://www.facebook.com/groups/666623716711188/). It's called "Political debate-group from left to right". Seemed legit, and not too "whiny" and "full of complaints". ...But turns out the group seemed more like "politics hell" (like Melee hell, Sm4sh hell etc.). All post seems to be about rasists, controversial opinions, communism etc. To conclude things "hot topics" which I'm not interested in taking part of. When it comes to politics I want a more calm and rational debate concerning critical and important issues in the society and propose and create creative, innovative and adequate solutions to problems people face. And not just throwing a bunch of rocks against "the other side" and complaining about them being bad. Sad that there is so little display and discussion about concrete political actions and debate in the society, most stuff about politics seems just to be about "having an opinion" and "I'm right, you're wrong", not that strange that people think that politicians just "sit there and get money for having an opinion" when stuff like this is basically "politics on the internet"! Which is what people read.
there's a facebook page called "Occupy Democrats Logic" whose purpose is entirely to throw dirt at the "Occupy Democrats" page. I hate that.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 03, 2016, 11:15:29 PMWith all that economic growth and being re-elected twice yeah
I thought he had a fourth term? So wouldn't that be re-elected thrice?
Not trying to sound smart alecky in saying that; I'm jc as to if he only had 3 terms.
3 full terms, my bad. He died during his last one IIRC
Ah. Makes sense now, and I believe that's how it went.
I wish the dialogue about Aleppo would also mention the horrible aspects of the rebels that we back.
Why?
Because while Syria's government assault let by Assad is a disaster and is taking countless numbers of lives of innocent civilians, many of them children, arming the so called "moderate rebels", many of whom are actually the Syria branch of Al Qaeda (Al Nusra) is a horrible idea.
soooo bump
we're already in deep doodoo .-. who could've seen this coming?
I almost feel bad.
So how many of you Americans don't like Trump but didn't vote? America needs to imply the forced voting seriously, like in good old Australia we still manage to fuck it up though
Well it's not that simple. More people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump, but because of the way the Electoral College works, Trump ended up becoming president.
It's barely been a week and he's already censored various science administrations, threatened national funding for the arts, begun efforts to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, already backtracked on funding for his wall, signed orders to continue the Dakota Pipeline and Keystone Pipeline, and cut funding for sanctuary cities as well as other efforts to undo previous immigration reforms.
repealing obamacare isn't necessarily a bad thing
It's not so much repealing Obamacare that's the problem as it is repealing Obamacare without a replacement plan
Like loooooots of people will lose health care thanks to this
Quote from: SlowPokemon on January 27, 2017, 10:05:30 AMIt's not so much repealing Obamacare that's the problem as it is repealing Obamacare without a replacement plan
Like loooooots of people will lose health care thanks to this
This. Obamacare, without a doubt, has flaws, but those flaws
actually could be fixed. Instead of, you know, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm not sure if this is true. But it is possible that I am seeing the effects that he is willing to cut trade deals/relations. There seems to be some change in my company, DHL, and it is very possible that it is because the direction he wants to push USA towards. And if that is the case, then I think the relation between Europe and America will see a decrease, and an increase in customs fees if you want to ship products from those 2 continents, so in all and all - a big change.
Btw I don't live in the US, so I can't really have that much of an opinion of great value - in this topic. But maybe "the wall" is a solution with the idea being that there will be a wall, so that the both countries, USA and Mexico, will have to focus on their own interests, economy, market, policies etc. And that only a few, who really really and the will-force and the longing, can get over the border. As he says it that "there will be a beautiful door for those who are willing to live as legal Americans" (or something along those lines). So that only who really care can get past the border, the other people will instead have to focus on their nation's interests.
I'm pretty sure this will have effect not only in America, but also in the whole world. I'm seeing, here in Sweden, that there seem to be an interest for the Swedish culture and heritage and etc. Which previously was a divisive factor in the Swedish politics as there was the "infamous party" "SD (Sweden Democrats)", who, sort of militantly, advocated for "everything-that-has-with-Swedishness-to-do" to a point where it was just dumb and absurd and just plain retarded (Like how their Party Leader, Jimmy Åkeson, said that "Kebab is Swedish - because the kebab here in Sweden is different from the kebab they make in Turkey and the middle-east".). So I thinking that the effect will be that SD will lose votes, because they basically can't go any higher. It's just stupid, and it doesn't work. And I think that the rivalry between Socialism and Capitalism (Social-democrats and Moderates (or more like "The Alliance" - being the alliance of the 4 capitalistic parties)) will come back in a fresh and new form. And I think that the dynamic that there has been a lack of in Swedish politics will increase and become stronger and bigger. Because we've had a Prime Minister from the Socialistic party, Social-democrats, who hasn't been able to have the power to effect the Swedish policies, because SD has acted as road block, because of their high support of voters (like 16%). So I think that SD will lose votes and that the other 7 parties will come out and show and profile their parties' policies in order to get core voters (back). And September 2018 will be the new Swedish election. And I think it'll be an exciting year when it comes to politics and an exciting election, because the Swedish politics seemed to have "sleeping" a bit too much, and I think people have great dislike for that and will start to "voice their opinions" more clearly and openly and also, lastly, I think that they will have less interest in nationalism, which SD has advocated for.
nationalism is cancer
I personally don't think it's that bad. But I think there has to an openness and a sense of acceptance if your going to have that as the policy you believe in. And I think a moderate amount of nationalism is sort of healthy. It makes you feel like your nation and your people are as one as that you are at home and that you are safe. And it can also inspire you through various topics such as history, art, various important persons and etc. And i also think it can make you feel more acceptance for other people in the world because of the idea that you, as a people, have a culture and other people, in other countries, have a different culture. And that relation can make you get an interest for other people rather than seeing them (and you!) as bland and boring and having nothing unique. But I think it should taken "with a bit of salt" and not as a provocative movement and opinion.
nationalism is a buzzword used to describe a "dangerous" feeling of patriotism. Textbook example is the Nazis, the majority of whom did what they were told to avoid jail, not out of any kind of national pride. America is a very unique country and as much as people hate to say it the world very much does revolve around US.
But yeah the end times are near the world will soon be cleansed in fire etc.
Most of the border is already walled. More dangerous are the vigilantes on either side of the border
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 27, 2017, 05:44:49 PMAmerica is a very unique country
You can say that again.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 27, 2017, 05:44:49 PMas much as people hate to say it the world very much does revolve around US.
Well, that depends on each country, and how they connect with other countries, which connect with both each other and more countries. You could say some countries have just as much importance as the US, in certain countries.
Nevertheless, America's power is still concerning, especially when their
AMAZING politics decides what it does. Which is essentially all of the time, like any other democracy.
To be honest I don't actually care what Trump does until a war happens on Australian land. Only then will I get annoyed.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 27, 2017, 10:00:47 AMrepealing obamacare isn't necessarily a bad thing
If trumps admininstration is doing one thing well it's this. From what I've seen they aren't just dropping obamacare cold turkey but doing a good job keeping people insured while they switch to whatever their conservative health care thingy is.
Quote from: WaluigiTime64 on January 27, 2017, 07:27:40 PMYou can say that again.
Well, that depends on each country, and how they connect with other countries, which connect with both each other and more countries. You could say some countries have just as much importance as the US, in certain countries.
Nevertheless, America's power is still concerning, especially when their AMAZING politics decides what it does. Which is essentially all of the time, like any other democracy.
To be honest I don't actually care what Trump does until a war happens on Australian land. Only then will I get annoyed.
Well if he starts seriously harming the well being of others, Australian or not, you should be concerned. If you're using the "as long soldiers aren't marching on our soil I'm cool" rhetoric then you're guilt of what Americans are always shamed for.
Noc your just talking bullshit. My country, I got a feeling of is just loosing it's structure. And that's a big problem, because you know... there might be a big civil war if that happens. Or there might be one of those bad society where everyone talks about their sex life and stuff openly but is extremely secretive about what party they vote for. I think there is even A LAW that says that if you say what party you voted for OPENLY to another person, then that is an illegal action which is to be punished with the highest punishment that is available! And that is pretty scary tbh!
And I think that the problem with today's society is that because we live in a world with so much peace. That the problem is that we actually don't have any war (and very sadly). Because if humanity isn't angry, then it's nice. And if humans are nice to each other, then that means that the 3rd person, aka nature, will be angry at us! And that's a big problem. Because then you'll see animals and plants getting angry and aggressive. And in fact you're already seeing this. Seagulls are paining the British people. And I have great fear what is going to happen in Sweden. Like are the creatures from old legends actually become real!? Like that monster in the lake up there. Or like the Trolls in forest!! WTF! I'm angry!!!!!! I believe that there will be a great fire (like in Canada) that will take years to exhaust!! Our forest will basically burn :(
Quote from: FireArrow on January 27, 2017, 11:35:39 PMWell if he starts seriously harming the well being of others, Australian or not, you should be concerned. If you're using the "as long soldiers aren't marching on our soil I'm cool" rhetoric then you're guilt of what Americans are always shamed for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Sorry, that was an awful way of displaying my opinion.
Honestly, a good chunk of my mind likes to think that because people like Trump are getting voted in to lead a whole country, humanity's going backwards. Not a nice view of things, sure, but it's also because of my apparent disinterest in what goes on in the world. I want to care, and I do care about what happens in every country, I just can't care enough to do something more than watch it unfold, which makes me feel awful, so I ignore it entirely. I can't understand why people want to cause such bad things to happen in the first place, which is the cause of my disinterest. That's terrible, I know, but I can't do much about it. My disinterest led me to say what I did before, and I really regret it. It probably made me look like a huge prick.
(I mean, this wall of text may also make me look like a huge prick, but by the very least it's more accurate to what I actually think.)
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on January 28, 2017, 05:09:09 AMAnd I think that the problem with today's society is because we live in a world with so much peace. That the problem is that we actually don't have any war (and very sadly). Because if humanity isn't angry, then it's nice. And if humans are nice to each other, then that means that the 3rd person, aka nature, will be angry at us! And that's a big problem. Because then you'll see animals and plants getting angry and aggressive. And in fact you're already seeing this. Seagulls are paining the British people. And I have great fear what is going to happen in Sweden. Like are the creatures from old legends actually become real!? Like that monster in the lake up there. Or like the Trolls in forest!! WTF! I'm angry!!!!!! I believe that there will be a great fire (like in Canada) that will take years to exhaust!! Our forest will basically burn :(
OH NO NATURE IS ATTACKING BECAUSE THERE IS PEACE BETWEEN HUMANS BECAUSE APPARENTLY PEACE ISN'T ALLOWED TO BE A THING OH NO AND THIS IS THINKING THAT HUMANS CAN BE CONSIDERED PEACEFUL IN THIS CURRENT DAY EVEN THOUGH THEY KINDA AREN'T OH NO...
Again, sorry for saying terrible things before. I have this feeling that what I've said now isn't too great either, so you can continue to talk about it if you wish, though I don't want to make the discussion about me.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on January 28, 2017, 05:09:09 AMNoc your just talking bullshit. My country, I got a feeling of is just loosing it's structure. And that's a big problem, because you know... there might be a big civil war if that happens. Or there might be one of those bad society where everyone talks about their sex life and stuff openly but is extremely secretive about what party they vote for. I think there is even A LAW that says that if you say what party you voted for OPENLY to another person, then that is an illegal action which is to be punished with the highest punishment that is available! And that is pretty scary tbh!
And I think that the problem with today's society is that because we live in a world with so much peace. That the problem is that we actually don't have any war (and very sadly). Because if humanity isn't angry, then it's nice. And if humans are nice to each other, then that means that the 3rd person, aka nature, will be angry at us! And that's a big problem. Because then you'll see animals and plants getting angry and aggressive. And in fact you're already seeing this. Seagulls are paining the British people. And I have great fear what is going to happen in Sweden. Like are the creatures from old legends actually become real!? Like that monster in the lake up there. Or like the Trolls in forest!! WTF! I'm angry!!!!!! I believe that there will be a great fire (like in Canada) that will take years to exhaust!! Our forest will basically burn :(
Ok, so I normally just completely skip over your posts but I decided to give this one a read. This is what I've got:
- A society where people talk about sex more than politics is bad.
- If you say who you voted for in sweden, they will give you the most extreme punishment in the criminal justice system.
- War is a good thing and we don't have enough of it.
- Becuase humans aren't having enough wars, animals and
plants are getting angry and will attack us.
- Mother nature may even get pissed off enough that she'll employ mythical creatures to put us in our place.
Pleassseee tell me you're trolling.
-calls me out on bull
-plants are getting angry
So I'm gonna move the topic around a bit: I just got back from the library with various books on FDR, Hitler, Washington, Jefferson, and Voltaire. Voltaire is literally the best you have to read Candide at least
Man I'm getting so pissed off on the Swedish politics atm. WTF is Stefan Löfven (our prime minister) doing!!!??
to explain this:
He first went to Fucking Saudi Arabia to.. idk talk with the King there. And that is extremely controversial in itself, like... why? You are supposed to in Sweden caring about the industry here, the poor farmers on the countryside that you are supposed to protect from poverty (being from the socialist party...).
And now (guess what country he visited...) Fucking Iran! . Like what the fuck is wrong with you!? You just visited the 2 worst countries in the middle east. It's like, if he were a soccer player, to hit like the 1st post and then the 2nd one, and your team, the crowd behind you and like everyone in the world is looking at you like your a fucking retard! It's like he's thinking "Now when Trump has announced "A ban on interest with Iran" (or whatever you call that "executive order") I can finally go and visit Iran, yay, ..hehehe". And then I think the woman, in the "delegation", were like traditional veils as to say "Sweden and Iran are the same, you were veils and, back in the days, we wore veils". Like wtf, they are fucking retarded!
I mean, not to drag to many people into this, but trump actually spoke with the... leader of Jordanien (I think it's king, but whatever). In a nice conversation. And he can actually make good decisions with whom to talk with, but... no obviously our prime minister is old retarded little old guy, who just don't do shit for the people or the country. They talked about "make Person retire" (Person being an influential socialistic party-leader), now it is Löfven's turn, he's an old industry-socialist who just doesn't give a shit about anyone! The right-wing parties "The alliance" does actually present some valuable opinions, even though they are very controversial...
I mean the only good decision Löfven made was to welcome Merkel (the German federal chancellor) to a meeting in Stockholm. Which is of a really high importance as it could help enhance our trade-relations with Germany, which.. just is nice in general, Germany being sort of "the heart" of Europe and the "strong economy" of EU. But otherwise, Löfven is missing every target...
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on February 15, 2017, 02:33:43 PMMan I'm getting so pissed off on the Swedish politics atm. WTF is Stefan Löfven (our prime minister) doing!!!??
to explain this:
He first went to Fucking Saudi Arabia to.. idk talk with the King there. And that is extremely controversial in itself, like... why? You are supposed to in Sweden caring about the industry here, the poor farmers on the countryside that you are supposed to protect from poverty (being from the socialist party...).
And now (guess what country he visited...) Fucking Iran! . Like what the fuck is wrong with you!? You just visited the 2 worst countries in the middle east. It's like, if he were a soccer player, to hit like the 1st post and then the 2nd one, and your team, the crowd behind you and like everyone in the world is looking at you like your a fucking retard! It's like he's thinking "Now when Trump has announced "A ban on interest with Iran" (or whatever you call that "executive order") I can finally go and visit Iran, yay, ..hehehe". And then I think the woman, in the "delegation", were like traditional veils as to say "Sweden and Iran are the same, you were veils and, back in the days, we wore veils". Like wtf, they are fucking retarded!
I mean, not to drag to many people into this, but trump actually spoke with the... leader of Jordanien (I think it's king, but whatever). In a nice conversation. And he can actually make good decisions with whom to talk with, but... no obviously our prime minister is old retarded little old guy, who just don't do shit for the people or the country. They talked about "make Person retire" (Person being an influential socialistic party-leader), now it is Löfven's turn, he's an old industry-socialist who just doesn't give a shit about anyone! The right-wing parties "The alliance" does actually present some valuable opinions, even though they are very controversial...
I mean the only good decision Löfven made was to welcome Merkel (the German federal chancellor) to a meeting in Stockholm. Which is of a really high importance as it could help enhance our trade-relations with Germany, which.. just is nice in general, Germany being sort of "the heart" of Europe and the "strong economy" of EU. But otherwise, Löfven is missing every target...
God forbid a world leader meet with other world leaders.
I'm actually being serious, I want to see it in swedish
tobbeh for god's sake people are allowed to do things you don't like
Tobbeh you need your own blog. Like, not just some topic on a sheet music forum, I mean like your own personal blog that you can call your own and have all sorts of things in.
i agree with this
Quote from: Dude on February 15, 2017, 10:25:29 PM
Skandal
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 16, 2017, 10:06:16 AMTobbeh you need your own blog. Like, not just some topic on a sheet music forum, I mean like your own personal blog that you can call your own and have all sorts of things in.
That's something I've been thinking about in a Long Long time! It's just that I'm so busy that I haven't haven't the - Time, Energy and knowledge to do that. I mean it's not like I'm some computer expert that create websites all the time, and if I want one I want it done really properly and good... but it's tough. But y it could really help, guess I could follow Ben's footprints and create a website, but I think mine would be more "broader" and not only about music-related stuff.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on February 16, 2017, 01:46:43 PMSkandal
That's something I've been thinking about in a Long Long time! It's just that I'm so busy that I haven't haven't the - Time, Energy and knowledge to do that. I mean it's not like I'm some computer expert that create websites all the time, and if I want one I want it done really properly and good... but it's tough. But y it could really help, guess I could follow Ben's footprints and create a website, but I think mine would be more "broader" and not only about music-related stuff.
You could always simply make a tumblr! Or use Google Sites, Weebly etc. Or maybe upload wordpress to a 000Webhost server if you want a little more control?
oh yeah go to tumblr you'd be ripped to shreds in minutes
edit: holy crap tobbeh's swedish translation sounds almost poetic
I'm so fucking tired of fucking idiotic tone of Sweden! Löfven believe he's a fucking business tycoon when he will make his "Rihla earn smart Sharq al-Awsat" aka his Middle East Travel apparently to contain the diplomatic prior connection letters about the new pact between the gudslaktande devils and satanic demons. He thinks he's a fucking king, sitting on all fucking taxes that you, Löfven has collected from the poor little beggar peasants ... and of course you do not care about the youth ... I only say one thing and that is that you the Lionheart and says "It's Robin Hood, I want ...." and I stand here as a knight from Scherwoodskogen and saying "IT'S CANCER YOU wANT" go die! ... you do not represent the Swedish people who elected you. You are an evil dictator who wants to stay in power only !! CHAOS. CHAOS.
... they call Mälardalen gnällbältet. I wonder if Stockholm is whining healing and complaining effects of the 'capital' (aka capital). I mean ... how much they complain in Orebro, e
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 16, 2017, 03:02:59 PMoh yeah go to tumblr you'd be ripped to shreds in minutes
what noc means to say is that people would love you so much they'd fill up your inbox so much it hurts
Quote from: Altissimo on February 16, 2017, 04:01:59 PMwhat noc means to say is that people would love you so much they'd fill up your inbox so much it hurts
...er, something like that, yeah.
I just wonder what the "Wish" of the British People is. I mean, to me, Great Britain is a part of the EU. But it is "divided" into different "countries" like "Wales, England, Scotland and North Ireland". And I feel like THAT is the STRUCTURE of "The Great Britain". So I believe there will be no Brexit. Because the EU needs Great Britain so if Trump wants to make a "deal" with the British People, ...he'll abandon the American People. So... there is some "problems" there. If Britain leaves... then some other country enters. And is that really a "favorable deal"?
I mean Trump is taking us back to the 1950s. Like.. look at it, lol.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on February 18, 2017, 01:17:26 AMSo I believe there will be no Brexit.
uhhhhhhhhhhhh I think you're a little out of touch with the world buddy
then again I shouldn't really be surprised, this is tobbeh
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2431
boy things sure are going well for the trump administration
Are you being sarcastic or what
Cause America is getting pretty great
Yes. He is being sarcastic. It's been more of a train wreck so far.
Yeah, it's great.
I mean he already has passed some horrible pieces of legislation already...
Quote from: Dude on April 01, 2017, 02:21:33 PMboy things sure are going well for the trump administration
ALL HAIL OUR LORD AND SAVIOR TRUMP
is this that thing called sarcasm
Mine was, dunno about his...
Trump Administration Drinking Game:
- Take a drink every time something stupid or offensive happens.
It's supposed to be a game, not suicide by alcohol!
what happened today
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wknxsdpibzufsgd/Don_t_Lewd_The_Loli_Dragons.gif?dl=1)
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 12, 2017, 07:59:11 PMwhat happened today
Academic team coach said largest non-nuclear bomb the military had was dropped on Afghanistan, specifically the Taliban. 1 mile blast radius.
It was dropped on a cave complex that ISIS was hiding in. They called the bomb MOAB (Mother of All Bombs). 21,000 pounds, counting 18,000 pounds of explosive.
(So proud of Trump... ;) )
Being in APUSH, I really love seeing how one event in American history impacts/causes another. Truly interesting, no doubt. And I can't help but wonder what the consequences will be, short- & long-term, of both this and the Syria bombings. These next 3.(whatever) years will prove very interesting.
moab is a great acronym
also does anyone have links to articles not from fox nyt wapo or huffpost
Can't wait to see how many civilians are killed (and subsequently, how many terrorists are recruited).
Quote from: SpartanChief17 on April 13, 2017, 03:03:00 PMIt was dropped on a cave complex that ISIS was hiding in. They called the bomb MOAB (Mother of All Bombs). 21,000 pounds, counting 18,000 pounds of explosive.
(So proud of Trump... ;) )
Specifically, the tunnel complex that was built for the Mujaheddin, paid for by the CIA under Reagan.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 13, 2017, 03:38:15 PMmoab is a great acronym
also does anyone have links to articles not from fox nyt wapo or huffpost
NYT is actual decent journalism but the others are trash I agree (especially huffpost, they represent the absolutely stupid liberals who give the rest of us a bad name)
nyt is a bit of a liberal circlejerk, they claim to hire conservatives to promote intellectual diversity but that doesn't actually happen and they just gloss over their own bias
so yes while they are mostly neutral they don't even realize they could be biased reporters and that kind of bothers me
I can respect that, it is predominantly liberal sided, though in general they're a pretty decent news source that at least doesn't report blatant lies
I don't read enough ny times to know, what are some examples of their bias?
For you Washingtonians, how often do you elect a republican senator
Probably never since Seattle's large Democratic presence overrides the Republican votes in the rest of the state
but Wikipedia can probably be your friend here
Lol u scrubs all hail Lord Trump
You know, to be honest, I'm starting to doubt whether your poorly-grammar'd "hail Trump" posts were actually jokes. Hopefully I'm reading too much into things.
EDIT: Well, not poorly-grammar'd, but almost intentionally over-supportive.
Quote from: SpartanChief17 on April 27, 2017, 09:05:39 PMLol u scrubs all hail Lord Trump
The new Model 17 Spartan Chief quote generator generates quotes in all levels of style, sarcasm, and content! See here for our prime example of one of our popular selections: content - politics/religion; style - Trump supporter; sarcasm - little to none.
Let's test drive this puppy one more time!
"All hail Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi!"
Did you catch where that one is from? If you guessed
The Grand Ayatollah of Iran, you were right!
What's that, you say? There might be some religious conflicts between them, since Saddam and Baghdadi led Sunni countries/militaries, and Assad's is a secular one?
No matter! Just insert our
L o g i c processor here, and it will make all the necessary incompatibilities for you!
Which one makes more sense? We're not sure; you tell us!
Just $19.99!
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 27, 2017, 10:51:47 PMLet's test drive this puppy
Is this a thing that people say?
Quote from: Dudeman on April 27, 2017, 09:07:39 PMYou know, to be honest, I'm starting to doubt whether your poorly-grammar'd "hail Trump" posts were actually jokes. Hopefully I'm reading too much into things.
I don't think anyone has ever called people 'scrubs' whilst being serious about something. Tail Hrump!
Trump is more authoritarian than conservative and I don't like that
Other than that tiny issue he's good
Edit: oh I don't think Wikipedia can tell me my odds of getting elected if I lived in Washington is all otherwise I would Google it
Trumpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
but Conress rebelled
and the wall had to Fall.
And all of his bluster,
and all of his lies,
meant nothing as Trumpty got cut down to size.
Poor Trumpty...
What the heck do your political posts even mean
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That was beautiful
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 28, 2017, 02:11:48 AMTrump is more authoritarian than conservative and I don't like that
Other than that tiny issue he's good
Edit: oh I don't think Wikipedia can tell me my odds of getting elected if I lived in Washington is all otherwise I would Google it
I'm not sure even what he stands for.
"Drain the Swamp! I mean appoint Goldman Sachs to my cabinet"
I doubt anyone here cares about BC politics (where the hell is BC?) but I'm registered to vote here. My dad doesn't give a shit and he votes for the Marijuana Party when he can, but it's not here this year. Anyway... It's kinda hard to choose a party when everyone's pretty much shit-talking each other instead of saying "hey! we're gonna help you!"
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 28, 2017, 09:58:05 PMI'm not sure even what he stands for.
"Drain the Swamp! I mean appoint Goldman Sachs to my cabinet"
mostly he was just trying to do whatever he wanted but he realizes now that's not how it works
Quote from: InsigTurtle on April 28, 2017, 10:06:31 PMI doubt anyone here cares about BC politics (where the hell is BC?) but I'm registered to vote here. My dad doesn't give a shit and he votes for the Marijuana Party when he can, but it's not here this year. Anyway... It's kinda hard to choose a party when everyone's pretty much shit-talking each other instead of saying "hey! we're gonna help you!"
idk how many parties you guys have but having more than 2 seems like a hassle. I'd recommend voting for a fiscally and environmentally conservative party
We've got a Green Party, New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, and Conservative Party in my riding. Conservative party's pretty far right but they don't have much popularity here, our BC Liberals are pretty right-wing and they get more of the votes. Our Liberals have had quite a few scandals in the past few years so I'm uncertain about them. NDP's left-wing, and the Green Party is exactly how it sounds. It pretty much boils down to NDP vs Liberal since the others don't have a chance. And well, I haven't done much research into their platforms because they only put up vague statements on their websites like "Making BC more affordable" and the documents they have specifying the details are a couple hundred of pages long... Sooo, yeah.
Your liberal is our libertarian right?
Libertarianism isn't the best, but at least it's not socialism...
Go socialism feel the bern wooooo
Quote from: InsigTurtle on April 28, 2017, 10:29:53 PMWe've got a Green Party, New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, and Conservative Party in my riding. Conservative party's pretty far right but they don't have much popularity here, our BC Liberals are pretty right-wing and they get more of the votes. Our Liberals have had quite a few scandals in the past few years so I'm uncertain about them. NDP's left-wing, and the Green Party is exactly how it sounds. It pretty much boils down to NDP vs Liberal since the others don't have a chance. And well, I haven't done much research into their platforms because they only put up vague statements on their websites like "Making BC more affordable" and the documents they have specifying the details are a couple hundred of pages long... Sooo, yeah.
Where the heck are you even from? Canada? I haven't heard of any of these parties. :-/
Quote from: InsigTurtle on April 28, 2017, 10:06:31 PMI doubt anyone here cares about BC politics
reading is fun
that wasn't where I would have gone with that but ok
@Dude: Same, but hey! It was a nice change from how my mind usually works...( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Quote from: SpartanChief17 on April 29, 2017, 05:41:16 PM@Dude: Same, but hey! It was a nice change from how my mind usually works...( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Ikr? I totally was expecting building blocks to be the answer!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
At least it's not socialism. Like, y'know, public roads, schools, bridges, NASA, the military, medicare/medicaid....
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 30, 2017, 10:53:29 AMAt least it's not socialism. Like, y'know, public roads, schools, bridges, NASA, the military, medicare/medicaid....
how terrible
...the government slowly taking control of businesses, making itself a monopoly by claiming to eradicate it, not learning from past mistakes...
Quote from: InsigTurtle on April 28, 2017, 10:06:31 PMI doubt anyone here cares about BC politics
In a similar vein, I doubt anyone cares about British politics. I won't divulge any information regarding my inclination, however I will say that things are far from comfortable right now and I'm re-evaluating things rapidly. I don't wholly trust what either key party is saying and voting third party is too risky, to the distaste of many. Tuff tams, bubs.
I hear that your president is a self proclaimed 'nationalist and globalist' so you must be thrilled at your nation's stability too. I thought his campaign was largely based on the premise of nationalism so I'm a tad confuzzled.
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on April 30, 2017, 12:59:24 PMIn a similar vein, I doubt anyone cares about British politics.
alright okay well you (and insigturtle) would be right in saying that the majority of the forum's userbase is filthy 'muricans but if you take a defeatist attitude like this it literally only serves to strengthen the stereotype that americans are self-centered assholes who don't give a shit about foreign politics.
This is a politics thread and it should be everyone's politics not just american politics.
So tell me what's going on in British politics (and InsigTurtle: BC politics) if you want because we should totally take this opportunity to learn about foreign politics lol
^^Agreed 100%
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on April 30, 2017, 12:59:24 PMI hear that your president is a self proclaimed 'nationalist and globalist' so you must be thrilled at your nation's stability too. I thought his campaign was largely based on the premise of nationalism so I'm a tad confuzzled.
His campaign was more based off of large sweeping promises in extreme directions and ego. If by "nationalism" you mean "America is the greatest country and we can do no wrong ever," then yeah, there was a lot of that too.
In all the post-brexit madness, the boss lady who said that holding an election soon wouldn't happen has called an election (which is just over a month away now) in order to solve the mess and have a strong government to deal with the negotiations. That's the main thing that's going on. Who to vote for is the problem.
Tories are expected to win by a huge margin, despite trust issues that people have with them.
Labour have been a shambles for a while now as they can't seem to agree within their own party half of the time.
UKIP are a third party that actually does have a somewhat decent chance (unlike what I hear about american third parties).
I think that's the gist.
Ironically, if the UK had implemented an electoral college, brexit wouldn't have passed
But nooo, our government is terribly set up and is hanging by a thread
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 30, 2017, 04:28:52 PMIronically, if the UK had implemented an electoral college, brexit wouldn't have passed
But nooo, our government is terribly set up and is hanging by a thread
The electoral college is fucking terrible because it statistically privileges some voters over others.
Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and ~580,000 citizens. This means that each Wyoming citizen's vote counts for approximately .0005% of the overall state vote.
California has 55 electoral votes and ~39,140,000 citizens. This means that each California citizen's vote counts for approximately .0001% of the overall state vote.
A Wyoming voter's vote therefore counts about 5 times as much as a California voter's vote.
That is inherently broken and unfair and goes against the basis of democracy.
If the electoral college actually proportionally represented population so that each voter's vote counted for approximately the same amount, I would feel differently. But as it stands it is biased.
As far as I'm concerned California is a liberal echo chamber
And please stop bringing up Wyoming, it's a biased example because 3 is the minimum number of electors... Everything else is pretty much equal based on house of representatives
Seriously it's like some Facebook meme or something "but muh Wyoming" yeah California and New York is the UK equivalent of England, and they pretty much tyranny'd Ireland and Scotland out of having any say in brexit
"Not democratic" my foot
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 30, 2017, 04:44:39 PMAs far as I'm concerned California is a liberal echo chamber
So? Do you want to make their votes count less as a result? That's about as undemocratic as it is possible to get.
QuoteAnd please stop bringing up Wyoming, it's a biased example because 3 is the minimum number of electors...
According to a document that could not predict the population growth of the US. It is not updated to take that in mind and is outdated.
And I didn't say that Wyoming needs
fewer electors. I said that they need to be equal. If that means shifting
other states to keep Wyoming at its precious 3 votes then so be it.
QuoteSeriously it's like some Facebook meme or something "but muh Wyoming"
Fine, then let's use New Hampshire, which has 4 electoral votes.
The stats come to .0003%. Which is 3 times a California vote.
Quoteyeah California and New York is the UK equivalent of England, and they pretty much tyranny'd Ireland and Scotland out of having any say in brexit
Democracy works in that the majority wins. Ireland and Scotland were not the majority. That's literally all there is to it.
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on April 30, 2017, 04:05:56 PMIn all the post-brexit madness, the boss lady who said that holding an election soon wouldn't happen has called an election (which is just over a month away now) in order to solve the mess and have a strong government to deal with the negotiations. That's the main thing that's going on. Who to vote for is the problem.
Tories are expected to win by a huge margin, despite trust issues that people have with them.
Labour have been a shambles for a while now as they can't seem to agree within their own party half of the time.
UKIP are a third party that actually does have a somewhat decent chance (unlike what I hear about american third parties).
I think that's the gist.
And actually, we wanted to talk about British politics, which you
immediately co-opted by going "well if England was America this wouldn't have happened".
So let's talk about Britain instead.
AmpharosAndy: What are the parties like and what are their goals and plans post-Brexit?
The house of representatives IS distributed based on population. But the smaller states are largely ignored if you solely base it off population, so every state has their 2 senators in addition
Like how important do you want a single person to be? I don't really want California and new York to dominate the elections and Texas on the other side. And arguments that the constitution is outdated is what screwed us over in the first place. FDR completely ignored his limits and drove the debt past the point of no return in exchange for making the us look pretty. I think if you're not smarter than Jefferson was, you probably shouldn't be saying he was wrong. Just my 2 cents.
You can fundamentally argue that the electoral college is flawed, but in practice removing it just causes more problems than it does in the first place.
You could also argue that the two party system is flawed in a similar manner as the electoral college, but the ffounding fathers were paying attention to the mistakes of history. Tyranny doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Straight up democracy has problems too. Like, if post WWI Germany had an electoral college, guess who wouldn't have been elected? Yup. Germany had like 7 parties and none of them had more than like 20% or something. That isn't the majority.
Ninjad: sorry ye
That's just what I hated about brexit in General
I'd rather have a dollar than your 2 cents.
Good thing you're a guy then. A girl would only get 71 cents
...Unless I'm discriminated by homophobic people and don't get any money at all because they wouldn't hire me.
I've never worked anywhere that wasn't an equal opportunity employer, how often has it happened for you?
Fun fact: not all states include sexual orientation in that so
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Plus I haven't gone public yet so it hasn't happened yet
...but that doesn't mean it won't
Quote from: Dude on April 30, 2017, 05:22:41 PMFun fact: not all states include sexual orientation in that so
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In fact, you can still be fired for being gay in 29 states. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp)
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 30, 2017, 12:27:10 PM...the government slowly taking control of businesses, making itself a monopoly by claiming to eradicate it, not learning from past mistakes...
Because that happens in the US so often.
The reality is that there are some things that simply have to be nationalized. Healthcare is one of them, just like we've decided public roads and bridges (imagine paying a toll for every road you drove on).
Socialism isn't what eats everything up. Capitalism does that. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, either, just that we need to accept that socialism (which we already have) isn't this inherently evil idea.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 30, 2017, 05:04:53 PMThe house of representatives IS distributed based on population. But the smaller states are largely ignored if you solely base it off population, so every state has their 2 senators in addition
Smaller states, perhaps. The people in them? No. It's also worth noting that, with an electoral college, the 10m+ republicans in California are also ignored.
QuoteLike how important do you want a single person to be? I don't really want California and new York to dominate the elections and Texas on the other side.
I want a person to be more important than mostly arbitrary borders. The idea that California and New York would suddenly dominate if we abolish the electoral college is stupid; they're also home to several million republicans apiece who would be more likely to vote now that they felt their vote meant something.
QuoteAnd arguments that the constitution is outdated is what screwed us over in the first place. FDR completely ignored his limits and drove the debt past the point of no return in exchange for making the us look pretty. I think if you're not smarter than Jefferson was, you probably shouldn't be saying he was wrong. Just my 2 cents.
Ah, the old chestnut of "if you aren't smarter don't critique", much like "if you can't write better than Mozart don't you dare criticize his music." No, the Constitution, while a wonderful basis for our government, is made to be amended (that's why we have a process to add to and amend it). The Founders knew that times would change; specifically, many of them wanted to abolish slavery, but knew it would never happen with how powerful Virginia was as a result of slave labor, and they therefore set up the Constitution as a document that isn't set in stone.
Lmao you really seem not to like FDR despite his pulling us out of the depression by regulating the banks and WW2. He did have a bit of an issue with the Japanese, but he got elected 3 times for a reason.
QuoteYou can fundamentally argue that the electoral college is flawed, but in practice removing it just causes more problems than it does in the first place.
[citation needed]
QuoteYou could also argue that the two party system is flawed in a similar manner as the electoral college, but the ffounding fathers were paying attention to the mistakes of history.
Such as? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
QuoteTyranny doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Straight up democracy has problems too.
So does the electoral college. As the Churchill quote goes, democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others.
QuoteLike, if post WWI Germany had an electoral college, guess who wouldn't have been elected? Yup. Germany had like 7 parties and none of them had more than like 20% or something. That isn't the majority.
This is pure speculation. It's impossible to know what Germany would or wouldn't have done post WW1 w/o an electoral college.
Hey, I don't complain about the electoral collage, because if we didn't have it, democrats would win every election.
[original post deleted]
(Again,) I'm proud of Trump!
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBAAX1y?m=en-us (https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBAAX1y?m=en-us)
@PDS I thought FDR got elected 4 times but died the first year into his 4th term?
are you sure that's accurate? i thought all media sources except fox were FAKE NEWS™. SAD!!
Quote from: SpartanChief17 on May 01, 2017, 06:20:55 AMHey, I don't complain about the electoral collage, because if we didn't have it, democrats would win every election.
God forbid we have democracy
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on May 01, 2017, 04:28:32 PM@PDS I thought FDR got elected 4 times but died the first year into his 4th term?
You're right; I meant re-elected.
while I'd prefer if the federal gov't didn't control healthcare this bill actually seems like a decent compromise. Nobody in their right mind should be unhappy about this unless you're planning on getting in major trouble 4-10 years from now.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 04, 2017, 09:23:50 PMNobody in their right mind should be unhappy about this
Women? Because at the moment pre-existing conditions aren't required to be covered and domestic violence, sexual assault, and pregnancy all count as pre-existing conditions? Um, I'm extremely unhappy about this, and I'm in my right mind sooo
In general, Noc, you seem to love this sort of rhetoric where you claim that your viewpoints are objectively superior by nature of their being your viewpoints and that there is literally no other "sane" way to look at the world. This is why Dude kicked you out of the skype chat. I don't know if you're intentionally trying to get under people's skin or if you are simply so closed-minded that you literally cannot accept the existence of alternative viewpoints to the ones that you possess but the more you do it the more irritating it fucking gets and I would thank you to
fucking stop. It is possible to have political debates without making derogatory comments that
implicitly question the mental health of people with opposing viewpoints from you.You know I hold no ill will against you as a person and we have friendly conversations very often, but when you make statements like this I just want to throw it all out the window because it seems as though you have no respect whatsoever for people who hold different viewpoints from you and you are really coming across as a hugely insufferable ass because of it. Please think before you post.
I think it's beneficial to realize not everyone has the same life experiences
Except under the new plan you still are required to be covered, you're just high risk
I have no idea where this is coming from, the state will still have to cover you if you do
You don't get denied coverage, but your premiums skyrocket.
Rape is also now a pre-existing condition, as is any mental health complication, as are a number of things that, if you're born with them, you can't change.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 04, 2017, 09:23:50 PMwhile I'd prefer if the federal gov't didn't control healthcare this bill actually seems like a decent compromise. Nobody in their right mind should be unhappy about this unless you're planning on getting in major trouble 4-10 years from now.
Um, no. The federal gov't should definitely control healthcare; the private sector has proven time and time again that it prioritizes people's pocketbook over their needs. Again, the free market is a good solution to most products, but some essentials, like healthcare, are not negotiable.
Also, this bill and Obamacare weren't even gov't controlled healthcare to begin with, though I wish they were. Obamacare was the individual mandate, an insurance company's wet dream. Everyone was required to buy private healthcare, and if you're poor, you got a subsidy.
Basically everything here:
Quote from: Altissimo on May 04, 2017, 09:49:11 PMWomen? Because at the moment pre-existing conditions aren't required to be covered and domestic violence, sexual assault, and pregnancy all count as pre-existing conditions? Um, I'm extremely unhappy about this, and I'm in my right mind sooo
In general, Noc, you seem to love this sort of rhetoric where you claim that your viewpoints are objectively superior by nature of their being your viewpoints and that there is literally no other "sane" way to look at the world. This is why Dude kicked you out of the skype chat. I don't know if you're intentionally trying to get under people's skin or if you are simply so closed-minded that you literally cannot accept the existence of alternative viewpoints to the ones that you possess but the more you do it the more irritating it fucking gets and I would thank you to fucking stop. It is possible to have political debates without making derogatory comments that implicitly question the mental health of people with opposing viewpoints from you.
You know I hold no ill will against you as a person and we have friendly conversations very often, but when you make statements like this I just want to throw it all out the window because it seems as though you have no respect whatsoever for people who hold different viewpoints from you and you are really coming across as a hugely insufferable ass because of it. Please think before you post.
It's not a big secret that insurance companies exist to make money. The problem is when the government is controlling the health care market more long term damage is caused and is more likely to result in monopoly than free market is.
I really want to be able to opt out of buying any insurance at all. Anyway, the reason they charge you more for rape or pregnancy is because you cost more. When I got in an accident my insurance went up. Same principle here. Like I know it sounds dumb but you can't expect anyone, even the government, to have your best interests as its primary goal. If anything, the government is less ethical than business because business is easy to understand and manipulate.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadowI really want to be able to opt out of buying any insurance at all.
Perfect description of where I stand. The government shouldn't be forcing people to have health any more than they should be forcing men (and men only) into the Selective Service program.
Money doesn't grow on trees.
In order to pay for healthcare for all, we either need to fine people who don't apply or raise taxes, so pick your poison.
I'd rather spend it on healthcare than just paying the government.
Quote from: Dude on May 05, 2017, 06:44:00 PMMoney doesn't grow on trees.
I'm glad you agree, because this bill would be significantly cheaper than obamacare was.
And significantly worse coverage for people, but hey, who gets sick anymore?? might as just let all those old people with cancer and bad heart conditions die, right??
24 million after 10 years.
that's not a lot at all
Just because something makes your like a tiny bit easier doesn't mean it does for everyone. Don't be selfish.
I thought you understood sarcasm, but I guess I was wrong about that and many other things. -_-
I still think it's entirely unnecessary to make everyone have health insurance
Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on May 05, 2017, 07:03:56 PMI still think it's entirely unnecessary to make everyone have health insurance
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F68.media.tumblr.com%2F56228e3b352f1e51c8017cb54a000e78%2Ftumblr_opiek7PVig1sym3f0o1_250.gif&hash=975dadabfdb59e2cc7536bebd9ea462cb2f56a95)
Whoosh
pushing everyone below the poverty line by forcing them to pay for insurance and calling it a measurement of progress is a terrible thing to do.
It's as simple as this:
The federal government monopolizes healthcare -> either our federal budget is mostly devoted to healthcare, or it becomes more expensive than anything we've seen before.
The federal government keeps their hands off healthcare -> competition naturally lowers healthcare prices to affordable rates for nearly everyone without spending any of the federal budget.
Neither is perfect, but BOTH ARE BETTER than this type of market control that's been going on.
I kinda like option two. The old system wasn't broken and most of the people that say they couldn't get on healthcare before really just weren't on healthcare because they never took the initiative to get it until they were required to.
you're supposed to like option two, option one is the liberal one. Which probably works, but it's fiscally irresponsible.
edit: before people get salty mad, I mean because bwaf is right wing, not because liberal policy is unlikeable
No I'm actually middle of the road. I do tend to lean more towards the right on certain issues though
And on some issues I lean to the left.
"Men's Rights Activist" sounds pretty right wing to me.
I can't imagine any moderate being an activist
Maybe but I doubt you know what the movement actually stands for.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on May 05, 2017, 07:49:58 PMI can't imagine any moderate being an activist
Having a nuanced outlook on various political issues is crazy talk.
Quote from: Dude on May 05, 2017, 07:22:47 PM(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F68.media.tumblr.com%2F56228e3b352f1e51c8017cb54a000e78%2Ftumblr_opiek7PVig1sym3f0o1_250.gif&hash=975dadabfdb59e2cc7536bebd9ea462cb2f56a95)
Whoosh
this still applies to the current conversation
If you can opt out of healthcare insurance competition will not lower it to affordable rates.
First off competition will lower it to affordable rates. That's just how business works. However that's not because people can opt out. I've been saying that it's just unnecessary to force everyone into it.
Quote from: FireArrow on May 05, 2017, 08:25:51 PMIf you can opt out of healthcare insurance competition will not lower it to affordable rates.
well if you're forced to buy it they don't have to
if not buying it is an option they're not making money. What makes you say it won't?
Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on May 05, 2017, 08:29:38 PMFirst off competition will lower it to affordable rates. That's just how business works.
I take it you've never heard of Martin Shkreli?
didn't that guy buy a ton of reserve list magic cards and cause prices to inflate?
Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on May 05, 2017, 08:29:38 PMFirst off competition will lower it to affordable rates. That's just how business works. However that's not because people can opt out. I've been saying that it's just unnecessary to force everyone into it.
In a normal market yes, but health care doesn't work that way because:
1. Some people need it to afford their medical conditions.
2. Some people can live without and only ever buy it as a "just in case."
3. No average American can afford hospital bills without insurance.
Insurance only works if everyone buys it. Otherwise you get absurd rates for people that can't live without it (oh hey, you were born with a medical condition requiring regular treatment, have fun living in poverty or dying!) and people who only need it as bad weather insurance avoid it all together because of high rates. Then inevitably some of them end up in the hospital one way or another and can't pay their obsene bills because "oh free country I don't wanna buy medical insurance" meaning they get treated all on tax dollars making everything more expensive in a wonderful loop.
In short: medical coverage is a concept reliant on everyone taking part to work. It's also necessary if you consider life a human right, which in america it is. Yes, if you're born in perfect healt and are lucky enough to stay that way, then you are a "loser" in the system forced to buy something you don't need. However you are much less a loser than the person with multiple sclerosis would be in a free market system so yeah.
okay donald
#SAD
Which thing
I heard he fired scarramucci person after 10 days maybe that's it
Oh jeez that's right
"I'm not like Bannon, I'm not trying to suck my own cock and build my own brand off the strength of the president" or whatever...
JFC this is literally Real Housewives of DC
I was a bit doubtful in Trump as president, mainly because of his lack of political experience. And I got to say that I'm a bit disappointed with him as president. It seems as if everything has just escalated and intensified since he took office and a lot of the decisions seems very hastily made. Not sure if everything is true or if it's the media being hysterical about everything he does. But it feels as the society (the west) in general has gotten more hysterical since he took office.
But not that it's better here in Sweden. All politicians are like "blah blah blah taxes blah blah". They literally show no leadership and just look plain dumb.
most of it is just the media
but fringe extremists are feeling emboldened by his rhetoric so bigotry is being combated in the open
and more extremists are rising up to fight extremism
Liked trump till he pardoned joe arpaio..
Looked a bit at today's news and apparently Anna Kinberg Batra, the party leader of the liberal-conservative party "Moderaterna" (the moderates) apparently resigned from her position. It really wasn't unexpected as her and the party's support has just fallen day by day. But the thing that annoys me about it is that some people tries to argue that "she had to go just because or partly because she's a woman". And also following up with "And there we can all see how evil and patriarchal the right is. Nothing has changed". First of all, to no surprise at all are most of those people leftists, either being writers from the left-center newspaper, or straight up the very leader of the ultra-left feministparty. Which firstly says something about their bias. But they really just want to take this as a chance to make a punch towards the right liberal-conservatives and try to portray them as bad people who are "stuck in the old days". And it's so stupid because it has nothing to do with her resign.
The big reason is that she hasn't been clear on position towards the nationalistic ultra-right party, Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden-democrats). Sometimes she says "No I want to (continue to) cooperate with the other center-right parties (which has created an alliance called "Alliansen" (The alliance)). But other times she has kind of said "Y, we could use their support to take down the left socialist government", and she has been less unclear as the Sweden-democrats has rose in support percent. And the problem with the Moderates cooperating with the Sweden-democrats is that 2 of the 4 parties in the Alliance (the more center parties) just began to move farther away from the Moderates and the entire structure of the right wing alliance began to be questioned as the center parties could see an option of cooperating with the social-democrats rather than with the Sweden-democrats.
The other mistake she made was that she wasn't even clear of what politics the party were going for. A lot of politicians often say that their mistake was that "they were not clear enough of what their message/politics was". And I don't think anyone really knows what politics they care about, apart from classic right-wing politics like lower taxes and care about the companies and the military. And it's a bigger problem now then before, because now we have a new right-wing party, the Sweden-democrats, who has just grown bigger and bigger´, being now the party with 2nd largest vote support, according to most polls. So the Sweden-democrats basically out out-competed them.
And with that said it is very clear that she just simply failed at the very main objectives as a party leader, -to make the party bigger and to take over as the leading party. She did exactly the opposite, -she made her party lose support and also the entire center-right alliance questionable.
I hope they get a new and good leader. They really needs it as the Swedendemocrats has gotten bigger and bigger by the time. And I really don't have much confidence in them. They seem pretty suspicious, having tried to clear away all the rasists from the party, the party seem kind of unclear and suspicious. And if the Moderats can get a good leader and can strengthen the alliance I think that would good in general for Swedish politics and in turn for Sweden as a country. There have been a lot of talk that "the negative right" has taken over in the right-wing parties which very well might be true, but also is just a bad thing. Because when you think about it, you don't want any party to really be a "negative party", because if you have a negative party then you're going to have the idea that the future is dark and basically make the country worse or just bad. And I want the best of the parties so therefore a good leader could be a start for better politics in Sweden.
that's moderately terrifying
You guys are acting ike Trump being a terrible president is a surprise.
Haha...
Quote from: Dude on August 28, 2017, 08:52:44 PMYou guys are acting ike Trump being a terrible president is a surprise.
Haha...
I think a lot of people were kind of "give him a shot", and has now come to the conclusion that he's more or less bad. One thing I find a bit strange is that he and his party is supposed to be "conservative" but yet has done like millions of executive orders and changed everything. Doesn't seem that conservative to me.
And also I don't think Clinton would be that good either. She would most likely just ride on the politics that Obama created. I think she had a statement that she thought it was "her turn". That kind of shows how much thought she has in running for presidency. A lot of the left also disliked her for her mingling with wall street and donors.
But I really think the election is an example of both the left and the right has kind of declined, sadly. The right seems to have this negative view that "we desperately need a strong and bold leader to revive the country before it's too late.", and playing of emotions like "man, society has just fallen year after year. It was a lot better back in the days". And they also seem very bold, self-confident and emotionless like "everything the right does and thinks is right and everything the left does and thinks is wrong and bad" with little explanation why. And also in general so authoritarian, take every word that their leader tells them without any thought or criticism.
While the left has also decline in the sense that they just seem so corny now, what I call "the hippie-left". Which is super-focused on all these identity-politics (caring so much if the person is white, black, rich, poor, gay, cis etc.). And then also want to like brainwash people with their "norm-breaking" and want it to be taught at every section of society, because apparently all norms, which the society has been based upon, have been evil and discriminating. And lastly they have so naiv opinions on law and order, wanting to have as little laws as possible, because laws are apparently in the way of peoples freedom. And also just blindly think that multicultural and pluralism by default is something good in it's nature, and the only reason they do it is to try to make them self look like the "nice guys" when the right has been more authoritarian.
Tobbeh's back
Here's the joke, he's been a democrat forever but ran as a republican because republicans are stupid
And the left and right are both very large areas, both can be authoritarian/libertarian. Most people in America seem to err toward authoritarianism if you ask me. Not that that's bad. The only "bad" area in the political spectrum is the extremes, everywhere else I think is totally ok as long as it's an educated opinion
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 29, 2017, 07:42:55 AMHere's the joke, he's been a democrat forever but ran as a republican because republicans are stupid
Are you talking about me?
If so, then you're sort of right. I use to support the left-party (or left-parties), a lot of it has to do with my family as well as my friends being very left-leaning people. But more importantly my dad, whom I respect a lot on politics and economics as he's very educated and has read a ton of economic articles, a ton of stuff on history and knows a lot on politics, and he's very far on the left, having some radical economic ideas that other less leftist people that he argued with are skeptical to. So I grew up thinking that the right was just worse, and only cared about the rich and how companies made millions and billions of money and how the stock market basically was a casino. So it looked as the left cared for the average person.
But as time has gone by and as society has changed I've noticed that the left just seem so radical and just has worsened leaving me the logical conclusion to switch side and think that they had the answer. Mostly I'm more to the right on social issues. The left seem so much like trendies that just pick up the latest ideas and how society has successfully gotten better all the way since the beginning and that they've been the ones pushing that. And I don't fully agrees with them on that. And there is when I think the right is better, because they are conservative and by name are more skeptical to changes. i've always been against most changes that I've come across in my life, so why should I support changes when made in politics? There is a branch of the left known as "reformative socialism" which is basically "slow socialism", so they make changes slower so that people can get used to them. But the problem is that even the more center-socialist party in Sweden doesn't seem to care about that, they literally tries to do they're best to pick up on all the latest trends like feminism and multiculturalism and all other stuff.
But on economics I'm more in the middle. I'm not super-right saying "fuck the taxes, they steal our money" wanting the tax as low as possible. I'm more pro a balance between state-owned sections and private companies. And you need tax money to even fund the state-owned sections of society. I do however have more trust when it's state-owned rather than privatized, but that comes from experience, and is not like some objective fact. Because the right-wing parties did privatize some industries that were state-owned, namely the post-industry and the pharmacy-industry. And looking at the result, I think it went worse. I didn't help anyone really. All it did was that it caused some confusion, because instead of having just 1 company doing it all, you had like a bunch of companies doing the same thing, competing with each other. And the big problem was that all those companies were practically the same, so why even privatize it!? The reason to privatize something should be so that you can get different results that appeal to different people. Like having different cloths-shops, so that you can buy cloths in whatever store you like. Or different brands of things like cars etc. But they're all the pharma-shops are literally the same, they sell the same medicals, so it's pointless privatizing it. And in some areas like private schools they seem so greedy, offering like smart-books and laptops and stuff to make people come to their school. Which kind of shows that they care more about the money than the education.
So I really has changed in terms of politics. And moved more to the right, thinking that all the stuff the left taught me about the "evil companies" were more just hysteria. Which I really think it is. Why shouldn't you get credit for running a good company? I mean we look up to sports-athletes, scientists, cultural persons when they succeed, but why do we look down on CEOs, entrepreneurs and companies when they do? I get the fact that some companies treat they're workers poorly, but it's far-fetched to jump into the conclusion that all companies are bad because of that.
Good god, Tobbeh, he was referring to Donald Trump.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 29, 2017, 02:48:30 PMGood god, Tobbeh, he was referring to Donald Trump.
I also kind of thought that but was unsure.
Well I didn't really mind reading that anyway lol
But yeah I meant president trump
There is a small minor election coming up in Sweden, in September, - the church election. Basically who should lead the church, or something along those lines. It is to be honest pretty insignificant, mostly because how little religion matters in Sweden. A lot of people care about politics, but way fewer care as much about religion. But there are some things that bothers me about the election. First of, why it even exist. Like why have an election, like a political election, for the church. The church should be able to take care of it's administration by themselves. Secondly, how political parties really tries to use the election and the church as some sort of place or platform to expand their political beliefs onto. It is very clear when you have the Social-democrats who think that the church should be a part of the welfare more or the less, help the poor and people who have troubles in their lives. And also very clear with the national-conservative Sweden-democrats party, who kind of thinks that the church should be like "a museum" to show and preserve the Swedish culture.
And it gets really ridiculous when you got candidates who doesn't even believe in god, or are religious at all but still wanting to voice their opinions and have power over the church and the religion. Like there was literally 1 social-democrat candidate who wasn't any religious at all who thought that the church should care less about issues concerning "marriage and theology". The first one, well "I mean you could have different opinions on that one" but the later one makes absolutely zero sense. If the church and religion shouldn't care about "theology" then what should it care about!? It's like saying to musicians to not care about music. It just doesn't make any sense. The same person also didn't seem to care much about the election, and talked about how his party sort of pushed him to candidate for it. And if that was enough there an "info-site" about the election, that is run by the Socialdemocrats youth party (which you don't know because it's called "churchelection.info pretty much), voicing clear opinions about what you should vote for. Y, what a smart "info site". Imagine having that for the real political election. So sick o the Social-democratic party to even do so. Their opinions expressed aren't that crazy and political (they are: "Vote for: same-sex marige, women as priests, and against conservative and rasists views). But you should clearly not call it an "info-site" if your stating your parties opinions on it. And the Social-democrats are clearly doing this to prevent the Sweden-democrats from gaining ground in the election, because the Sweden-democrats see it as "every election they can win is just another step on the way to power (be it EU, Church, or any other)".
And all this just shows how dumb both the election is, and the parties and candidates candidating for it are. I've heard that there are non-political parties you can vote for, and I'm probably going to do that. I could also not decide to vote, but I think it's better to vote for something non-political as I'm telling a message to the political parties to not use/abuse this election in order to gain power and influence.
I agree that sounds really weird to me as an American but it makes me wonder if other states control the religion like that
Trump has been a shit storm, but here's a few upsides (for both conservatives and libs):
- We will definitely reign in the powers of the prez
- Increased activism both by libs and libertarians/less extreme right wingers
- As unfortunate as the events are in Charlottesville are, actual KKK/Nazis are being outed
etc
But I think Noc brought up a really important point as well; extremism fighting extremism. While the protests against Trump are by and large peaceful, there's also a growing trend of Antifa/anarchists (especially in Portland OR, near where I live) combating Trump. Not equally awful as Nazis, but still not a good thing.
Anyways violence is bad y'all so let's just chill the **** out
also don't 'both sides' a white supremacist rally
I kind of like how he had a tougher stance against ISIS. Saying basically that he'll do anything in order to eliminate them, even if that means cooperating with Russia. And it's been "successful" in the sense that they liberated Mosul quite rapidly. At Obama's time they were basically standing at the gates, going slowly forward. Not that I think that it wouldn't have ended if Clinton was elected. And Trump/the US military has been sometimes so stupid in Syria/Iraq, sometimes bombing Syrian troops because "Syria-Russian-Iran alliance" and trying to show that they are not on the side of Russia and Iran; but then they forgot that ISIS is the real enemy, and not Russia or Iran. But in general I really like how he has a tougher stance against terrorism and has a sort of "there has to be an end to this" point of view on it. I don't think that he was that clear on what happened in Charlottesville, I think he should condemned "White supremacists, KKK, Neo-nazi etc." at his first speech on it. Then he wouldn't even need to do another speech, clarifying his message. And he shouldn't making the same mistake he said Obama did - not being clear and precise with the terms and words he uses.
I talked about that there was a new election for the leader in the Moderate party in Sweden. And following up on this, it's kind of funny to see what people think of this. Because a wast majority of the the Moderate voters want to see a guy called Carl Bildt as the new leader, and 2nd place on that list comes a guy name Anders Borg. ANd the funny thing is how both a veterans. Carl Bildt was prime minister around 80-90s, and Anders Borg was minister of finance at the government 2004-2012. And I really don't get why they think that way, because none of them really seem to have that "bringing back the party" factor. Carl Bildt is a very smart politician and very good on foreign policies, but I don't think that he would give the party such upswing. And Anders Borg is a pure stupid choice, because he recently had a scandal where he behaved badly did some "bad, dirty things" at a party, so that really wouldn't help either. And I get that the party is a bit lost and probably thinking "let's get back to the roots, when we succeeded". But looking at the current political landscape, that's clearly a "loosing pick". The clear winners in today's politics are the ones that just came from nowhere, had a good personality, and therefore won. Trump and Macron are 2 clear examples. So thinking that they can beat the Left-parties and take back some votes from Sweden-democrats by picking some veteran is not going to happen. Thankfully for them, Carl Bildt has even said that he's not candidating, and haven't heard a word from Anders Borg. There are 2 candidates that do look promising, Ulf Kristensson and Mikael Odenberg. Both look way more promising than the older veterans.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on August 31, 2017, 05:42:27 AMI kind of like how he had a tougher stance against ISIS. Saying basically that he'll do anything in order to eliminate them, even if that means cooperating with Russia. And it's been "successful" in the sense that they liberated Mosul quite rapidly. At Obama's time they were basically standing at the gates, going slowly forward. Not that I think that it wouldn't have ended if Clinton was elected. And Trump/the US military has been sometimes so stupid in Syria/Iraq, sometimes bombing Syrian troops because "Syria-Russian-Iran alliance" and trying to show that they are not on the side of Russia and Iran; but then they forgot that ISIS is the real enemy, and not Russia or Iran. But in general I really like how he has a tougher stance against terrorism and has a sort of "there has to be an end to this" point of view on it.
Mm.. Tobbeh, I think you forgot about the 7 countries (5 more than Bush jr) we were involved in under him. I WISH he would have a less hawkish stance on this, but he actually dropped ridiculous numbers of bombs (and also approved the drone program, which killed mostly civilians).
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/
Under Obama, we're involved in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria. Unfortunately, these tactics haven't worked. We can fight ISIS in more effective ways than we are now, especially not by spending huge sums of money (deficit hawks, where are you?) maintaining a psuedo-empire in the Middle East.
QuoteI don't think that he was that clear on what happened in Charlottesville, I think he should condemned "White supremacists, KKK, Neo-nazi etc." at his first speech on it. Then he wouldn't even need to do another speech, clarifying his message. And he shouldn't making the same mistake he said Obama did - not being clear and precise with the terms and words he uses.
Fair enough, I suppose. I'd add that there's a difference, though; Obama not calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism, while still not great, isn't the same thing as Trump refusing to outright condemn Nazis until pressured by the media.
(I'll leave the Swedish politics to you, since I know nothing about them)
Washington post reported trump as "grudgingly admitting" the conservative extremists were at fault. I have a hard time believing that's the case. The first thing I heard was the report that he 'condemned all sides' (I guess left extremists had a presence there as well) and someone decided that wasn't good enough. I think most of the protesters suddenly feel terrible about themselves and that should be enough to change their perspective. I sure ain't willing to condemn someone for making a choice they'll regret, so I feel no need to expect condemnation from just another man (by which I mean president trump if that isn't clear). I also heard that the "rally" was determined to be not allowed by the Charlottesville local government, so that's a thing too I guess.
The presence of left wing extremists (and by that I think we're talking about Antifa) was negligible. As much as I can't stand Antifa, pulling a "both sides" on a literal Nazi/KKK rally (the day after the Confederate statue rally) is also not acceptable.
Also, I have to doubt that people who were shouting "Jews will not replace us" are now suddenly ashamed. Sites like Breitbart and Daily Stormer (before they got canceled) were perfectly happy with Trump's response, and many leaders (such as David Duke) have come out basically saying that it's the exact response they wanted.
Charlottesville as a state shouldn't (and I don't think they legally can) prevent legal, peaceful protests. The Skoki case is relevant here. But I don't think that's any justification for letting these guys off the hook; they can't be legally prosecuted by the state, but they're certainly liable to social repercussion for their hideous beliefs.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 31, 2017, 10:43:58 AMMm.. Tobbeh, I think you forgot about the 7 countries (5 more than Bush jr) we were involved in under him. I WISH he would have a less hawkish stance on this, but he actually dropped ridiculous numbers of bombs (and also approved the drone program, which killed mostly civilians).
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/
I do agree that bombing a bunch won't solve all issues. But what alternatives are they? Are you just going to let the terrorists go loose!? That's what happened with ISIS, they just conquered more and more territory. And you could argue that "you should let those countries take care of their own problem". But it obviously didn't work if half of Syria and Iraq was conquered by ISIS, their military wasn't strong enough. And same goes for Afghanistan, where terrorists control areas here and there. I don't think US or The West (and sometimes Russia) should be some "world police", but it seems like they sadly have to take that role when crazy terrorist groups just take over countries. I mean you don't want the fire to spread.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 31, 2017, 10:43:58 AMUnder Obama, we're involved in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria. Unfortunately, these tactics haven't worked. We can fight ISIS in more effective ways than we are now, especially not by spending huge sums of money (deficit hawks, where are you?) maintaining a psuedo-empire in the Middle East.
About the "pseudo empire". If the countries in the middle east didn't approve of that, maybe they should stop it. And maybe voice their opinion and and try to increase their superiority? And what is even that "pseudo empire"? Their allies with Saudi and the Gulf states, and the other North African countries?
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 31, 2017, 10:43:58 AMFair enough, I suppose. I'd add that there's a difference, though; Obama not calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism, while still not great, isn't the same thing as Trump refusing to outright condemn Nazis until pressured by the media.
Trump said "violence on both sides (nazis and antifa)" condemning both nazis and antifa, I do think that Trumps statement wasn't good as the nazis were behind the terror-attack. I don't know how violent the antifa were, but it's clear that the nazis were more violent. But I think it's comparable to Obama having the mindset that ISIS aren't "real muslims", having the mindset that muslims are nice and ISIS aren't so there fore ISIS can't be "islamic extremists" they got to be something else like "violent extremists". It's the same shadyness and political correctness. That they try so hard to make everything right that they end up doing something really wrong.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on August 31, 2017, 12:56:41 PMI do agree that bombing a bunch won't solve all issues. But what alternatives are they? Are you just going to let the terrorists go loose!? That's what happened with ISIS, they just conquered more and more territory. And you could argue that "you should let those countries take care of their own problem". But it obviously didn't work if half of Syria and Iraq was conquered by ISIS, their military wasn't strong enough. And same goes for Afghanistan, where terrorists control areas here and there. I don't think US or The West (and sometimes Russia) should be some "world police", but it seems like they sadly have to take that role when crazy terrorist groups just take over countries. I mean you don't want the fire to spread.
ISIS rose because of our invasion of Iraq. There is a legitimate problem of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, but the way to be involved is not by directly fighting. We've proven that we're too interested in oil to do that; if we cared about extremism, we wouldn't fund Saudi. We can definitely give aid to forces like the Kurds, maybe even some special ops operations if it gets extremely dire. But liberating entire cities? We get into the perpetual war trap by doing that.
QuoteAbout the "pseudo empire". If the countries in the middle east didn't approve of that, maybe they should stop it. And maybe voice their opinion and and try to increase their superiority? And what is even that "pseudo empire"? Their allies with Saudi and the Gulf states, and the other North African countries?
That's what a decent chunk of terrorism probably is; people who get their families killed by a drone strike and take up arms against the West. I'm not sure what you're advocating for.
The pseudo empire is the group of states that we constantly have troops in; Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
If the Mid East countries tried to "increase their superiority" (whatever that means), I guarantee that the US would not be a fan.
QuoteTrump said "violence on both sides (nazis and antifa)" condemning both nazis and antifa, I do think that Trumps statement wasn't good as the nazis were behind the terror-attack. I don't know how violent the antifa were, but it's clear that the nazis were more violent.
I agree.
QuoteBut I think it's comparable to Obama having the mindset that ISIS aren't "real muslims", having the mindset that muslims are nice and ISIS aren't so there fore ISIS can't be "islamic extremists" they got to be something else like "violent extremists". It's the same shadyness and political correctness. That they try so hard to make everything right that they end up doing something really wrong.
I think he should call them Islamic, just as the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church are Christian. But how much does it really mean, in the end? Yes, the members of ISIS/similar groups are Islamic extremists, and the same with the Klan. But do they represent all members within the faith?
Now might be a good time to point out the stunning lack of Islamic terror attacks in recent news
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 31, 2017, 04:09:59 PMISIS rose because of our invasion of Iraq. There is a legitimate problem of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, but the way to be involved is not by directly fighting. We've proven that we're too interested in oil to do that; if we cared about extremism, we wouldn't fund Saudi. We can definitely give aid to forces like the Kurds, maybe even some special ops operations if it gets extremely dire. But liberating entire cities? We get into the perpetual war trap by doing that.
I can agree that ISIS is sort of a consequence on US invasion of Iraq. But now when they rose, you have to deal with them. And I agree that the best long term solution would be for the US to just get out of there slowly. Like I don't get why US, and other western countries, even have relations with like Saudi and the Gulf states!? (probably only because of oil...). Btw I thought that the US troops in Syria and Iraq are more there to help the other local groups, not as an own force. Because after they get rid of ISIS, then those groups like the kurds, the Syrian regime, the PMU etc. are going to have to take over.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 31, 2017, 04:09:59 PMIf the Mid East countries tried to "increase their superiority" (whatever that means), I guarantee that the US would not be a fan.I agree.
Like what could the US do about it!? Sanctions!!? Or? Like they could obviously try to stop them from gaining any influence and all that. But it's not like they could invade a country like that. When they invaded Iraq, it's was on the reasoning that Saddam Hussein was a crazy dictator. But if they just invade countries for no reason, I'm pretty sure that a lot of major world countries would be against it, and that's why they wouldn't even do that. So what is the US going to do about it?
And about what the "increase superiority" meant is that they say that those countries saying that "they don't need all the US troops. They are a stable country that can take care of it's own problems themselves.". And that way the pseudo-empire is gone. If you don't have or need any troops there, then what's left of the empire?
Slightly off topic but tobbeh you should definitely consider playing the werewolf game
pls no
I'm serious
pls pls no
I'm seriously serious, he'd be good
Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 29, 2017, 05:36:58 AMTobbeh's back
as well as the unnecessarily long and obnoxious posts
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 31, 2017, 05:11:38 PMSlightly off topic but tobbeh you should definitely consider playing the werewolf game
Is that some mafia-like game? If so, thanks but no thanks.
Pls do it, we need more players anyway and maybe it'd be a good outlet for you since long constant posts are really good things there
Sometimes these days it feels hard to make sense of politics. One usual way of visualizing politics use to be the left-right scale. On the left you have socialism, progressivism, communism etc. And in the middle you have liberalism, capitalism and more to right conservatism. That is very simple how I learned it. And often the left usually support the workers, likes to talk about them being the "worker's party", and then the right (apart from also claiming that they are the worker's party) claiming that they are the entrepreneur party, the party for the carrier-minded and company-friendly. But these days, it seems to have changed with a lot of "alt-right"-parties coming up, mostly thriving on the fact that they are against immigration. But apart from that they usually doesn't fit that well onto the left-right map. They often have collectivistic thoughts and sometimes leftist views when it comes to economy. But are often very conservative when it comes to social issues. Here in Sweden we've had this unique situation for a while. We've usually have had a very simple left-right politics throughout the years, but with the new national-conservative party SD, it shifts the scale. I've had a hard time figuring out how the left-right scale looks at this point, but after some thought I came to the conclusion that it's more like a circle at this point.
Let me illustrate:
How it use to be/how I was taught it is/was:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/6KxBU5u.png)
How it is nowadays:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/pONrQs9.png)
*the yellow representing the Swedish nationalist party's color.
And it makes sense that both the left and the right parties doesn't want to cooperate with the nationalistic party. The most common opinion is that "they are rasist (or some other evil word)". And the party has tried to clean up itself and get all rasists away from the party, having the image that they are "against immigration". It has somewhat worked, and somewhat not. But I think both the left and the right doesn't want to cooperate with SD because of ideological opinions. Honestly wished that the party went away and that the Swedish politics went back to the first one as it use to be, thinking that it is easier to grasp. But it is as it is...
you're blowing my mind
It's spelled "racist"
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 16, 2017, 12:03:05 PMyou're blowing my mind
Were you serious or sarcastic?
edit:
Also voted in the church election today. Voted for "frimodig kyrka" (frank/outspoken church). Which basically is a non-political-party conservative party (that sounded weird phrasing). I really don't care about this election, as it really is a minor one (the real election and even the EU-election are more important). But the reason I care this year is because that the political parties (and perhaps also the media, and people in general) have made it into a such a big deal. And it feels like they're using the election, tactically, in order to win more "political ground" which just seem borderline immoral to me. And even though they care, they barely have anything to say what they want with the election. In the real election the parties make big headlines and promises like: "were going to create [big number] jobs!", "we'll take care of and improve the school, the the medic care, the care for older people!" and "we'll do x,y,z reforms which will help everyone/you in some way!". But in this election they just say wage things like the socialist party talking about some "peoples church" "for everyone". And the national-conservative party talking about "allowing conservative views" and "making the church as a place to value/preserve Swedish culture". And the liberal-conservative parties just seem to minor stuff like: building some new parks, and also want less political influence in the church. But it really seems so stupid this election. And it does encapsulate the times we live and the politics of today pretty much: That everything (political) and every election is like a big decisive battle between good and evil. Before it was just: you vote for a party and either your party wins, or it loses. And if it wins you might get happy if you made the right decision/they kept their promises. And if it loses you probably get more or less disappointed. But now it feel like everything is much more hysterical/hyped up. Like "Omg thanks god x party won" or "this party won, but didn't get enough votes to create a majority (has to cooperate with other parties). A sure tough challenge. Wishes them all the best!". Like before people didn't even care that much for politics, now it's this crazy battle.
The fuck is a church election lmao
Quote from: Dude on September 17, 2017, 09:26:45 PMThe fuck is a church election lmao
You elect who'd govern the church (at local level, and at higher levels). As you can tell pretty weird and pointless.
Sounds extremely unnecessary
Quote from: Dude on September 19, 2017, 05:31:58 AMSounds extremely unnecessary
Probably some old election that nobody have cared to abolish. Like "let's just leave it there. If you want to vote/cares for the church then fine. If not, then -who cares".
I took a look at the Swedish parties facebook-pages to get a glimpse of which one I seem to think is the best, by just the appearance of them. And here is what I found:
Left Party: Cares about the healthcare and more about the healthcare, and some economic equality.
The Environmental Party: Oh, it's green again rather than rainbow-colored, ...or at least I think it is. And it no longer has a hawkish cold leadership... And cares about "average person environmental issues"... oh it is as it use to be, just more boring... and just sucks...
The Socialist Party: I wonder how many times they used the word "equality". ...like I care about that... Also had some fancy poster about taking care about the lower-class people and workers (shows how much they really care about workers and lower-class people). And also had one where they show that they care about companies (Oh so they're both workers party and company party. Actually more like: "It's good to ave a company. And it's even better if the state owns the company (hehehe xD)".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Left-Right block-line--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center Party: Cares about the companies, small companies and also the environment, the countryside and some other stuff. Really a mixed-bag party.
The Liberal Party: (With bold leader-esque tone) "The School, the school. Law and order". A lot comes from the party's leader having a solid "straight-shooter" leadership. Both The Center Party and The Liberal Party are pretty similar politically, but their image shows a very stark difference: The Center Party is the "soft and nice party" while The Liberal Party is the "Hard and straight to the point" party. Also almost ironical how both parties literally confirm gender stereotypes as The Center Party's leader is a woman and The Liberal Party's leader is a man.
The Christian Democrats: The "Nice and small flower at the window-shelf"-party. Like cares a lot about elderly/retired people and the medic care. But the thing is that they're such a small party barely getting over the 4% bar (which is needed to get into the government). And it probably has to do with the timidness at the party and it's similarity with the big right party "the moderates".
The Moderates: Really the firm conservative party that cares about: Law and order, immigration (the immigration problem), against begging on the street, entrepreneurship, free will (to choose school and etc.). Also really demonizes allowances like "Oh you get free money by not working. That's wrong! You shouldn't be able to get any crops if you don't sow any.". So sort of a "police party" if you want to see it that way. Also seem to have some ideological struggle and just struggle in general; as the party has lost support and it's placing as 2nd biggest party (after The Socialist Party) and having a struggle inside the party between liberals and conservative. They also are going to get a new party leader, as the previous failed. And he has a challenge to bring the party together which he seemed to care for talking in a tv-interview about that liberalism and conservatism is "combination" that works really well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other parties that doesn't have a clear "alliance" or cooperation with other parties------------------------------------
The Sweden Democrats: Only actually cares about 1 single issues: Immigration problems. Every post were literally about how migrants get allowances from the state, and how wrong that is. And also always put in cheesy romanticizing words about "Swedishness, Swedish culture, our heritage and etc.". And you still get some "nazi-vibes" from the party even though they've tried to clean up the party for like ...10 years or so (when they got over the 4% bar).
To me, it becomes clear that I'd either vote on The Moderates or The Christian Democrats in next election, if it remains as it is. Like the farther you go to the left, the more silly and stupid it seem to get. The things that I care about in the left (socialism) are: The idea of economic equality/the workers movement (so that company bosses don't becomes like "kings". And having the worker feel a sense of pride for what they work with like: I'm a proud [insert title here].), the "collective society" (that people are together as a society and not just individuals living their own life 1 by 1. The "United we stand, divided we fall" idea.). That is probably what made Sweden such a great socialistic country and why they ruled all the way from the 40-50s. But now they just seem so lame and boring, so I basically switched side as the Liberal-Conservative seem to actually make some sense.
Grrrr, I was typing this super-long post, I went to check some info and when I came back the page refreshed and I lost everything... So here it is, all retyped again:
There is two things you need to know before I start:
#1: I'm from Switzerland
#2: Politics here are kinda... Complicated
So before I get to what's happening now (especially tomorrow), here's some explanation about how it works here:
-There are 26 cantons in Switzerland, like there is 50 states in the US.
-The Federal Assembly is Switzerland's federal legislature. It has two chambers: the National Council and the Council of States, which are elected by the people every four years.
-The National Council has 200 members who represent the Swiss people. The greater a canton's population, the more representatives it has in the National Council, mostly like the House of Representatives in the US.
-The Council of States has 46 members who represent the cantons. Each canton has two representatives, except the former half-cantons (cantons who split up), which have only one representative. It's like the Senate in the US.
-The Federal Council is Switzerland's executive power. It's made up of seven members, each of which heads a government department. Decisions are made jointly. Each year, two of them are elected as the President and the Vice-president, however, there's a convention: the Federal Council member who has not been Federal President for the longest becomes President. Note than the president isn't the head of state and is considered as 'first among equals'.
And now it gets tricky: the Federate Council and the president/Vice President aren't elected by the people, but by the federate assembly. This means that people never vote for the president, and therefore it's not hard to find someone who don't even know who is the president now. And the fact than it changes every year of course doesn't help.
Now here's what's happening tomorrow: one Federal councillor (Didier Burkhalter) resigned, taking effect at the end of October. So tomorrow morning the two chambers will go together in the same room and will vote for a new member. There's another convention here: the new member is always from the same party as the member who leaves, because somehow the parties found a repartition of the 7 people than they all agreed with. However, it already happened than other parties make an alliance to eject a party or because they find all their candidates bad, and in this case it even happens than they elect someone who wasn't a candidate!
There's 3 "big" candidates (I say big because literally everyone can be a candidate if they want to) all from the same party.
-Ignazio Cassis, from the canton of Tessin. His main arguments are than he comes from the Italian-speaking part of the country (because we have 4 official languages in Switzerland) which have had no one in the Federal council in the last 19 years and than his canton must deal with specific problems (immigration, cross-border workers...).
-Isabelle Moret, from the canton of Vaud. One of her main plus than she's a woman and there is only 2/7 now, on of her main minus is than there's already a councillor from the same canton.
-Pierre Maudet, from the canton of Geneva, probably not know enough in the German speaking part of the country, but he has a solid experience in executives.
So I don't know if I explained this well, but explaining all this in English can be a little complicated...
I think it's by far my longest post ever on here
Australia was weird enough, but now I'm starting to doubt Switzerland's existence too
On a serious note though, that's actually really interesting. Now, if the president isn't the head of state, what exactly makes them special? Formality?
He (in 2017: she) presides the seances of the Federal council, and have a big role in diplomacy, besides that he does a 1st of January speech, a National day speech, and other things like that. So it's more an honorific job than what people usually think of what a president do.
Well, it must be a little irritating not having direct say in who constitutes your highest level of government. At best you're voting people into your Councils and hoping that they're good enough to end up there someday.
Quote from: Dudeman on September 19, 2017, 04:07:21 PMWell, it must be a little irritating not having direct say in who constitutes your highest level of government.
Heh....
Quote from: Dudeman on September 19, 2017, 04:07:21 PMWell, it must be a little irritating not having direct say in who constitutes your highest level of government. At best you're voting people into your Councils and hoping that they're good enough to end up there someday.
Yes, but every canton have their own laws, constitution, parliament and government, and we can elect those. And there's many things than are done mostly by cantons, such as education, transportation, culture, police, firefighters...
And there's one big thing too: for every law voted by the national council and the council of states, if you can find 50'000 signatures (in the next 100 days) of people who disagree with their decision, then the people vote about this law, and that's how we happen to vote, like 3-4 times a year, and only for laws. And everyone can submit a new law too, but in this case you have to find 100'000 signatures in 18 months.
Quote from: Trasdegi on September 19, 2017, 04:04:34 PMHe (in 2017: she) presides the seances of the Federal council
Switzerland speaks with the dead?
I'm about 150 pages into Hillary Rodham Clinton's new book
It's surprisingly a fun read for me
We just got results, without much surprise, Ignazio Cassis got elected.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 19, 2017, 07:27:17 PMSwitzerland speaks with the dead?
Yes with the grammar and the wording, I killed them
Is it true that Switzerland have direct democracy?
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 19, 2017, 07:28:23 PMI'm about 150 pages into Hillary Rodham Clinton's new book
It's surprisingly a fun read for me
I read a bit in Trump's "Art of the Deal", but got bored after a while as it seemed to just be a autobiography more or the less. The 2nd chapter was kind of cool as it kind of tells you the "secrets" (according to him) in making a good deal/being successful. But y, seems a lot like an autobiography that maybe teaches you how to become a successful businessman.
Also the new leader (it's not confirmed but it's pretty obvious who it is) of The Moderate party seems just more legit, the more I see and hear from him. He radiate a sense of calm, trustworthiness and intelligence. I think he can overcome the challenges the party is facing: Get back the vote support, heal and cement the center-right alliance, challenge the left-socialist block for the election next year. And if they do this, the support for the radical Sweden-democrats will probably shrink. And hopefully we'll have a new center-right government next year. It's literally 2 flies in 1 hit.
Sry for double-post (but seems like I care so much about this topic, and was the only one posting in it).
Really been some drama here in Sweden recently. Usually the whole Scandinavia is pretty calm place, but recently there's been some military issues. We had a big defense exercise with other NATO-countries and neighbor countries. And it's so comical because first of they're doing an exercise and against Russi.. I meant "Land A" (definetly not Russia... just have the borders as it...). And secondly, Russia also did an exercise shortly after ours. And the big thing/question seems to be "Who controls The Baltic Sea?". No country really does control it, but you get the feeling that some countries are stretching their arms trying to fully grasp it. Going back in history, at one time we (Sweden) almost own the entire sea at the "era of great power". But obviously that's history. The current issue seems to be the "NATO vs Russia (and allies)" thing. And that is more complicated for us (Sweden) and also Finland. Because were both neutral when it comes to military alliances (at least "tries to be neutral"). But then you also have former Soviet countries (the Baltic countries) who has joined both the EU and NATO, so clearly has switched side. And then Russia also has a smal portion of land that borders the sea. So no-one really "owns" it by any means. NATO and the EU seem to have the most influence over it. But I'm more concerned about there being a sort of "battle" over it in the first place, as I said earlier that this part of the world is usually relatively calm. I mean if you're from the US you probably care less about there being a military exercise as the US has been/is still the "world police". But living in the world's most peaceful place, it does concern me a bit. But hopefully it'll return back to a more stable and calm situation in the future.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on September 20, 2017, 05:27:17 AMIs it true that Switzerland have direct democracy?
Yes! As I said earlier, everyone can write a law, and if he can get enough signatures, then the law is voted by the people. Same when the parliament makes a law, if enough people disagree, they can collect signatures and if they get enough then the people votes the law. So we vote on a dozen of laws every years. For example, we will soon vote for or against a reform of the retirement system, and about putting the alimentary security principle in the constitution.
Hillary's book blamed a lot of people :P Bernie, Comey, Obama.. Sorry, not a fan.
Hilldog really needs to figure out it was her being a gross person and not everyone else.
I mean to me, neither option was decent.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 20, 2017, 02:24:46 PMHillary's book blamed a lot of people :P Bernie, Comey, Obama.. Sorry, not a fan.
Obviously you didn't read it because she says nothing but positive things about Obama in this book and she blames herself as much if not more so than any of those other people
#ObamaDidNothingWrong
@Tobbeh, on the plus side, "Battle of the Baltic" is REALLY freaking catchy.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 20, 2017, 02:29:56 PMObviously you didn't read it because she says nothing but positive things about Obama in this book and she blames herself as much if not more so than any of those other people
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/people-clinton-blames-for-her-election-loss
vanityfair.com
/news
:Thonk:
I wouldn't, normally, but it's literally all excerpts from her book (they're pretty supportive of her anyways so it's not like you're gonna find anti-Hillary bias there).
Yeahhh but those little excerpts are not at all representative of the impressions that you get from actually reading it. The book is 500 pages and she says a lot about each of those people, of course some of it will be bad, but I'm about 200 pages in at this point and she's said nothing but positive things about Obama (it is pretty easy to tell that she doesn't like Bernie Sanders though).
And also:
Wikileaks (Russia->Wikileaks->releases info->Clinton loses)
Alex Jones ^^
It caught my attention how Bernie Sanders looks at Sweden and other Scandinavian countries as good examples of how he want the US to be, as I live here. The biggest problem seem to be his blindly global view of society, that you can put any government system on any place in the world (so in theory you could make North Korea capitalist, won't happen soon but you get the point). The main reason I think it has worked well here is because of the fact that the country is pretty much "built" on socialism. All the way back to like the 30s,40s,50s and on it has been socialistic. And I think Sweden, and other Scandinavian countries, has developed over time. And you look at USA's history, and it is clear that it is pretty different. Also the thing about "free college, healthcare" (actually "tax-paid", but I guess "free" sounds better to people) sure is nice Sweden. But the thing is that, whether you have it tax-paid or pay to private-owned company, you still have to pay! So it's just 2 different roads. And then different economist most surely have different views trying to say that either is better. But y, I'm kind of skeptic of how he paint up some utopia like that. Also worth noting is that Sweden (and maybe other Scandinavian countries, and European countries) has been at sort of a low point recently. With high unemployment rate, and having serious problems in various important sections (like with healthcare, and the "help to find a job" administration). So it's probably better to look at Sweden in the like 80s or 50s, when it was "on the way up", rather than now when it is "grey and bad socialism". I've also heard a politcal analyst from Azerbajdzjan, talking about how it is "impossible for Russia to be a liberal capitalist country. They tried it during the Yeltin presidency and it completely failed.". And that brings to theorize about if it is "impossible" for the US to be a socialist/communist nation. Pretty tough question. But during the year it has seemed as the world is some sort of political scale from Russia to US. Russia and China being Socialist/Communist, US being Capitalist/Market-Liberal, and Europe in between. Crazy how it lined up like that.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on September 21, 2017, 04:50:03 AMAzerbajdzjan
At first I thought this was a hilarious intentional misspelling of Azerbaijan, but then I realized it's probably just the Scandanavian spelling
rats
It's a bajd spelling
I think after a while that I found the perfect image for the type of politics in Sweden: Circus-socialism. Like, I've just seen how the society has fallen apart more and more and problems arise, in various ways. But man, it really caught my eye when I watched some "worst of the Swedish government"-video. With things like the Environmental party's leader talking about about how there's "White heterosexual men" everywhere, and some other person from the same party almost trying to argue for that "the Syrian war started because of drought (climate change)". When I see those things, and when people talking all the time about rasism, feminism and the patriarchy and etc. I think "Circus-socialism" is a pretty fitting word. And the prime minister, unlike the other politicians, acts pretty formal and reasonable. But he's like the "Circus director" in the Circus, having a nice suit and all. I mean in the previous socialist government in early 2000, you rarely heard all this kind of nonsense talk, but now it's all over the place. And it's not even Marxism in the sense that it reduces the class-gap (rich and poor gap), because iot has increased since the 80s! And also collectivism, state owned property hasn't increased, so fail... And if you look at the other side, now when the moderate party has a new leader, it's just way better. He got a "James Bond" sort of feeling to him, and also like a "CEO" or a "Headmaster", but rather that than a fucking Circus director! Rather "Sweden inc." that "Circus Sweden".It feels so opposite here in Sweden in than in the US. Like the "dumb politicians" in the US seems to be like Christian fundamentalists and like "cowboy people", and also some guys who think they're like the "neighbor hero" who everybody loves. But here it's the opposite with like retarded circus leftist, and like purist hippie people.
I also love The Moderate party in Sweden more and more. Just saw a recent facebook ad that said literally nothing but positive things about the new party leader. Like "He'll surely bring back the party from like 17% to like 20% and more in a few month" and a lot of good things about his personality "radiates competence and is skillful in the debates". Just love the leader bias in the party! ;D Like that's something you'll never see in the Socialist Party ;D! (and that's because the leader in the socialist party is supposed to be like "one of the people" and not "a leader of the people". Can't wait to end this circus my country has become!
Nfl players have apparently started kneeling during the national anthem. I watched the packers game (knew they would win, prayed they would lose), and apparently a few people knelt in that game during the anthem. The fact that stuff like this is going on is about the scariest thing I've ever seen or heard of happening in america
Most (all?) of the Seahawks stayed in their locker room during the national anthem at the Titans game Sunday, people are really upset about that
It really makes me ??? Because Idk why they're doing it or what they mean by it
They seem to perceive the state of the union a bit differently than I do
I don't understand why it bothers people...
It has nothing to do with you personally so let it go.
It's to protest police violence, not because they don't respect the flag. I think the scarier thing is that people want to allow the right to protest peacefully and exercise freedom of speech until it's something like this and then they're not allowed.
See that doesn't make sense. You're protesting police brutality... By kneeling during the anthem. There's like a huge disconnect between cause and effect there.
Haha what would you suggest? It's not about that having to do with kneeling, it's about the gesture and the thought behind it. And as NFL players, that's the way they can peacefully make a statement in the way people will notice.
From what I understand, the thought process was basically: I don't stand for the anthem during a game I'm playing = I don't like the state of the country right now and I want people to notice
I wish they'd stop doing it so that it wouldn't interfere with the game. I'm blaming the casters too here. Like when there's downtime, talk about normal stuff like stats, not the three players who sat on the bench during the anthem. I don't even tune in to football games until after kickoff when I am watching, so I wouldn't even know about it if people weren't so up in arms about it. It doesn't even mean much, I think it's shallow. At this point it almost feels like a fad than anything too because everyone's doing something dumb to prove some imaginary point. Nfl players have a lot of reach and most of them use that for a lot of great things but taking a knee during the anthem I'd say is more of a distraction than a protest
Quote from: Dude on September 25, 2017, 11:08:47 PMI don't understand why it bothers people...
It has nothing to do with you personally so let it go.
they have every right to do what they're doing so y'all need to stop complaining about it
I agree with Noc that I think it's a dumb way to make a statement, and it seems to have become some weird thing nowadays. I think the bigger problem is how people just seems to use all kinds of events to express some political statement (often a jab against Trump in some way), and it just makes the events look worse because people are tired of it.
Never said they didn't but it's annoying and isn't accomplishing anything
It's like talking to a fucking wall...
I don't think you understand
Kneeling during the anthem as a protest
Outcome
-People are ticked off
-nfl loses money
-People are paying attention to you
-You have a platform but don't push anything from it
-People get ticked off for other people being ticked off
-People get ticked off at the ticked off people who got ticked off from them being ticked off
-America just got a little bit worse, not better
It's like talking to a cardboard cutout
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 26, 2017, 03:24:49 PMI don't think you understand
Kneeling during the anthem as a protest
Outcome
-People are ticked off
ok but why
There's literally no good reason to be pissy about it.
Just live your own life and don't worry about what others do.
-Person living their own life:
"I'm watchin football"
"These people won't shut up about the protests"
"Useless protests anyway". That's when it becomes my problem
First world problems, eh?
Those people must be awfully petty to get pissy about that.
I've heard calls for all NFL players to kneel and some people even think the anthem shouldn't be played before sporting events anymore. Both of these ideas are pretty ridiculous, especially because the majority of NFL fans don't even support these protests.
Then I guess a majority of NFL fans are super petty for caring as much about this than they should.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 25, 2017, 08:52:54 PMNfl players have apparently started kneeling during the national anthem. I watched the packers game (knew they would win, prayed they would lose), and apparently a few people knelt in that game during the anthem. The fact that stuff like this is going on is about the scariest thing I've ever seen or heard of happening in america
are you shitting me?
Sorry Noc, I really want to politely disagree with you but just a few pages ago on this thread you downplayed the fact that there were literally Nazis in Charlottesville. People using their platform to protest injustice is scary to you?
There's not something more scary happening in the U.S. right now? The 2 hurricanes that just hit us? Our president poking the extremely unstable North Korean dictator with a stick via twitter? The fact that we're still in 7 military conflicts overseas? Is there really
nothing more important than this fucking protest? He's been protesting since Obama was president. It's not a jab at Trump, it's the same message he's been trying to make clear since he started: police violence against minorities is an epidemic. Whether or not you agree with him is beside the point; he's doing the clearest expression of free speech imaginable, and you can't think of anything scarier in America? Please, get off your high horse.
lord only knows what terrible things will happen if african americans get treated the same as caucasians
i really need to stop posting in this topic it's toxic here
So apparently now the Moderate party has officially elected a new party leader. Everyone was pretty sure about how it was going to be, but now it's officially clear. And I said a lot of positive things about him here. And looking at the different party leaders I think he's one of the best, which is important as the Moderates has been historically the major right party. One thing I think he's better at than the other party leaders is the fact the he's a good speaker, and the best of all at that. Which I feel is really important because it really makes you want to listen to him more and also makes you rather have him as prime minister. And it's also good considering that the Social-democrat party's leader is less good at that. I'm not 100% pro the things that the Moderates value like the free market economy, focus on law and order, privatizations, and are really against allowances. But I do value having a good leader being the prime minister which makes voting for the right seem like a more viable option in the next election.
Read some small segment in the news when it talks about the prime minister Stefan Löfvén. And how he wants to have a narrow immigration politics and focus on law and order. And I have mixed opinions about that. I really like how he seem to care about critical issues and what people worries about. So that's really good. But I also really think that he really dislikes having to deal with those issues so much, being a left politician. I think he rather care about things concerning the workers, class differences, the state owned companies and other stuff. Having narrow immigration politics and focus on law and order is really more something that right-wing politicians value and care a lot about. And I feel like he's sort of forced to take care of these issues as the society has changed so rapidly over the last 5 years or so. But those issues surely needs to be addressed. The immigration issues is that it hasn't worked smoothly and it barely any "immigration" at all (meaning that refugees integrate into the society). And the issue with law and order really needs to be taken seriously. According to the police, the amount of areas classed as "critical areas" aka. dangerous areas have increased from 15, 2 years ago, to 23 now. So it clearly is going the wrong direction. So those are 2 important issues that needs to be taken care of whether you're left or right.
edit: Also watched a party leader debate. And I really liked it. I felt like it was "as usual". I've felt like that the political talk has been more tense and hysterical the last 10 or so years in Sweden. And it feels good that it seems to have returned into "same old boring politics" rather than "Sweden democrats are rasist and evil! Omg we need to take care of this fast or else god knows what could happen!". And I really like that. I think the political talk in some aspect represent the society as a whole, and I think it's way better having good political debates rather anxious hysteria.
I remember some years ago how the nationalistic party Sweden-democrats talked about "mass immigration". And how all other parties (the most vocal opposition being the left parties) responding with "there's no mass-immigration everything is just as it use to be, the immigration levels are just normal". And omg, what a big lie that was! It's a literal lie! And those people wants to have more credence and want to think think that the Sweden-democrats is a dishonest party that just exaggerates. I mean, the immigration question has been on the list of key issues that Swedes are concerned with, along side other topics like jobs, education/the school, the healthcare etc. And they straight up lie, pretending that everything is just the same! I mean imagine if they'd do that in any other area like economics (no, there's no inflation, everything is just fine), or the school doing horribly bad (no the students aren't doing worse than before), or the climate (no there's no global warming/climate change). I mean they'd be seen as lairs and hypocrites, or irresponsible politicians. But apparently they think that they can just get away with anything when it comes to immigration, that they just can put it aside. And the same people are surprised that the nationalistic party Sweden-democrats has been on the rise. Literal idiots!
Sweden's immigration statistics (orange being immigration, grey being emigration)
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/HRCoTYa.png)
Don't forget than world (and Sweden) population has drastically increased in the last two centuries. That makes the difference between 1880 levels and todays levels far less impressive imo.
True. The emigration in the 1800 were a big thing, and the population were lower. My point is how rapidly the immigration has increased from just the 2000 and onward. The high emigration is also noteworthy, but apparently most people who emigrate from Sweden emigrate to Norway, the neighbor country, because of more jobs there. Which is different from the immigrants who mostly comes from Syria, Afghanistan and etc.
As much as I am a fan of taking in refugees, I have to say that Europe seemed a little eager.
The U.S., in addition to taking very few refugees to begin with, puts each refugee through an intense vetting process, usually taking around a year. Source: http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/
(If you don't like Time, plenty of other sources have reported on this)
To me, when dealing with areas like Syria where a sizable portion of the fighters involved are Jihadists (both the Assad forces and the rebels fighting them), a vetting process is necessary. Germany and Sweden have both seen the consequences of unregulated immigration. That doesn't mean you go Le Pen style and call for complete halts, just regulate it.
Ofc this isn't at all original, but you can either have borders and a welfare state, or no borders and no welfare state.
I agree with you PdS. There was one quote that some minister in the former government made about immigration, how they had to "know the amount/quantity of the refugees". Which apparently shocked people, making people make comments like "the amount/quantity of refugees, how rasist and dehumanizing making human beings into "amount/quantity"". And as usual in Sweden, someone says something and everyone follows like a big shoal, without even thinking about it. And now afterwards I just thought "counting refugees. ...that's probably pretty smart. Then you know how many that comes to Sweden.", but apparently people thought that it was almost some nazi-thing about counting people (and then making a list and etc.). So it just highlights some of the stupidity in Sweden.
I'm also surprised how the immigrant number has risen so dramatically the last years, but as I hear, the amount of wars has decreased and the poverty seems to slowly decreasing. It makes no sense. I guess Syria is a big exception, and also Afghanistan. But then you have a lot refugees from Africa as well. You'd think that the amount of refugees would decrease with fewer wars, but doesn't seem like it. I don't even know for sure if there are fewer wars nowadays, might just be my bias.
A final point. I don't know if the US has bought into this idea of multiculturalism that much as Europe and particularly Sweden. I guess it's a different case, because US as country has a pretty unique history. And because it's basically built on immigrants, the idea of "the mix pot" came naturally. But I think that idea has really been influential here in Europe and particularly Sweden. And I personally think it's been just purely bad. Like instead of making refugees get into the society and the culture, they created this idea of multiculturalism, which is just some goofy word describing a country with many different cultures living along side each other. It just really goes along with the left-hippie mentality of "no borders, where all citizen of the world". And along side worshiping multiculturalism has arose another idea about criticizing our own Swedish culture (because if we point out everything bad about Swedish culture, then the nationalists can't romanticize it and then they lose hohoho...). And that even fueled the xenophobia even more. I heard some (right-wing) person call it "nationalistic masochism", which is basically what it is. If you look at it from that perspective, nationalism vs nationalistic masochism, it really it's like garbage vs trash. So all if this leftist talk about this multiculturalist utopia just completely fell flat, and people are frankly pissed off at it. The left literally built the tower of babel, everyone thought that this was the big thing, but the it just crumbled back on itself. And all this multiculturalism has created all the xenophobia and the nationalistic parties, which no one wants.
It's even more odd how leftist parties really celebrate when the Kurds get their independence. I mean that's an ethnic group forming a nation, no multiculturalism there. It was more multiculturalism in Iraq before the forming of their nation. But no, then they immediately switch to "the West draw lines on a map". Literally two-face/dubble-moral.
The immigration has risen partially b/c of population growth, but also because there are still plenty of wars going on in the Mideast. The US is still involved in Afghanistan and Syria, so the number of people displaced isn't going down.
But I think you're really misunderstanding the multiculturism part. A people establishing their independence (ie Kurds, or Jews post WW2) is not an antithesis to cultural diversity.
Still think that that multiculturalism/cultural diversity really is a fake utopia. Like, it's just so much easier if everyone has the same culture (sort of) to get along. It clearly strengthen the togetherness.
Whose culture? Yours?
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 15, 2017, 11:59:57 PMStill think that that multiculturalism/cultural diversity really is a fake utopia. Like, it's just so much easier if everyone has the same culture (sort of) to get along. It clearly strengthen the togetherness.
I hope you realize segregating cultures also weakens the "togetherness".
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 15, 2017, 11:59:57 PMStill think that that multiculturalism/cultural diversity really is a fake utopia. Like, it's just so much easier if everyone has the same culture (sort of) to get along. It clearly strengthen the togetherness.
It also does an incredible job of creating "us and them" mentalities.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 15, 2017, 11:59:57 PMStill think that that multiculturalism/cultural diversity really is a fake utopia. Like, it's just so much easier if everyone has the same culture (sort of) to get along. It clearly strengthen the togetherness.
Why is it a fake utopia?
You're confusing multiculturalism with segregating cultures like has happened in Europe (where Muslim groups might go off and make a group by themselves). That isn't what multiculturalism is. That's segregation, albeit voluntary.
Ditto to what Alti and Mealstrom said.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 16, 2017, 09:49:27 PMWhy is it a fake utopia?
You're confusing multiculturalism with segregating cultures like has happened in Europe (where Muslim groups might go off and make a group by themselves). That isn't what multiculturalism is. That's segregation, albeit voluntary.
Ditto to what Alti and Mealstrom said.
Maybe I am confusing multiculturalism. But I'm speaking from my experience. And I'm just saying that there has been a lot of problems, culturally in Sweden. Multiculturalism may not be wrong, but during the last years, I've felt as it hasn't worked out as well the politicians and other people driving for it, said it would. It have felt like the politicians say "this is what we have to do, It's the best" and then you wait and you think at first "y this is the right way!" but as time goes and the number of problem areas increases and the tensions in the country rises, you start to think "emm y... it'll work out, I guess. ... ... ... or?? ... ... I'm starting to doubt in this. Maybe we should have tried integration/assimilation instead?". I'm not as negative as some right-extremists are, but I'm skeptical to it, and I do think I have solid ground to say so.
And no I don't think in the extremes of either you have only 1 culture (North Korea) or you have a whole bunch. But what I want to emphasize is the cultural problems in Sweden (and probably also in other parts of the west world). And I think that the integration could have been more thought-through, but I guess the government had little time dealing with the problems.
I've watched some more American politics lately, and I got to say that it kind of confuses me:
First of I really think in a way that the democratic party screwed up in the election. I think it was divided (that's the key word), while the republicans were at least enough united. And I can see the struggle they have between the Bernie bros (lol Super Bernie Bros.) and the Clinton wing. And I personally think that the democratic party is better. I really like Obamas leadership. But this time I felt like Trump were just better. He had the energy and passion which really convinced me, and also made me care less about his scandals. But I really dislike how Clinton is playing the victim-game, like fine if you do it once, but do it repeatedly and you just get a worse and worse image of yourself, to the point were nobody cares about you. It also makes Trump look like some genius/angel, because he seem to get smarter but Clinton dumber. And also, looking back at Americas previous presidents, I feel like the democratic party is better. But I got to say that Reagan sticks out as a good republican president. After watching some clips about him, his humbleness really makes you like him. The thing is with Trump is, I kind of feel like he knows some thing that people doesn't care about, like that he's that dude that looks at the chessboard and sees the thing nobody sees. But then all of his just "crazy way of life" makes me have like kind of mixed feelings about him.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 19, 2017, 01:59:25 AMBut I really dislike how Clinton is playing the victim-game, like fine if you do it once, but do it repeatedly and you just get a worse and worse image of yourself, to the point were nobody cares about you.
Hm
i love this
Oh my god
fucking brilliant ily alti
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 19, 2017, 01:59:25 AMI've watched some more American politics lately, and I got to say that it kind of confuses me:
First of I really think in a way that the democratic party screwed up in the election. I think it was divided (that's the key word), while the republicans were at least enough united. And I can see the struggle they have between the Bernie bros (lol Super Bernie Bros.) and the Clinton wing. And I personally think that the democratic party is better. I really like Obamas leadership. But this time I felt like Trump were just better. He had the energy and passion which really convinced me, and also made me care less about his scandals. But I really dislike how Clinton is playing the victim-game, like fine if you do it once, but do it repeatedly and you just get a worse and worse image of yourself, to the point were nobody cares about you. It also makes Trump look like some genius/angel, because he seem to get smarter but Clinton dumber. And also, looking back at Americas previous presidents, I feel like the democratic party is better. But I got to say that Reagan sticks out as a good republican president. After watching some clips about him, his humbleness really makes you like him. The thing is with Trump is, I kind of feel like he knows some thing that people doesn't care about, like that he's that dude that looks at the chessboard and sees the thing nobody sees. But then all of his just "crazy way of life" makes me have like kind of mixed feelings about him.
Honestly everything meaningful that can be said about the election was said a long time ago. Both parties played their hands horribly and nominated someone highly disliked by the general populace. Whether either party will learn from this still has yet to be seen.
Your comment about the previous Democratic presidents being better intrigues me though, because I'm pretty sure for most of American history the Democratic presidents aren't viewed very favorably by a modern liberal observer (see: Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson kind of, etc.) That being said I suppose you always have the George Bushs to look back on and laugh at on the Republican side.
Blue you're 100% on it. I couldn't stand just about anyone in the general, I supported a lesser of two evils.
That being said, the reason why most presidents under the Dem label don't look good to a modern lib observer is b/c of the party realignment that happened ~80 years ago. The Democratic party today just isn't the same one whose members founded the KKK.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/20/presidential-executive-order-amending-executive-order-13223
Welp. That is a very bad sign for things to come.
someone smart please explain
Retired military can be called back to active duty. If you've spent 15 years as a private citizen raising a family and establishing a career, you can be called back to military service. Since the president is commander in chief, he could call retired high-ranking military officials back to active duty, which is effectively a potential threat to their freedom of speech. And it means we can bolster our military strength in extreme circumstances (extreme being a relatively subjective term) without issuing a draft.
Oh ok thanks. Bad, not as bad as I thought itd be.
let the 75th quarter quell begin
Quote from: Zunawe on October 20, 2017, 08:48:52 PMRetired military can be called back to active duty. If you've spent 15 years as a private citizen raising a family and establishing a career, you can be called back to military service. Since the president is commander in chief, he could call retired high-ranking military officials back to active duty, which is effectively a potential threat to their freedom of speech. And it means we can bolster our military strength in extreme circumstances (extreme being a relatively subjective term) without issuing a draft.
Plus this amendment is of an EO that occurred right after 9/11 occurred, right before we went to war.
Which well.... that might happen again.
I just saw a great article in the news. That the moderate (right-wing) party just went up to 22%, and the center party went down to 10% and the nationalistic Sweden-democrats went down to 15%! And also a headline "now it's game on for Swedish politics". And that's how I feel. Now it's finally back as usual! The classic left vs right politics we all love and hate! :P The tension with immigration and nationalism, that's been freezing Swedish politics seems to withdraw and I think that will free up the Swedish politics with more talk and better ideas and optimism!
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on October 25, 2017, 01:47:52 PMThe classic left vs right politics we all love and hate!
ftfy
Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, & George Papadopoulos were indicted today.
Today is going to be crazy.
Papadopoulous has been in jail a while for lying to the FBI though, his stuff just came out today I thought.
But yeah Manafort was indicted for money laundering oh boy.
Anyone see the Kevin Spacey story?
It gets even better - Papadopoulous has already plead guilty, basically proving that at least some members of the campaign had ties to Russia.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think now's a good time to get some popcorn. It's a show you don't want to miss.
Is it evidence of collusion for the election though? It looks more like run of the mill bribery and money laundering. Still obv. damning and unacceptable, but more like doing money laundering for the mob vs the KGB.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 30, 2017, 05:54:27 PMIs it evidence of collusion for the election though? It looks more like run of the mill bribery and money laundering. Still obv. damning and unacceptable, but more like doing money laundering for the mob vs the KGB.
funny thing is, that alone would warrant investigation within a president under normal circumstances.
Sadly... things that should've been investigated under normal circumstances started 15 controversies ago for trump.
I just realized how corrupt the political left is, especially here in Sweden (which is called "grey socialism"). I mean, the thing is, the more you think about it, the more double-moral/contradicting statements you find, it's completely absurd, how they just make the country going (but I guess it isn't that hard after all...).
Let's start with the classic left argument "We're more sympathetic then the right. The right are hard and cold people who only cares about laws and bureaucratic stuff like that". ...y and then the left goes shouting rasists to people all day long, ...really sympathetic. Even invent new "bad words" like homophobe and islamophobe (and probably a lot more, but who really cares), those word didn't even exist until... some years ago. But nowadays, the left is saying, that there are more ways to "be evil", ...which everybody obviously likes... (sarcastic). And then a big question arises "what is good and what is evil". Which you could yet again answer with a left-emotional answer and say "well obviously everybody knows what is good and evil, duh.". But at the same time the left goes around saying "there's nothing such as normal or natural, everything is about society, and social constructs". Which is a fundamental contradiction, "everyone knows what good and evil is, but everything is more or less a social construct.", that statement in itself is pretty much a contradiction. And then the left thinks a bit and comes either up with some obscure philosopher/thinker or Jesus (because good and evil comes from religion (Christianity) and Jesus did good things). But then you only have to cite Marx "Religion is opium to the people" and religion itself seem like a "non-leftist thing". And even if you buy into the Christianity good thing, then you have to deal with the fact that you support LGBT and Islam and feminism, and there you yet again have contradiction. So I guess the left either then goes full emotional and says something like "some religious things are good others are, and if you ask why, then it's purely because I and some other people thinks so". Or goes more to the roots and talk about Marx and other philosophers they value. And my point in making this comment is how I, whom been a really firm and loyal leftist guy (and I really mean that. I'm the guy who says "let's make the everything state-owned, believing in collectivism, and believing in the socialistic/communistic utopia), have clearly seen, and also felt, how the left has just gotten all wrong, and as I stated in the beginning, become completely corrupt with double-moral/contradicting statements. And the thing with the "were the nice and sympathetic party" also breaks apart when they don't even care about all people who have troubles, only the ones they want to care about. For example, there was a study that found that the people who voted for the nationalistic party, Sweden-democrats, were among the most anxious people in general. And what does the left do about it? Calls those people a bunch of bad words, which obviously will just hurt them even more and make them worse.
And that's the problem with the Swedish "grey socialism". The name says itself. It's neither white nor black, neither good nor evil and etc. And that I feel is a fundamental ideological problem. If the left were to be successful anyhow they have to rely on that people simply likes them "they're the good and warm people, the right is the hard and cold people. And the pretext that obviously people likes warm and nice people s that's why people should and will vote for the left", that's what made them successful (here in Sweden at least). I saw an article in a right-wing newspaper, where a Socialist veteran predicted that the right will win the next election. And I kind of think that will happen as well, but it's really unclear. It's my prediction, and I'll also vote for a right-wing party, rather than a left, which is pretty unique as I just told you that I've been a hard core left-supporter.
As a final note: It's also funny how one of the government agencys with the lowest trust, from the Swedish people, is the "agency which is to help people get a job". ...y that's really great by the Social-democratic Worker's party.
tl;dr;
Quote from: Dude on November 04, 2017, 12:14:10 PMtl;dr;
To be fair, that describes most of the posts here in Politics. But very true.
If the left didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.
Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on November 04, 2017, 05:45:12 PMIf the left didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.
I'm not 100% sure about that. I guess you could say the same about the right, but the right is more clear by differentiating conservatism and liberalism/libertarianism.
I also think that "the left caring so much about minorities" is a dangerous thing for the left. And it could be silly to think that standing for the weak could be a dangerous thing to do, and people might answer with "but Tobbeh99, you're only saying this because you're a bad person who hates minorities", which isn't completely true, but I dislike certain minorities. But let me explain why I think that caring too much about minorities is bad thing:
The whole idea of the left goes back to Marx. And his idea came at a time when people probably thought that the richer people were superior to the poor. But Marx was smarter than the average joe I guess. So he came up with the pyramid idea. And after thinking about it probably concluded that it's unfair that the the rich gets more money than the poor, what makes them deserve that, and is it really the best system in general. And Marx thought that the best system would be the one that gave the best (money and in general life quality) to the most people (which philosophically is called "utilitarianism"). And it's all based upon that there are more people at the bottom at the pyramid than at the top. So theoretically the bottom people should be able to outnumber the ones at the top. And here is where the dilemma with minorities comes in. Because when people are going around talking all day long about different groups and minorities, what they're actually doing is dividing the bottom part of the pyramid. And that's why all these "populism right parties" pops up. Because all people on the left aren't a bunch of "purists left", but the thing that's unite them is the pyramid thing, and that people want equality. And that is, in my opinion, a very big failure for the left -it isn't united and tries to unite, it is and does the opposite.
The even more funnier thing is how the left now seem to realize that and like "oh shit, how are we going to fix this" ...."emm we're all different, and work in different jobs and all, but we're still sort of united and can unite more... and we all hate the rich! Them greedy bastards!". The irony is real.
I never said I thought the right was any better. It's not (well actually maybe just slightly). The biggest problem I have with the left is that they are trying to design a society around it's weakest members. When you do that you design a weak society.
With minorities, companies have to follow affirmative action which honestly is completely garbage and blatantly discriminatory and it just baffles me how people can't see it.
Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on November 05, 2017, 06:00:03 AMThe biggest problem I have with the left is that they are trying to design a society around it's weakest members. When you do that you design a weak society.
because only straight white males should succeed in life, right?
Never once did I suggest nor imply that. I suggest you don't put words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that people should succeed based on their merit and effort. Race, gender, religion, ethnicity should never be taken into account for whether or not someone gets a job.
Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on November 05, 2017, 09:26:55 AMNever once did I suggest nor imply that. I suggest you don't put words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that people should succeed based on their merit and effort. Race, gender, religion, ethnicity should never be taken into account for whether or not someone gets a job.
But that's what generally the left does in policy? (or at least US democrats)
Many forms of societal decisions in the US (police, education, etc.) tend to have biases in identity, so what the left does is enact policies to sort of "counter" the identity-based inequality. That is commonly religion, race, ethnicity, gender, preference, etc.
There was a post on reddit that I think really gives a good picture about racism and the likes in regards to left vs. right. I can't find it again, but it went something along the lines of "The left view racism as a societal issue, where activities in society are racially charged, and that they need to be addressed on the federal / government level" and "The right view racism as an individual issue, where racism comes from the individual and how they interact with those around them".
So the left call the right racist because while their individual actions might not be racist, they ignore / go against policies to fix racial biases inside things like education, policing, jobs, etc.
And the right calls the left racist because they try to give an advantage to people over (commonly) whites, even though the people given the advantage is usually disadvantaged by society at the time.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on November 05, 2017, 04:38:41 AMI also think that "the left caring so much about minorities" is a dangerous thing for the left. And it could be silly to think that standing for the weak could be a dangerous thing to do, and people might answer with "but Tobbeh99, you're only saying this because you're a bad person who hates minorities", which isn't completely true, but I dislike certain minorities. But let me explain why I think that caring too much about minorities is bad thing
But saying, specifically "I dislike certain minorities" the definition of racism (or xism)?
Viewing people differently or negatively because of a different identity, even though they're still human?
QuoteBut saying, specifically "I dislike certain minorities" the definition of racism (or xism)?
Unlike other people going around pretending to be a really nice person saying "I'm not rasist, homphobe, sexist, or islamophobe". Way too often you find people saying those and pretending that they're nice and care for people, but in the end only does because of dumb stuff like: it's trendy, money, power etc. So instead I try to be as honest as I can with my opinions, while not hurting other people, which is a tough balance. I try my best just to balance the fact to "be myself" as honest to myself as possible with what "the society" wants me to be. And I think that it really comes down to Freud's ideas about "the Id, Ego and the Super-ego". I even recall one scientist, on tv in the midst of the mass-immigration, talking about what science have found on the topic of rasism. And it seemed pretty negative as scientists has found that people care more about people of the same race as they are. But however, that difference could be overrun, which was found in mix-raced couples. So the conclusion was that you could override those "natural biased feelings" with love. So saying the statement "everyone/everything is rasist, homophobe, sexist, islamophobe" is probably true, albeit a real overstatement. It's seems also pretty close to Christian thing about "everyone is sinful".
And you might then say "but Tobbeh99. If disliking certain minorities is the definition of racism (or xism, phobe) which is evil and bad and all, why not do something about it?". But then I can easily counter-argue to say "oh, so you're saying that I should hang around with a bunch of black gay muslims so that I get "cured" from my "evil" prejudice? Y I bet most people does that... nothing strange at all...". If you do that thinking that is "good" then in the end you end up like a weird SJW talking about how good and important all minorities are and then talking shit about straight white people. And that's just seem even more dumb.
And also it's not that I just now decided "I dislike minorities", it's something I never like throughout my life. If you'd ask me opinions on Islam, Lgbt, immigrants or any other minorities like 5, 10 or more years ago, it would either be: I don't care, or more or less negative. So why should I just change myself in order to please some people/political agenda? Imo it's better to just stay the same, but however try to focus more about the things you like rather than dislike, because if you focus a lot about the things you dislike, you'll end up looking like some grumpy emo kid, which is just bad.
Also how came I didn't see this video, or hear anything about this, during the election. Hillary Clinton looks really like corruption in a nutshell. But all media attention was on how evil Trump was (at least here in Sweden).
How is some lady just tripping and falling considered a cringy moment? Forget politics, that's just messed up.
What they don't talk about in the news (at least here in Sweden).
Also what you don't hear that much about but which I'm seriously concerned about (the stuff on the channel):
https://www.youtube.com/user/whygoldandsilver
Every time Wall Street crashes, there's a high risk for war (sigh...) 1929 (Europe/World), 2007 (The Middle East and North Africa).
correlation ≠ causation
War is pretty damn good for the economy though
Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on November 05, 2017, 09:26:55 AMNever once did I suggest nor imply that. I suggest you don't put words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that people should succeed based on their merit and effort. Race, gender, religion, ethnicity should never be taken into account for whether or not someone gets a job.
sorry, I guess you just need loads of money to be qualified in that case, huh
It all seem to link to the "everything bubble". And according to this guy, the safest/best thing to do is to buy precious metals - gold and silver. I can imagine other (rich) people (in the US) doing that, but I'm not going to worry. I'm going to work as usual to earn money, I even sold some stocks (many years ago) I got from my dad.
buddy if the economy tanks to the point that normal currency is worthless, you will have bigger things to worry about than whether or not you have gold and silver readily available. People who put all their stock in the idea that precious metals will somehow continue to be precious no matter what happens to the world are idiots who don't understand the mechanisms of survival.
Precious metals will be worthless in an economy that bad b/c nobody can buy them lol
Things are only as valuable as how people view them.
If a 'precious metal' is viewed as without value, then it will be worthless in the economy.
The only things that are invaluable, as in they have so much value that it will (or should) never change over time, are the necessities to live. The two that currently are the least uh... "affected", are water and air, and water is already getting largely commercialized (which is absolutely stupid).
Shelter, Food, and Health are some partial exceptions as people generally need to create an exchange of goods for them to be transferred to the population, i.e. those who build homes, those who make food, and those who treat the sick. And even then, these are usually the priority in regards to reversing any jeopardizing problems to keep them accessible, aka preventing homeless, sickness, and world hunger.
QuoteThings are only as valuable as how people view them.
Y this was what I was thinking as well. I was a bit skeptical to his firm belief that there is some eternal inherit value of gold and silver. I mean, in the renaissance age, people didn't have currency so instead they used to trade commodities. Like "I have 2 cows, do you want to trade with me for 2 bags of grains and some wool". And that worked ok I guess, people traded what they had (in abundance) for what they needed. But then later currency was introduced as a substitute, which you could use to buy anything. So everything was relative to the currency.
That's how I view the concept of economy and trade. So I find his ideas sort of interesting in the sense that he really seem interested in economy and patterns. But I'm skeptical to his firm (almost religious) belief in gold and silver.
I wonder, what do you guys think about Ben Shapiro ? Haven't heard of him until I stumbled upon him on youtube. I kind of like as he kind of represent the "smart conservative youth". After all the "Trumpism" it does make you more hopeful having those iron-firm conservatives, rather than hilly-billy Trumpists. But I don't like his opinions 100%, and I think it has to do partially with cultural backgrounds (USA and Europe) and also with ideological differences. But I do like his firm conservative opinions, and think they have long term value, rather than "Trumpism". What do you guys think?
I actually pretty much feel the same. Don't agree with all of his opinions but he is a very well spoken individual who actually (most of the time) knows what he's talking about
If Ben Shapiro is the "smart conservative youth", I hate to see what the dumb ones look like.
He's about as representative of the right as Rachel Maddow is of the left.
Unlike Maddow, however, he compared *essential healthcare services* to a piece of expensive furniture to be bought.
Tobbeh, have you ever had to pay a bill for your healthcare? Have you ever been in an ambulance, only to find out that you have a bill for $1,200 just for the ride? To say nothing of a situation like having a baby, where you can expect ~10 grand in hospital fees (more for a c-section, and godly expensive amounts for babies with complications).
Ben Shapiro thinks that that's the same thing as not being able to afford a piece of expensive furniture. (https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/817968543211790336?lang=en)
About healthcare. I think it's obvious that it should be affordable, regardless of which way. Either you have it tax-paid or as a payed private service. I prefer tax-paid.
Ben Shapiro's an absolute savage and following his Twitter was one of the best decisions I've ever made.
the first video i saw of him was about transgenderism and abortion and i immediately hated him
Shouldn't have expected less though
Ben Shapiro knows how to market himself, and he has decent debate presence, that seems pretty obvious. But when it comes to actual policy and ideas... again, comparing healthcare to furniture lol
Well, uh, this happened.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/
shocking
From what I've heard through the whole wikileaks situation:
-Wikileaks convinced Jr. to 'leak' tax returns info in the benefit of making wikileaks look impartial and not pro-russian and pro-trump, using the term pro-russian specifically
-Wikileaks wanted Jr. to publish a talking point against Clinton, and Sr. made that point only 15m later
-If Sr. didn't win the election, Wikileaks suggested to Jr. that Sr. didn't concede and made a hissy fit to delegitimize the election
And probably a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting/missing.
Welp. Just.... welp.
ok... so the US is now Russia? Let me explain: I remembered that Russia had some law that made environmentalist organisations had to be registered/called something like "Foreign agents/spies" or some stupid shit like that. And now this, in the US! Don't care that much. And RT is pretty good if you ask me, both good and entertaining news (hehe xD).
Mmmmm I don't think it's possible for two nations to merge into one. Some of their policies could mirror each other, but otherwise, there's still a difference between the two nations. That being said, I haven't watched the video, but I currently am in a place where I can't.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on November 14, 2017, 04:20:55 AMMmmmm I don't think it's possible for two nations to merge into one. Some of their policies could mirror each other, but otherwise, there's still a difference between the two nations. That being said, I haven't watched the video, but I currently am in a place where I can't.
y, I don't think they'll ever merge (the thought haven't gotten to me). And there are a whole bunch of obvious differences, but y people thought Russia/Putin's laws were stupid, and then now, on the other side, this.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on November 14, 2017, 03:53:55 AM
ok... so the US is now Russia? Let me explain: I remembered that Russia had some law that made environmentalist organizations had to be registered/called something like "Foreign agents/spies" or some stupid shit like that. And now this, in the US! Don't care that much. And RT is pretty good if you ask me, both good and entertaining news (hehe xD).
I don't really think it's trustworthy to listen to state-run media based on Russia... when there is currently a huge investigation into how Russia was meddling / manipulating the US election & governmental officials.
Nooot to mention that we just had the recent leak about how Wikileaks was concluding with Donald Trump Jr., specifically saying that Wikileaks is trying to not appear as "pro-russian", which is pretty telling.
Whether or not they're trustworthy, making them register as a foreign entity is still a blow to the first amendment. To be clear, they made RT *America* to register as a "foreign agent".
This is blatant government crackdown on news agencies.
Whether or not they're accurate is irrelevant; Breitbart posts shit about Pizzagate and similar non-existent scandals on the daily, but they have the right to exist.
By the way, for those who cry "state run media"; what is CNN, then? Their owner contributes money to politicians on the regular. I don't remember a single "outstanding media outlet" that was against the Iraq War..
For those who are in the US, please call your representatives for NetNeutrality!
www.battleforthenet.com
For some reason I've been thinking about nuclear energy/power (I have no clue why I've gotten into that, but y..). And there's a thing in the environmentalist groups that they are against nuclear energy (probably not as much as coal plants, but they still have a negative attitude towards that). And I've been skeptic towards that, because I've had the feeling that nuclear plants produce so much energy that it's hard to replace them with something. And it turns out that in Sweden we have 3 plants with 10 reactors (we used to have 4 plants but one got closed down), and those plants produce 40% of the total energy in Sweden! Hydroelectric plant produce pretty much exactly the same, 40%, and wind power stations produce around 15%. So I think it would be hard to replace all of the nuclear energy with other alternatives like water, wind, solar, waves, but it might be possible, I'm not an expert. The obvious reason why to replace the nuclear plants is because of the danger with them. Although I think they're kind of safe if you have both a very solid construction of them (the safety seem to grow with time, and seem to be a key focus area when improving nuclear plants) and have the right area (the Fukushima disaster was caused by an earthquake).
Looking at some facts about nuclear energy was quite interesting. As the US apparently have the most amount of nuclear reactors, but France (being at 2nd place) are the most reliant on nuclear energy in % count. I thought Russia relied a lot on nuclear energy, but it turns out they are on like 4th place (although that's pretty high, but it isn't number 1). Here's some facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
What do you guys think about nuclear energy? Should we try to completely close the reactors down and look for alternative ways of making energy, or should we keep some and then have a mix with other energy sources?
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on November 28, 2017, 04:19:47 AMFor some reason I've been thinking about nuclear energy/power (I have no clue why I've gotten into that, but y..). And there's a thing in the environmentalist groups that they are against nuclear energy (probably not as much as coal plants, but they still have a negative attitude towards that). And I've been skeptic towards that, because I've had the feeling that nuclear plants produce so much energy that it's hard to replace them with something. And it turns out that in Sweden we have 3 plants with 10 reactors (we used to have 4 plants but one got closed down), and those plants produce 40% of the total energy in Sweden! Hydroelectric plant produce pretty much exactly the same, 40%, and wind power stations produce around 15%. So I think it would be hard to replace all of the nuclear energy with other alternatives like water, wind, solar, waves, but it might be possible, I'm not an expert. The obvious reason why to replace the nuclear plants is because of the danger with them. Although I think they're kind of safe if you have both a very solid construction of them (the safety seem to grow with time, and seem to be a key focus area when improving nuclear plants) and have the right area (the Fukushima disaster was caused by an earthquake).
Looking at some facts about nuclear energy was quite interesting. As the US apparently have the most amount of nuclear reactors, but France (being at 2nd place) are the most reliant on nuclear energy in % count. I thought Russia relied a lot on nuclear energy, but it turns out they are on like 4th place (although that's pretty high, but it isn't number 1). Here's some facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
What do you guys think about nuclear energy? Should we try to completely close the reactors down and look for alternative ways of making energy, or should we keep some and then have a mix with other energy sources?
As of now, definitely the latter. Nuclear Energy is somewhat of a 'regress solution' to the energy/environmental crisis, so while nuclear energy is useful and cleaner compared to natural gas and coal, it should still be implemented with alternative sources (wind/hydro/solar/geothermal), so once gas & coal usage is shut down completely, we can shift the remaining nuclear reactors to those alternative energy sources.
www.drawdown.org/ is a great website that has collected information through peer-review studies on how to improve the energy across the world, including their environmental and economical impacts.
Y, as an update to this. I read some article, claiming that it is possible to replace nuclear power with sun power (at least here in Sweden). And have the same result in energy production. I don't know if it's true, maybe, maybe not. I also asked in a environmentalist facebook-group what they thought about it (and also if they thought that coal, gas and nuclear energy had any benefits whatsoever, or if they just plain out sucked). And I got some interesting answers. A lot of people were quite into the gen-4 nuclear reactors and thorium reactors. Some people mentioned the cons with water and wind on the fauna. And, which I didn't think about, that sun energy demands precious metals in order to be built. So y, interesting topic. I think that the renewable energy sources are far better, but nuclear energy being the best non-renewable energy as it has less impact and also seem to get better and safer with time. Coal is completely of the table.
My opinion: in the future, we'll replace the old fission nuclear power with new fusion nuclear power. One of the big problem with fission: what do you do with waste that will be radioactive for the next millions years? With nuclear fusion, you can inflate balloons with what the power plant produce.
I've heard that you can even use the waste in newer nuclear plants (don't know how true that is, haven't dug deep into it and I'm no expert). That does make it a lot better. But otherwise it's the classic "burrow it down really really deep, and it'll go away with time", which just sucks.
Fusion reactors probably won't happen our lifetime without major breakthroughs. The tech is nowhere near where it needs to be. The fuel has to be artificially created, and then kept at near sun-like conditions and produce a net gain in energy. That last part won't be fixed for ages. Yeah, we can do fusion, but it's practically impossible to actually gain energy from it.
maybe currently but I would keep a lid on what i say will be impossible for the future. 50 years ago people would have said that it'd be impossible to talk on a phone without wires and carry your entire music collection in your pocket.
Quote from: Trasdegi on November 28, 2017, 02:12:20 PMMy opinion: in the future, we'll replace the old fission nuclear power with new fusion nuclear power. One of the big problem with fission: what do you do with waste that will be radioactive for the next millions years? With nuclear fusion, you can inflate balloons with what the power plant produce.
In regards to fusion vs. fission, the biggest reason why we don't use fusion is that we cannot control the process once it starts. It'll have to use its fuel up completely before we can do any changes. With fission, we can control the reaction to the extent to stop it if something occurs, or regulate it if it is producing more than we can consume.
In regards to the waste from fission reactors, here's an interesting xkcd about that actually:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on November 29, 2017, 06:47:16 AMIn regards to fusion vs. fission, the biggest reason why we don't use fusion is that we cannot control the process once it starts. It'll have to use its fuel up completely before we can do any changes. With fission, we can control the reaction to the extent to stop it if something occurs, or regulate it if it is producing more than we can consume.
In regards to the waste from fission reactors, here's an interesting xkcd about that actually:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
Wasn't it the exact opposite? The problem of fission is to control the reaction, if anything goes wrong the reaction can go out of control and the reactor will explode. With fusion, the problem is to maintain the reaction, if there's a problem, them the reaction will immediately stop, because it won't have the necessary conditions anymore. That's the problem: as of now, we don't know how to maintain a reaction for enough time to produce energy with it.
Quote from: Trasdegi on November 29, 2017, 11:23:35 AMWasn't it the exact opposite? The problem of fusion is to control the reaction, if anything goes wrong the reaction can go out of control and the reactor will explode. With fusion, the problem is to maintain the reaction, if there's a problem, them the reaction will immediately stop, because it won't have the necessary conditions anymore. That's the problem: as of now, we don't know how to maintain a reaction for enough time to produce energy with it.
Uh.. you said fusion twice.
Whoops, the first one is fission
What do you guys think of Trump's executive orders, or EOs in general? Apparently Trump has signed doubled the amount Obama did in his first 200 days (http://nordic.businessinsider.com/how-many-executive-orders-trump-signed-obama-clinton-bush-2017-8), and it did make a lot of news in his early presidency. It's kind of unique to me, because here in Sweden, there's no equivalent. The prime minister doesn't have that great power, he has to work with the government, can't give orders on his own. I don't live in the US, so it doesn't affect me and I doesn't have all that much to really say about it. But I do think it's better if policy proposals go through some congress or some other process form, as I think it gets more thought-out and worked-out that way, rather than if the president does a direct order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump
I just find it extremely annoying that one the main arguments the republican platform used against obama was him abusing his power with exectuitive orders. Then they republicans get a guy in office and force their agenda in the exact same way. Like every poltician is gonna pretend to be high and might but at least be tactful about it >->
Obama actually signed very few executive orders in comparison to other presidents. Hell, the republican saint Ronald Reagan (peace-be-upon-him and may he live forever) himself signed more executive orders than Obama did.
Obama did break the record with pardons/commutations though, mostly to non violent drug offenders (a LONG overdue measure). He even was pretty moderate on that; he took the time to individually read every case rather than a blanket release (which is good obviously) but he only worked with federal inmates. While obviously he can't release state inmates, he could've put some pressure on individual states where it was necessary to get out some state inmates (the kind of thing FDR and Lyndon Johnson would do).
I mean, Trump can barely get anything through Congress even though his own party controls it.. I don't really blame him for going around it. He's got to get something done.
Haven't a large percentage of Trump's executive orders just been undoing Obama's
@swimswamit maybe if he can't even get his own party to pass his legislation it's shitty legislation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@blue yes but he's also done some other stuff too, like he passed an EO to get rid of the rule of ISPs being required to have your consent before selling your browsing history to other companies
Hey, so the US is now screwed in so many freaking ways thanks to this stupid asinine tax bill.
-Tax increase for student loans/ include graduate tuition waivers as taxable income (when it's not income)
-Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security cuts
-Over 1.2 trillion dollar deficit
-Gutting the ACA, causing 11 million to lose insurance
-Massive tax cuts to estates / corporations / the 1%
And even some stuff that isn't even RELATED to taxes:
-Able to drill for oil in Alaska
-A freaking anti abortion amendment that labels an in-utero unborn child as a beneficiary, which will open up a massive can of worms that could lead to giving in-utero unborn children the 'right to live', and overturn roe vs. wade. Even if you are pro-life and not pro-choice, you have to understand how freaking messed up this is to be included in a freaking tax cut bill.
This is going to bring major repercussions to the US and probably the world as a whole.
Please, for those who are over 18 in the US and are citizens, please freaking vote. I want off this crazy train.
Yyyyyep.
America has been going down the toilet for a while now...
Been voting. No dice. :/
Hopefully things get better when people realize how much they're being screwed over by the people they elected.
In the sense, I find it almost a touch surreal that we as a generation are currently entering an era of history that is not only unfolding right before our eyes, but that we have a say and the ability to make an actual difference in the outcome of our world.
I'm calling it now: the Republican Party will split soon. As in, fully split.
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on December 03, 2017, 06:41:33 AMI'm calling it now: the Republican Party will split soon. As in, fully split.
I'm expecting that the GOP will be destroyed, and a more center-right leaning party will come from its ashes.
Policies will be much more socially left leaning than it is now (marriage equality, net neutrality {but through a different form of regulation than Title I or II}, etc.), and economically they'll be more center right than extreme right/corporate right (light touches in government regulation to better the free market from monopolies and to keep utilities available, but still keep a bigger "hands off" ideology than democrats).
Or something along those lines.
I think I'd like that group...
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on December 03, 2017, 08:53:51 AMPolicies will be much more socially left leaning than it is now (marriage equality, net neutrality {but through a different form of regulation than Title I or II}, etc.), and economically they'll be more center right than extreme right/corporate right (light touches in government regulation to better the free market from monopolies and to keep utilities available, but still keep a bigger "hands off" ideology than democrats).
So like.. classical liberals, I guess? I hate that term tbh but libertarian works just as well.
It's a moot point though bc this won't be fixed until the root of the evil ($$) is fixed by overturning Citizens United. If there was any reason to vote for Clinton, it would have been for a better Supreme Court (though Merrick Garland was in favor of Citizens United IIRC)
I wonder how the international relations will go in the future. I'm thinking particularly about the relation between EU and USA. I feel like that relation was pretty strong during Obama's presidency. But I feel like it has diminished during Trump's. Mainly due to many EU leaders disregarding and flat out dislikes Trump in a lot of ways. Merkel talked about how "Europe have to take it's destiny in our own hands" and that "We cannot completely rely on USA anymore". And it feels kind of sad, and also with Brexit happening. But I feel like it has cooled down a bit, after a very hectic presidency. Things seems so go more on at a decent pace now. At the start of his presidency, it felt very hot and serious, almost cold war-esque feel. Now, things go at a more even pace.
I'm also interested in Sweden's relation to the EU, and the EU itself. I'd like Sweden to have as much power as possible, by itself. But I also do want more cooperation with the European countries (and that's where EU comes in as a platform). As I think it could help unite Europe more, and I think that will help most countries within the EU and Europe, a win win situation.
~
Yet I feel like the EU-USA relation is pretty ok. Some daily things reminds me of it: All the tv-programs and various products, which comes from the US. I mean, they don't come from like Russia or the Middle East. I'd say that the EU+USA could be seen as "the west world", with Russia being the start of "the east(world)"(or whatever you'd call it).
Why wasn't this locked 139 pages ago
Quote from: LeviR.star on December 05, 2017, 09:11:01 AMWhy wasn't this locked 139 pages ago
One of the greatest questions of all time.
Quote from: wariopiano on September 11, 2012, 08:45:10 AMObama I hate that name!!!!! >:( >:(
I'm glad to see this thread has always been the home of intelligent discussion.
I mean it was Seb when he didn't know any better so not much of a surprise
Quote from: Maelstrom on December 05, 2017, 11:36:47 AMI'm glad to see this thread has always been the home of intelligent discussion.
Agrees.
Also something that I've also been thinking of lately is the concept of nature vs nurture/society. I've been getting the feel lately that a lot of people have tried to argue that as much as possible is a so called "social construct", aka. society has created it, it's not natural. And I think that it has been gone too far. And that there has been less talk about what is natural or "hard-wired". I got the feel that a lot of phenomenon probably has something to do with nature, and is just as it is. And it seems to me that a lot of people who argues that everything is just "social constructs" argue like that with positivity trying to convince people that "Everything is our hands. We (humans) can do whatever we want", and trying to convince people that "society and it's norms are holding people back. Putting people in chains. And through realizing that everything are just social constructs, people can become free -and live a better and happier life". And I'd argue that that's a very naive way of thinking. And that you could as well make the argument that norms are good in making people disciplined and civilized. And that there's kind of a false vision of happiness thinking that people should break free and just live life, sort of like the hippies in the 60s, 70s and 80s. I personally feel that society should have norms, to be a well functioning society. And I think that people should also make clear about the nature part of humanity and not only think that everything are just "social constructs". I think that if you study different civilizations, you'll see various patterns between them. Pretty much proving that there's a "red line" within humanity, that there were people who worked in various industries, did politics, play music in the ancient roman times, and there are people doing the same thing nowadays. And you can see various similarities and differences. Explaining the concept of nature and society. I think that a lot of things that are considered "traditional" or "conservative" are the phenomenons that are most "attacked" by the idea that there are just "social constructs". Things like: religion, traditional gender roles, cultural traditions, concept of nation states etc.
It came to my mind when I thought about how many people are talking about the "inequality" of there being more men than women at higher posts in society (like CEO's and "Wall Street people", politicians etc.). And I've always been pro gender equality. But I do think that one reason that there being less women at higher posts has to do with that I think that men are somewhat more competitive. Throughout my life, I've been getting the feel that men are more likely to "take the first step", and maybe also are more competitive. So I think that that's a reason to it also, and I don't think it's "this evil patriarchy that has... been existing since like... the beginning of time? stone age? who knows?". But I also want to stress that I think there are advantages with there being somewhat gender equal. I think that there's a risk when there are only men that they get to cocky and just kind of dumb everyone down, like some stupid "last man standing game". So I think that it adds value that both genders are represented. I think that creates a better well functioning society, and you can also see that a lot of great societies have been having that sort of structure. Like that both men and women work and also take more fiscal responsibility, creating a good "family-like society". And I think that there are advantages if both gender also are involved in the leadership of a society.
So y, I think that people should try to both get the nature and the society part when arguing different phenomenons in society.
Found this good interview with Joe Biden. I like how he's very clear about politics and how he sees the US and the world. And also how he emphasizes the "moral values" or "the soul", but also seem to be somewhat optimistic in the interview. Which I think is good for the future.
Tobbeh you are single-handedly lowering the overall intelligence level in this thread which is honestly quite impressive so I'm not sure why you think Maelstrom's comment is somehow appropriate
Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger?
Can someone tl;dr; that or is it not worth the time?
Tobbeh interpreted my sarcastic comment about this thread always being stupid as him adding to the intelligence.
Quote from: Maelstrom on December 05, 2017, 04:14:03 PMTobbeh interpreted my sarcastic comment about this thread always being stupid as him adding to the intelligence.
I think he was just generally agreeing to your comment.
To be honest, I feel like three-quarters of the time, people are either completely misinterpreting what Tobbeh says, or otherwise making something out of nothing. In other words, it's become so instinctual to "hate" Tobbeh that it doesn't actually matter what Tobbeh says: people will just disparage him either way anytime he makes a long(-er) post.
Quite honestly I don't know why people bother to read his posts. They're all incredibly self-centered and incoherent. I know you've mentioned this before, elsewhere some time ago, but Tobbeh you should really take all of these scattered post about...whatever it is you're trying to talk about and just start a blog. It's fairly clear you're just wanting to hear yourself talk considering barely anyone responds to you and you seem to just rush to talk about something else.
Tobbeh: if you needed help setting up a blog, I would help you.
Quote from: Maelstrom on December 05, 2017, 04:14:03 PMTobbeh interpreted my sarcastic comment about this thread always being stupid as him adding to the intelligence.
I meant the utter shit after that
Something about nature or something?
Quote from: Maelstrom on December 05, 2017, 04:14:03 PMTobbeh interpreted my sarcastic comment about this thread always being stupid as him adding to the intelligence.
Y I thought he was serious. But later thought that he might been sarcastic.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on December 05, 2017, 05:07:19 PMQuite honestly I don't know why people bother to read his posts. They're all incredibly self-centered and incoherent. I know you've mentioned this before, elsewhere some time ago, but Tobbeh you should really take all of these scattered post about...whatever it is you're trying to talk about and just start a blog. It's fairly clear you're just wanting to hear yourself talk considering barely anyone responds to you and you seem to just rush to talk about something else.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on December 05, 2017, 05:19:42 PMTobbeh: if you needed help setting up a blog, I would help you.
Y, you guys might be right. I like to express my opinions, which I feel are important. But you guys have made it clear that you're not that interested in them, even though I think I reason pretty well, and put thought into my opinions/ideas. So y, I might start a blog. Or if not, try to chill down. And maybe then focus more on music, and maybe games. Even though this is a social forum as well, I've got the impression that people don't seem to appreciate all of my talk.
There's a difference between talking to people and talking at them.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 06, 2017, 03:21:27 AMAnd maybe then focus more on music, and maybe games. Even though this is a social forum as well
Focusing on music (which is the main reason for NSM) is a wonderful idea.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 05, 2017, 01:00:44 PMAgrees.
:snip:
You... you do understand that was sarcasm, right?
FUCK YEAH ALABAMA
Still can't believe that a democrat won Alabama.
Freaking Alabama.
Gratz. Having hard time believing that someone like Moore could even run for it. I remembered that people were making the "stupid USA jokes" at Bush's time when Schwarzenegger was governor of California. And Moore is levels above that (or below, however you want to see it). Really don't think there's any need for more crazy politicians after Trump (and Bannon) just flipped everything upside down. Btw wasn't he charged for some sexual assault or something? wtf!? ...
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 13, 2017, 03:45:06 AMGratz. Having hard time believing that someone like Moore could even run for it. I remembered that people were making the "stupid USA jokes" at Bush's time when Schwarzenegger was governor of California. And Moore is levels above that (or below, however you want to see it). Really don't think there's any need for more crazy politicians after Trump (and Bannon) just flipped everything upside down. Btw wasn't he charged for some sexual assault or something? wtf!? ...
No, our president was accused of sexual assault and rape.
Moore was accused of pedophilia.
Net Neutrality vote tomorrow... get your signatures ready to sign a petition just in case we need it >~<
More like get ready to protest.
Quote from: Altissimo on December 12, 2017, 08:15:35 PMFUCK YEAH ALABAMA
okay this but let's also remember that a *pedophile* was nearly elected office. More people actually wrote in candidates than made the difference between Jones and Moore.
you dont get it lmao
listen
i'm from the south
my dad's from mississippi
the fact that a dem won at all is astounding. the difference doesn't matter. it was never going to be a landslide victory. sure you might be disappointed at how "close" it was but you also don't know this environment.
Can agree 100% there. The fact that a dem won a Southern stronghold for the GOP is astounding and I N E V E R thought I would see that day come
Quote from: Altissimo on December 13, 2017, 01:29:17 PMyou dont get it lmao
listen
i'm from the south
my dad's from mississippi
the fact that a dem won at all is astounding. the difference doesn't matter. it was never going to be a landslide victory. sure you might be disappointed at how "close" it was but you also don't know this environment.
The difference does matter, because it's important for Democrats to see their strategy(ies) moving forward.
Jones didn't win because he was a stalwart individual, again this is where the margin is important. The accusations against Moore were hammered for weeks and weeks as more and more evidence came out, and yet this is the result?
Also worth noting that Jones isn't really going to hold this; more likely is him losing in the next election season. He didn't win over the people of Alabama, enough people were just turned off of Roy Moore (again bc pedophilia, but EVEN THEN only 1.5%) to not vote for him.
It's funny because you can practically
hear the wheels turning in his brain
~
Quote from: Zunawe on December 13, 2017, 10:47:47 PMThis is perhaps a dangerous thing to correct, but Moore was accused of sexual assault and molestation. Pedophilia isn't illegal; acting on it is.
And @pds, the outcome isn't important because the dems got one over on the republicans, it's important because it's a win for morality and ethics over party disagreements. If a state as red as Alabama can vote in a Democrat to keep the government free of criminals (especially sexual predators), that's significant. Nobody is expecting Alabama to go blue any time soon.
Agrees with you about moral and ethics.
And y, some states seem to be very dominantly historically red/blue (having the "rust-belt" being historic "blue states"). We have the same here in Sweden, where the Liberal-conservatives tend to score well around the bigger cities, and the social-democrats score well in the countryside.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 13, 2017, 08:38:00 PMThe difference does matter, because it's important for Democrats to see their strategy(ies) moving forward.
Jones didn't win because he was a stalwart individual, again this is where the margin is important. The accusations against Moore were hammered for weeks and weeks as more and more evidence came out, and yet this is the result?
Also worth noting that Jones isn't really going to hold this; more likely is him losing in the next election season. He didn't win over the people of Alabama, enough people were just turned off of Roy Moore (again bc pedophilia, but EVEN THEN only 1.5%) to not vote for him.
Doug Jones is openly, unabashedly pro-choice. To some people, being a man who has possibly touched little girls is less of an issue than being a man who DEFINITELY wants to murder babies. You and I both know that's not what abortion is, but try telling that to the people of Alabama. We've had that fight often enough on NSM for you to know the outcome.
People have different morals. Is it gross and horrible? Of course - it's privileging the lives of unborn fetuses which lack the capacity of independent thought over the lives of real, actual humans that were forever negatively affected by Roy Moore's actions. But not everyone shares our morals and understands the difference. To some people, the choice may as well have been between a murderer (the actual state of victims be damned) or a sexual predator. Which is worse? I don't even know how to answer that myself. And some people will definitely say "the murderer because at least the victims of a sexual predator are still alive".
I'm not saying that Doug Jones being pro-choice is the biggest reason Alabama didn't vote him in by a wider margin. But he did refuse to compromise on that. He went to one of the most anti-abortion states in the country, said "I am pro-choice", and got elected in spite of that. Sure, it was only because of the perfect storm of bad decisions by the Republicans and the allegations against Roy Moore that he got anywhere at all. But you could probably have videotapes of Roy Moore molesting a child and some people would STILL rather vote him in than - gasp - a Democrat.
I know you want to believe better of people than this. I know you're disappointed that the margin was so small, that it should have been a landslide victory for Jones because who the fuck would vote Moore into office, but you have to remember that not everyone shares your morals, and that sucks but that's how it is.
I repeat, as someone with a significant Southern history: The fact that ENOUGH people out of the state of Alabama shares your morals to tip the scales is astounding. The margin was tiny, sure, but this was a state where Trump won something like 70% of the vote to Hillary's 30%. You are expecting too much if you think the state will resoundingly reject Roy Moore. Maybe if the entire state were made up of people like you, but there's a reason it isn't, and there's a reason it's a red state, and there's a reason there are so many negative stereotypes about the South. What they did is amazing regardless of how long Jones will hold office and regardless of the margin.
Quote from: Zunawe on December 13, 2017, 10:47:47 PMThis is perhaps a dangerous thing to correct, but Moore was accused of sexual assault and molestation. Pedophilia isn't illegal; acting on it is.
And @pds, the outcome isn't important because the dems got one over on the republicans, it's important because it's a win for morality and ethics over party disagreements. If a state as red as Alabama can vote in a Democrat to keep the government free of criminals (especially sexual predators), that's significant. Nobody is expecting Alabama to go blue any time soon.
It's not a win of morality and ethics.
Before Moore had the allegations, he still thought that all amendments after 10 (including the no slavery and women's rights amendments) should be abolished, blames school shootings on evolution (http://www.newsweek.com/roy-moore-blamed-drive-shootings-evolution-education-742275), got kicked off the bench for refusing to take down 10 commandments statues in a courtroom, etc. The allegations are really what did him in.
Hate to be THAT guy, but this tweet is relevant: https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/940906377035345920
~
Random political analyses:
After a very wild political year. I feel like things starting to fall into place/calm down. Former right-wing prime minster (during the 90s) Carl Bildt, whom at the moment is a columnist at the Washington Post, talked about how it has taken longer than usual for the US administration to settle. But that it's now starting to get better and more settled down, even though it's still a bit messy. He also talked about North Korea, which he said that he thought there was a 20-40% risk of war (between US and North Korea). But that there might be some hope as the UN had some higher members visit the country. He also talked about the budget which he thought the Americans would enjoy, but that the budget could have some long term economic issues, with the national dept and such. I also heard an interview with another former left-wing (socialist) prime minister Göran Person. Who talked about that he was happy that Trump won, on the day of the election, and that he wrote that "he could sleep calmly, because of Trump's victory". He also talked about how Trump has "calmed down" during the year and taken a step back. And also about how Trump will have to represent the American people. And the thing that worried him a bit was that there were few "politicians" in Trump's administration. Many people whom are good in other disciplines, but few politicians, he said.
And my impression of the whole picture has 2 sides of it. The 1st one is that the American election looks similar to the previous Swedish government/election. Which was a right-wing government, but which campaigned on the slogan that they were "the new worker's party", which was a new thing and also made the socialist party (and the left) upset, as they had seen themselves, for decades, as "the worker's party" (and the right-wing parties as "the business parties/upper class parties). And they won pretty convincingly on that. And although being right-wing, the government ended up more "liberal and center-political", which some on the left even liked. Also his budget (the physical book, or what ever it was on his desk), also looks similar how the minister of finance, during the right-wing government also had some fancy budget plan (like a whole bunch of papers, wrapped in some beautiful straps).
The 2nd more picture I've had is the idea of "history repeating itself". And I've heard some pessimist talking about "omg looks like the 30s, oh no, Nazi-Germany... scary scary", but I think it's more like the 40s. Like Hoover-Bush, Franklin D Roosevelt-Obama and now Truman-Trump. Trump even mentioned Truman in an interview on his budget. And during the 30s we had "the great depression" and from 2008 till like now or so we've had "the great recession", and also WW2, the Syrian civil war/Arab Spring, SS-IS. So I'm starting to see some patterns here.
I also watched a clip with Bernie Sanders being interviewed on his thoughts on the budget and 2018. And he seem "alright", talked calmly and answered with intelligent answers. Before, when I watched him, he sometimes looked completely red in his face and all heated up, angry or furious. And if he's supposed to represent "the far left" as in opposition to Trump, and he's being pretty chill. Then I think that's a good sing that things are calming down, and that the enormous political divide that we experienced after the election, is getting thinner and that the US is getting more "united". Which I think is a good thing, you don't want a nation split in half.
Personally I've also changed my opinion on Swedish politics, and the Social-democrats. I kind of feel like the left has a good chance, and that they can "revive the soul of the parties". Before I talked about how the prime minister. whom also is the social-democrats' party leader, talked about "grey socialism". Which just make me sad because how bad it sounds, it's like saying "boring socialism" or "concrete/hard work socialism". And also the environmental party seems to just have "fallen out of the game". Which also is sad, because they use to be a very creative party, having lots of creative ideas, wanting to change society for the better. But lately they almost seem like a "SJW party". But thankfully, even more recently, in the last debates or so, the party leader kind of stepped up and got back to the roots of the party "the environmental issues" and kind of make you get a glimpse of the party's creative potential.
All this is actually very positive, as I've been having strong doubts in the Swedish political left. And being a very loyal left-supporter, it really hurts seeing that it's almost so bad that you have to switch to the right (because the left just sucked :(). So it feels really good that the left seem to be more "warm" now. If they focus on the people, "the little guy", then they can move on with made Sweden such a great country in the first place (and Swedish socialism's greatest achievement) the idea of "the people's home" (translated version of the Swedish expression "folkhemmet"). And also the idea of "the socialist utopia". If the left can show that that is what they want, rather than "anti-rasist SJW nonsense", then it's a clear vote for them.
This one might be my last comment here for a while. Both because I feel like politics is starting to "get boring", which I think is good, and that mean that I'll probably care less about it. And because I think that this analysis captures a lot of what I think is going on at the moment. :)
tl;dr
savage
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 26, 2017, 03:40:23 AM~snip~
For the love of God, Tobbeh:
(https://pics.me.me/shorten-that-to-20-words-or-less-and-try-again-23734667.png)
Quote from: Altissimo on December 26, 2017, 07:09:51 AMtl;dr
-American politics is finally calming down even though it took longer
-War with NoKo isn't as likely as you might think
-Various journalists of both sidedness of the political spectrum are talking about Trump, some are worried about the lack of "politicians" in the trump admin
-Tobbeh's take on the whole thing: this election is like the previous Swedish election because the winning right wing party sold itself on being the new worker's party, which ticked the left off (in Sweden), but the right government started becoming centrist/left leaning
-History is repeating itself: Hoover is Bush, FDR is Obama, and Trump is Truman.
-Bernie Sanders seems chill with the new budget plan, which is good because he traditionally opposes Trump. This means the nation isn't as divided: Also a good thing
-Tobbeh's changed his view on Swedish politics, feeling like the left has a good chance
-Swedish parties doing stuff
-Swedish parties not doing stuff
-The Swedish left was kinda becoming impersonal, making people not like them as much, which almost pushed Tobbeh to go to the right.
-This'll be Tobbeh's last politics post for a while (he thinks) because politics is becoming boring to him and he feels his analysis has summed up everything currently happening effectively
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on December 26, 2017, 12:28:46 PM-This'll be Tobbeh's last politics post for a while (he thinks) because politics is becoming boring to him and he feels his analysis has summed up everything currently happening effectively
I needed a good chuckle this morning, thank you.
You are a saint.
Please do that from now on, thank you.
I would agree except I don't think anyone should have to subject themselves to those textwalls to interpret them for us laypeople. Let E. Gadd live. He's done nothing wrong.
I guess...
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 26, 2017, 03:40:23 AMSpoiler
Random political analyses:
After a very wild political year. I feel like things starting to fall into place/calm down. Former right-wing prime minster (during the 90s) Carl Bildt, whom at the moment is a columnist at the Washington Post, talked about how it has taken longer than usual for the US administration to settle. But that it's now starting to get better and more settled down, even though it's still a bit messy. He also talked about North Korea, which he said that he thought there was a 20-40% risk of war (between US and North Korea). But that there might be some hope as the UN had some higher members visit the country. He also talked about the budget which he thought the Americans would enjoy, but that the budget could have some long term economic issues, with the national dept and such. I also heard an interview with another former left-wing (socialist) prime minister Göran Person. Who talked about that he was happy that Trump won, on the day of the election, and that he wrote that "he could sleep calmly, because of Trump's victory". He also talked about how Trump has "calmed down" during the year and taken a step back. And also about how Trump will have to represent the American people. And the thing that worried him a bit was that there were few "politicians" in Trump's administration. Many people whom are good in other disciplines, but few politicians, he said.
And my impression of the whole picture has 2 sides of it. The 1st one is that the American election looks similar to the previous Swedish government/election. Which was a right-wing government, but which campaigned on the slogan that they were "the new worker's party", which was a new thing and also made the socialist party (and the left) upset, as they had seen themselves, for decades, as "the worker's party" (and the right-wing parties as "the business parties/upper class parties). And they won pretty convincingly on that. And although being right-wing, the government ended up more "liberal and center-political", which some on the left even liked. Also his budget (the physical book, or what ever it was on his desk), also looks similar how the minister of finance, during the right-wing government also had some fancy budget plan (like a whole bunch of papers, wrapped in some beautiful straps).
The 2nd more picture I've had is the idea of "history repeating itself". And I've heard some pessimist talking about "omg looks like the 30s, oh no, Nazi-Germany... scary scary", but I think it's more like the 40s. Like Hoover-Bush, Franklin D Roosevelt-Obama and now Truman-Trump. Trump even mentioned Truman in an interview on his budget. And during the 30s we had "the great depression" and from 2008 till like now or so we've had "the great recession", and also WW2, the Syrian civil war/Arab Spring, SS-IS. So I'm starting to see some patterns here.
I also watched a clip with Bernie Sanders being interviewed on his thoughts on the budget and 2018. And he seem "alright", talked calmly and answered with intelligent answers. Before, when I watched him, he sometimes looked completely red in his face and all heated up, angry or furious. And if he's supposed to represent "the far left" as in opposition to Trump, and he's being pretty chill. Then I think that's a good sing that things are calming down, and that the enormous political divide that we experienced after the election, is getting thinner and that the US is getting more "united". Which I think is a good thing, you don't want a nation split in half.
Personally I've also changed my opinion on Swedish politics, and the Social-democrats. I kind of feel like the left has a good chance, and that they can "revive the soul of the parties". Before I talked about how the prime minister. whom also is the social-democrats' party leader, talked about "grey socialism". Which just make me sad because how bad it sounds, it's like saying "boring socialism" or "concrete/hard work socialism". And also the environmental party seems to just have "fallen out of the game". Which also is sad, because they use to be a very creative party, having lots of creative ideas, wanting to change society for the better. But lately they almost seem like a "SJW party". But thankfully, even more recently, in the last debates or so, the party leader kind of stepped up and got back to the roots of the party "the environmental issues" and kind of make you get a glimpse of the party's creative potential.
All this is actually very positive, as I've been having strong doubts in the Swedish political left. And being a very loyal left-supporter, it really hurts seeing that it's almost so bad that you have to switch to the right (because the left just sucked :(). So it feels really good that the left seem to be more "warm" now. If they focus on the people, "the little guy", then they can move on with made Sweden such a great country in the first place (and Swedish socialism's greatest achievement) the idea of "the people's home" (translated version of the Swedish expression "folkhemmet"). And also the idea of "the socialist utopia". If the left can show that that is what they want, rather than "anti-rasist SJW nonsense", then it's a clear vote for them.
This one might be my last comment here for a while. Both because I feel like politics is starting to "get boring", which I think is good, and that mean that I'll probably care less about it. And because I think that this analysis captures a lot of what I think is going on at the moment. :)
If I had a dollar for every syllable here, I could afford 143 DVD copies of Shrek 2
Quote from: LeviR.star on December 26, 2017, 04:30:24 PMIf I had a dollar for every syllable here, I could afford 143 DVD copies of Shrek 2
...please don't tell me you actually calculated this
You know he did.
Quote from: Dudeman on December 26, 2017, 04:34:44 PM...please don't tell me you actually calculated this
The Internet is an extraordinary place, my Dudeman https://www.howmanysyllables.com/syllable_counter/ (https://www.howmanysyllables.com/syllable_counter/)
Quote from: Altissimo on December 26, 2017, 04:09:59 PMI would agree except I don't think anyone should have to subject themselves to those textwalls to interpret them for us laypeople. Let E. Gadd live. He's done nothing wrong.
I just saw something about FDR, Hoover, and Obama skimming through and decided to read it more in-depth. Otherwise I would've continued skimming and wandered elsewhere
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on December 26, 2017, 12:28:46 PM-American politics is finally calming down even though it took longer
-War with NoKo isn't as likely as you might think
-Various journalists of both sidedness of the political spectrum are talking about Trump, some are worried about the lack of "politicians" in the trump admin
-Tobbeh's take on the whole thing: this election is like the previous Swedish election because the winning right wing party sold itself on being the new worker's party, which ticked the left off (in Sweden), but the right government started becoming centrist/left leaning
-History is repeating itself: Hoover is Bush, FDR is Obama, and Trump is Truman.
-Bernie Sanders seems chill with the new budget plan, which is good because he traditionally opposes Trump. This means the nation isn't as divided: Also a good thing
-Tobbeh's changed his view on Swedish politics, feeling like the left has a good chance
-Swedish parties doing stuff
-Swedish parties not doing stuff
-The Swedish left was kinda becoming impersonal, making people not like them as much, which almost pushed Tobbeh to go to the right.
-This'll be Tobbeh's last politics post for a while (he thinks) because politics is becoming boring to him and he feels his analysis has summed up everything currently happening effectively
Wow! Greatly summarized! :D thanks
can't wait until I have to pay 9.99 a month to be able to use this site
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 27, 2017, 12:44:27 PMWow! Greatly summarized! :D thanks
No problem mate!
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 27, 2017, 12:50:32 PMcan't wait until I have to pay 9.99 a month to be able to use this site
Ey, where'd you get the discount at?
I don't understand this. net neutrality means that isps can't change your rates or speeds, but don't isps use contracts anyway, which means doing so would be a violation of contract? eg we get 18 mbps of download speed for 10 a month. will we all of a sudden not be getting 18/will they be able to raise the rate? I can't imagine that's how that works
the only stuff I can find on the internet explains how bad losing net neutrality is
Quote from: mikey on December 27, 2017, 03:47:26 PMI don't understand this. net neutrality means that isps can't change your rates or speeds, but don't isps use contracts anyway, which means doing so would be a violation of contract? eg we get 18 mbps of download speed for 10 a month. will we all of a sudden not be getting 18/will they be able to raise the rate? I can't imagine that's how that works
the only stuff I can find on the internet explains how bad losing net neutrality is
Many people even before NN was repealed had rates which weren't matched to their contract. Or, more likely, the rate 'legalese' was "Up to 18mbps for 10$ a month", allowing that data to be decreased legally.
if that's the case, how much does it change?
Quote from: mikey on December 27, 2017, 03:47:26 PMI don't understand this. net neutrality means that isps can't change your rates or speeds, but don't isps use contracts anyway, which means doing so would be a violation of contract?
ISP's would likely try and find a loophole in order to charge their customers more, but that wold probably happen regardless of NN rules or not.
Quote from: mikey on December 27, 2017, 03:47:26 PMeg we get 18 mbps of download speed for 10 a month. will we all of a sudden not be getting 18/will they be able to raise the rate? I can't imagine that's how that works
What will likely happen is that 18 mbps will be your "premium" speed, where in order to use it, you will have to pay an added fee on top of your existing plan to use certain websites. Imagine something like a "streaming services" package, where you have to pay an additional $19.99 a month in order to get your 18 mbps speed for things like Netflix, Youtube, etc. Now think of how many packages you will have to buy in order to have
every website available at the maximum download speed.
well it's a good thing internet isn't necessary for life then, jeez
and it's a good thing I have tracfone for internet browsing
TracFone piggybacks off the networks of the big telecom companies (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, etc...), so it's not immune.
Can't help but to think of politics. It just feels too important. But my focus now is on "diplomacy" and "foreign relations". And I'm looking at USA, Europe, UK, EU, and Russia. And I'm excluding China from this list because it doesn't feel as relevant (it's sort of like the "land far far away", both from Europe and from US (the sheer distance).
And I see an epic possibility for great peace between all these big nations and superpowers. But it's hard, like solving the millennium puzzle (or some other hard/impossible riddle). And the biggest problem the exist is "the logic". I think people can feel a sense of peace, but they don't understand that. So I'm going to try to explain this in an elegant and a bit poetic/visual way.
My pictures of all the countries (I'm from Sweden, so I'm in the middle of this crazy proxy war thing, so I see both to the west and to the east what's going on):
The US: When I think about the US with Trump's leadership, I immediately think of "the jazz music". And the next think I see is "the gambler" or "the person who owns the casinos where people gamble". Combine that and you pretty much get "Casino Night Zone". So it's like this dark picture, like Trump's has some "dark aura" and the place he is and maybe even want to in, is in a casino. So he's dark and the casino's dark, and it's pretty dark :P. He kind of feels like a madman and a genius, 2 sides of the same coin. Because gambling is bad as you can lose. But you can also win, so you can get the black side of the coin or the golden side of it. Which is what I think is happening to the US economy, "casino capitalism". Which may sound bad, but it can also be very powerful. And as a weapon in foreign relations, when dealing with "enemies" aka Russia, Iran and probably also China (it's not that hard tbh. to see how the foreign relations in the world looks like). Because even if Putin is a smart KJB agent who happen to rig the election and get Trump in place as a puppet. He'll never be able to control the free market, the capitalism, the "casino capitalism". Like how do you control the entire US? Nope it's impossible, because of all the people living there, being unique and making their own decisions. It's pretty much impossible or something you don't even want to try because it's costs so much energy doing it. So that's the "positive side" of the casino. That it's random, and hard/impossible to control. But the problem with kind of economy is that it will only last for a certain amount of time (like some time-bomb ticking down). Everything in the world both advantages and disadvantages, have an enemy and a friend, it's in nature. I talked about the advantage being it's unpredictability. But the disadvantage of the "casino capitalism" is all the people getting broke from gambling, it's basically "you lost. It's game over". And also the fact that it is a casino, so it only last as long as people have interest in the casino, if it get's boring, or if people have a "sound mind" and doesn't gamble, it all falls down. So that's the enemy. The friend is a mixture of different things like common sense, soundness, not only just having a casino but also a bank or something to store valuable assets in. So that's the economy of the US.
Russia: Russia has problems. When I think about Putin as Russia's president I immediately hear some old Russian hymn like "Song of Volga Boatmen", and Putin listing to it while drinking a fresh glass of vodka. Like he as president doesn't matter, but more so the country/ the land it self, The land and the vodka. Like the "Russian spirit" exist within the land itself! And why does the land sing? Because of how pale Putin has become. And that leads me to the problem Russia is facing.
The biggest problem they have is that they're are even communists. Seems stupid, but a good political analyst from Azerbaijan talked about how Russia tried liberalism during Yeltsin's presidency, which failed catastrophically. It lead to what is known as "the big bang" (they're version of "black [insert day when the stock market crashed]". Which followed what is known in Russia as "The great depression" (same name there as what happened in the US and Europe in the 30s). All that lead to that the Russians got panicky, when they saw how the economy was completely screwed. And when they get panicky, they go out and have a revolution (not really, more like uproar/riots in reality), which lead to that Putin became president. And funny enough, he was looked upon as hero, being a KJB agent, having strong roots in communism (like Lenin and Stalin). And I think he actually made Russia's economy better. But the problem now is that his time is "running out". If he was the man who came and fixed everything, now h's not that much needed. He erected a statue of Ivan IV "the terrible" (Which is symbolical of how cold he has become. And also how bad. But Ivan IV actually united Russia, so it's probably a historical symbolism, as Putin also did similar thing administratively, after Yeltsin divided the land). So Putin is really balancing on the edge. But as his time runs out, it probably is going to be some sort of revolution. Either that or he steps down, retiring, and then like hand picks a new leader with more energy and more "communism" within that leader. How Russia works 101, Tsars and Communism. xD
UK: UK has an annoying position between EU/Europe, and USA. May clearly want's to run the land with conservative politics (or maybe liberal-conservative). But she has both an issue with Trump and USA, and EU (which probably is headed by Merkel and Macron, or maybe Donald Tusk. Who knows? :P). And she seem to have an issue with Trump, but also wanting to preserve some historical, cultural and political bonds. But it is hard as I think that she thinks that Trump is too rough and unpredictable. And it is possible that she also sees similarities to the 80s with Reagan and Thatcher getting along well. And she having the nickname "the steel lady", really makes that comparison very strong. I think that I'm a realist saying that she want's to have the brexit process done, before she can try to have deals and relations with USA and Trump. And I think that will leverage her and UK's situation, and become more calm.
EU/Europe: It's pretty similar tbh. I'd say EU is more an administrative platform, and Europe the geographical continent. Europe struggling with being positioned between 2 superpowers, Russia and USA. Which makes most countries confused, asking the question "should we chose liberalism, like USA, or communism, like Russia". And everyone probably have their own opinion about that. Some might say "aha, we chose conservatism", but I think that after a while becomes a pointless choice/not on the table. You immediately ask yourself then "what do you mean by conservatism? Europe has changed throughout the years, just read some history book.". So that isn't a viable choice, but more something some nostalgic person would say. And I'd say that EU and Europe lean towards Liberalism, like lean towards USA. But Trump being a complicated president, really does slow things down. As the EU knows that every piece have to be laid perfectly for the relations between US and Europe to work. So it is clear that Europe/EU really want's control, see all the ins and outs, so that they can calculate all the chances and the risks, so the can avoid like some economic disaster or other dumb political scandals. And I don't think Russia is any big problem. But just because it's a neighboring country to some EU countries, makes so that it just had to be taken into consideration (like Mexico for the USA). But otherwise it's isn't that dangerous as it isn't some "communistic war machine" like it was when Stalin was president (or actually dictator). So it's more of sleeping giant, like some bear, which if you just leave it alone, it'll be fine. Putin even endorsed some neighboring countries', Finland specifically, sovereignty. Which makes me feel that Putin and Russia isn't a real and immediate threat to Europe. Europe also don't want to deal with conservatism as of Europe's dark past during Nazi Germany (so looking back doesn't seem like an option.).
I could also talk about China. I think China will be weaker as a superpower. It is of lately that it has grown strong. But something tells me that I think that there will be an economic meltdown there, which also might trigger some revolution-esque thoughts. China also is an ally to Russia, maybe more "communistic" but Russia, China and North Korea (and maybe some smaller countries in southern Asia) is basically "the read field" or "the communistic countries". So Trump's attempt with saying that Russia and China are enemies is really a fake Trump card as, they're basically neighbors in every way imaginable, geographically and politically. But y, I think companies will leave China and go to Europe or US, as I think China's reputation will decrease. And if it does so, companies will leave, and the economy will drop.
I think it would be very well if USA, Europe and Russia had some meeting where they came to some agreement. Putin talks about how he want a reset of US-Russia relations. And Europe/EU clearly has something to say being in the middle. I think the best option is to have it as it used to be that Europe and US share a common ground, and Russia and China is on the other side. I think that that will make the situation in the world more stable. I think that will get rid of all the corruption, the lies and the tension. And if that happens I think that that can create better diplomatic relations, which creates peace. A reset with USA and Europe, and Russia and China, would be almost like some Nixon-Mao and Reagan-Gorbachev at the same time! Pretty epic I'd say. After that I think that there will be some sort of recession in Europe. But I think that will be nice as can empower people to do better rather than living in status quo. Which I'd appreciate, living in Europe.
I've been having some dilemma with Trump as president, and him as a person. I think the thing that it boils down to are 2 things:
1) that he doesn't seem to have any fears, like no boundaries and
2) that he's to impulsive. And #1 is obviously is bad in every way possible as you could let bad stuff happen to you and also make bad stuff happen to other people. It can be good having little fear as it makes you courageous, but I think that most people can agree on that fear is actually a good emotion or a necessary emotion. And #2 is more of just a personal thing, that I have problems with him being so braggy and all that. But too be honest I think #2 isn't that bad, he's just an extrovert social guy. But #1 is more complicated. But I think it's physically impossible to not fear anything (actually it is possible if you literally have no amygdala, but that is a super rare disorder). I think that even the most wild or cold psychopath (which is something I've read a bit about to get stuff clear) will at some point get something that makes them fear, more or the less. Even reading something about Trump, he apparently fears stairs and slopes (god knows why.). And the reason I'm bringing this up is because I think that fear can help reduce braggyness (or whatever it is called) and improve humbleness, which is a characteristic that I think is desperately needed in today's world (with all kinds of leaders acting very coldly). To me, Pence, seem way more stable than Trump and I can even imagine that he'd make a more stable presidency (like father and child, lol...). But that isn't the case. And to reduce the sense of dictatorship I think that the administration has to increase it's humbleness, which I think can come through fear (which I think it's obvious that Pence have, being afraid of like gay people or pro-abortion people. But less obvious that Trump has).
tl:dr:
Foreign relations:
USA: USA is a casino, who knows for how long that will last.
Russia: Doesn't has as much communism in it as it use to have.
UK: Tough spot in between USA and Europe.
Europe: Pretty divided ideologically between Liberalism and Communism. But will have to chose and wants to chose liberalism, leaving Russia as a sleeping bear/giant.
China: ...who knows, who cares. Might crash their economy as companies move to Europe and USA. More communistic that Russia, which is their neighbor and friend. But also kind of corrupt (crony-capitalism).
Would be epic if all these superpowers would meet and agree on some things and reset the situation. It would be like like some Nixon-Mao and Reagan-Gorbachev at the same time. Pretty epic!
I have 2 problems with Trump which I both think can be solved:
#1 he seem to have no fears, no boundaries/limits. But I think that he actually does as you have to have a rare disease to completely have no fears (even some crazy psycopaths have fears, but they just have way less/harder to feel it.). And I think it would be good if he had fears as I think that leads to a person being more humble (as you'll have to rely on other people to help you with your fears)
#2 He's to social and extrovert. Honestly more of a personal problem. Not a big issue. I like more calm people than "big suns".
So how's that tumblr account coming along?
Okay, Tobbeh, we need to have a little chat:
I get it; you have a lot of thoughts and opinions rolling around in your mind, and you want to share them with the world. Like a public diary, if you will. I get that.
But, the way you're going about doing this isn't all that great. It's been said before that when users are greeted with a giant wall of text, that they usually ignore it. I can attest that I usually ignore it, and I'm sure many others would agree with me. I'm sorry to be the one to say that, but it's the truth. This creates a two-fold problem: no one pays attention to your posts, and they end up taking a lot of space. And because of this, I'm sorry to say you've built up a bit of a... reputation, for lack of a better word.
I know that we've been bugging you about taking these posts and moving them somewhere else, and I get it if you feel like you might feel personally attacked or offended by it. But if I'm speaking honestly, your long posts have really become a bit of a nuisance at this point.
So please, Tobbeh, if you want to share your thoughts the way you've been doing it, please find a better site to do so (be it your own personal website, Tumblr, etc.). We don't mind if you share a paragraph every now and again, but posting a 2300 word essay like you just did is not something the rest of us appreciate.
I'm sorry if this came off as mean-spirited or toxic, I don't mean for it to come off that way. I just would like this issue resolved as peacefully as possible.
To add to the above (all of which I agree with), another thing is that forums like this are usually a place for engaging in discussion with multiple people. I haven't seen many instances where you respond to a prompt by someone else. Communication is a two-way street that takes multiple people listening and speaking in turn, and sometimes it seems like you're not really interested in actually beginning - or continuing - a dialogue with other users. Most of the time your large posts tend to start a new topic rather than following up on something previously mentioned or discussed, so it's hard to respond to them since they seem more like "let me tell the world what I think" rather than "I am interested in talking about my views/opinions/life/etc with others and hearing them talk about the same things". That's another reason we are staging this uh... intervention I guess.
jesus tobbeh that's your magnum opus
what's a magnet opus?
a masterpiece, he can go no higher
QuoteTo add to the above (all of which I agree with), another thing is that forums like this are usually a place for engaging in discussion with multiple people. I haven't seen many instances where you respond to a prompt by someone else. Communication is a two-way street that takes multiple people listening and speaking in turn, and sometimes it seems like you're not really interested in actually beginning - or continuing - a dialogue with other users. Most of the time your large posts tend to start a new topic rather than following up on something previously mentioned or discussed, so it's hard to respond to them since they seem more like "let me tell the world what I think" rather than "I am interested in talking about my views/opinions/life/etc with others and hearing them talk about the same things". That's another reason we are staging this uh... intervention I guess.
Y, I'm sorry that I do like that. But to me, ideas, are almost like handcraft or science. I go think, take in impression, and process it and then makes an expression. And then when I'm done with all the experimentation and crafting, I present my final result. I do the same with my arrangements. But I can definitely agree with you that my social skills aren't the best.
On the topic of net neutrality. I don't like it as it seems like big companies can start to pay for you using internet. And then they can chose what price you pay. I guess it could help some competitiveness in the market, which is a good thing in a market economy. But as just an ordinary guy using the internet, it just tough economically. Yet again, I guess you could say that the bright side is that it's not like in China which have a "great firewall of China"... it's clearly better as you still have pretty open internet. But it does cripple people a bit. We'll see what happens with it. If the companies decides to have completely open internet, and then have a decent price, guess it isn't the worst. But I don't think it's a benefit.
Quote from: swimswamit on December 30, 2017, 12:56:42 PMjesus tobbeh that's your magnum opus
Lol. Thanks for the appreciation. It really really matters!! Yug_Guy and Altissimo makes me feel somewhat bitter, so therefore I really appreciate your kind and loving answers! So that you know that.
I think really really hard, trying to come up with the best possible answers and ideas getting answers from I want to use my knowledge for the good. I think foreign relations matter, and I think that logic and knowledge is key for understanding it. On the topic of diplomacy, I've heard some talk about US diplomatic armada... wonder where that one is heading... Also starting to feel like Putin is worse than Trump... But comparing them is like comparing an apple with like a Playstation, it's just weird.
Not even comparing Apple to Sony, comparing an apple to a PlayStation
Crazy
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 30, 2017, 02:44:13 PMY, I'm sorry that I do like that. But to me, ideas, are almost like handcraft or science. I go think, take in impression, and process it and then makes an expression. And then when I'm done with all the experimentation and crafting, I present my final result. I do the same with my arrangements. But I can definitely agree with you that my social skills aren't the best.
Yu_guy was not discrediting your craft, he was very kindly telling you that it doesn't belong on this site. It's a shame that this comment makes you "feel bitter" and that swimswamit's doesn't, because Yug_guy's was sincere and swimswamit's reply was not.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on December 30, 2017, 02:58:59 PMYu_guy was not discrediting your craft, he was very kindly telling you that it doesn't belong on this site. It's a shame that this comment makes you "feel bitter" and that swimswamit's doesn't, because Yug_guy's was sincere and swimswamit's reply was not.
this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this
:{
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 30, 2017, 02:44:13 PMYug_Guy and Altissimo makes me feel somewhat bitter, so therefore I really appreciate your kind and loving answers!
...did you skip over the part where I said:
Quote from: Yug_Guy on December 30, 2017, 11:54:25 AMI'm sorry if this came off as mean-spirited or toxic, I don't mean for it to come off that way. I just would like this issue resolved as peacefully as possible.
I really don't hate you Tobbeh, but there comes a point where these posts just start becoming a nuisance for everyone, not just me or Alti. So I'm sorry if you hate me for telling you all that, but at some point you'll probably realize that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Quote from: Yug_Guy on December 30, 2017, 06:46:43 PMat some point you'll probably realize that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
I'm surprised he hasn't already.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on December 30, 2017, 02:44:13 PMY, I'm sorry that I do like that. But to me, ideas, are almost like handcraft or science. I go think, take in impression, and process it and then makes an expression. And then when I'm done with all the experimentation and crafting, I present my final result. I do the same with my arrangements. But I can definitely agree with you that my social skills aren't the best.
That's perfectly fine. If you want to tell people your ideas and not engage in actual conversation, I mean, there really isn't anything wrong with that. The problem is that there is a time and place for everything, and a public forum is more for having two- (or more) way conversations and engaging in back-and-forth discussions. That's why everyone is encouraging you to get a blog: blogs are for posting about your life or views and therefore would be a better outlet for the kind of stuff you post here.
We know your social skills aren't the best. That's why at this point we are outright TELLING YOU, point-blank, "NSM is not the place for your screeds. Please take it elsewhere." If you don't want to listen, okay, that's your perogative. But at that point, it has nothing to do with social skills anymore, because there's no possible way for you to misinterpret a statement so direct. If you wanna keep posting, that means you are intentionally choosing to be an obtuse, selfish asshole who does not have any concern for proper forum etiquette even after BEING TOLD it (which results in the other members getting deeply annoyed with your presence), and that's all on you.
I lost it at "When I think of Trump I immediately think of the jazz music"
Dang, can't believe I missed that! I lost it at "Can't help but to think of politics."
I lost it so badly for that matter that I never bothered to find it & left the thread
sure is quiet around here
And we should be grateful that it is so
Quote from: LeviR.star on January 23, 2018, 08:18:52 AMAnd we should be grateful that it is so
He's right, you know
Seriously, what happened w/tobbeh?
PM Mael about it.
Poor, poor Tobbeh
Rest in peace
Spoiler
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clker.com%2Fcliparts%2Fx%2FU%2Fa%2F2%2F3%2FI%2Fquarter-rest-black-no-stroke.svg&hash=f2c18ed94ccc7c5ac1d2aa977e9fa38f3f555745)
Might be best to move the topic here.
Quote from: swimswamit on February 22, 2018, 03:03:34 PMyeah but then everyone goes around saying "yeah it's nice to have thoughts and prayers but we need action" on twitter and then they don't actually do anything, tomato tomatoe
So, I assume by "action" you mean more laws? Personally, I believe laws only take guns away from the good guys. I can't think of a murderer that would legally buy a gun and go through the rigamarole of obtaining a gun legally. The bad guys will always have guns. Heck, I've seen reports of robberies where they had automatic weapons which are already illegal.
Honestly the NRA sounds like 3yo children who are about to lose their favorite toy that was recalled for being dangerous.
Well, lol, you have a point.
I've always viewed rifles as an animal hunting tool and handguns as a defensive tool.
I saw an image going around that broke down US deaths in 2016
gun deaths were quite low
of course this image factored in abortion as death so it's already biased but like the numbers seem accurate
Depends on what time during the pregnancy the fetus is aborted. I would count it as a death anytime a fetus is aborted after the heart begins beating. It's definitely alive at that point.
Of course with the whole guns thing I pretty well agree with Seb. Banning guns is not going to stop criminals it's only going to prevent people from being able to protect themselves.
Quote from: mikey on February 22, 2018, 04:08:53 PMI saw an image going around that broke down US deaths in 2016
gun deaths were quite low
of course this image factored in abortion as death so it's already biased but like the numbers seem accurate
I mean, if the source is factoring in abortions as death, it's probably pretty right-leaning, which is generally pro-gun. Wouldn't be that surprising if it changed the actual statistics.
Personally, these are the changes I would want to see in regards to the gun debate:
- Absolutely get rid of all AR-15′s and the like.
- Intense background and criminal background checks and anything violent automatically disqualifies you.
- Make getting a gun/gun permit more like getting a driver's license:
- permit to learn
- includes an exam with 18 or more questions on the policies, laws, and etc of guns and gun ownership
- if you get more than 8 questions incorrect you must retake it.
- 30 hours of practical experience at a gun range with a licensed teacher
- Must take a 5 hour class on the dangers of guns and how to use them safely which will then yield you a certificate that grants you to take the practical exam and lasts for one year. If you don't gain the license within the allotted year you must retake the class.
- A practical exam with a licensed instructor who will grade you on various skills. If you pass you may be granted a permit on the weapon of your choice, the exams may differ on the type of firearm you want.
- Follow the Japanese model where you must have two gun safes in different areas of the house, one to store the gun and one to store the bullets and you must provide the police with information on where those safes are.
- No concealed carry and only handguns may be allowed to be out in public.
- If transporting a weapon, it must be in the trunk of the vehicle, in a bag or some other case, safety on and unloaded and may not leave the vehicle until you are at the destination.
- If you're a hunter or some other gun hobbyist that requires a functional weapon other than a handgun then the gun must stay on the premises, whether that is a gun range or the Fish and Wildlife facility.
- If you live in a rural area where police (and people, for that matter) are few and far between, something akin to a deer hunting rifle should provide plenty of protection from predators and poachers, you still have to follow the aforementioned steps.
Thoughts?
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on February 22, 2018, 04:56:33 PM- Follow the Japanese model where you must have two gun safes in different areas of the house, one to store the gun and one to store the bullets and you must provide the police with information on where those safes are.
Never knew about this before. I like it.
But why do we need to protect ourselves with firearms if the police exist?
If you want a gun, become a police officer. You don't need it if you aren't. (Not counting hunting I guess, idk)
I mean, police can't be everywhere all the time unless you want to drastically increase the size and presence of the police force.
@Playful
what if you have no interest in using guns, only collecting them?
^^this
Someone comes into your home and is threatening just me I'd be fine but assuming someone has a family he/she needs a way to protect them until the police arrive. Guns have actually stopped a high number of people from being victims of various crimes.
EDIT: ninja'd
Quote from: mikey on February 22, 2018, 05:26:51 PMwhat if you have no interest in using guns, only collecting them?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/11JbaLzOXsg6Fq/giphy.gif)
I'm kind of joking but
Oh boy, here we go. This was previously discussed in the Discord a few days ago, but I'll summarize what I said there.
In most cases people only want guns for 3 reasons: Protection, Collection, and Recreation. Of these three reasons (which do overlap to varying degrees) Protection is, statistically, the least valid reason as several studies have been compiled to show that most gun owners only have ~1% chance of being in a situation where a need to protect themselves is necessary. This does not take into account that if someone is found in such a situation one of two things will happen: gun-owners will either freeze from panic and fear as they lack any real training or experience to react rationally in any high-danger situation; or they will begin to fire back at the assailants, increasing the risk of greater injury or casualties due to creating a cross-fire.
But what about domestic situations? Well numerous studies have shown that, merely owning having a gun in the home will vastly increase the chances of homicide and suicide. The odds of someone needing to protect themselves from an outside assailant remains roughly the same but the threat of violence from within the home increases the likelihood of a bad situation turning fatal.
So what about the other two reasons, recreation and collection? Well as stated before just having a gun in the home is already a safety risk, and even when all measures of safety are taken to their fullest it doesn't eliminate accidents or deliberate usage. But let's say someone only collects guns, with no intention to use them, well they are useless without ammunition so there's that. But what about those who frequent firing ranges or hunting reserves? Well hunting accidents are frequently reported, and most people who participate in either activity are statistically likely to own multiple firearms.
The whole point of the Gun Control debate isn't to "take people's guns away", it's about putting in place serious, enforceable measures to prevent people from accessing high-firepower weapons. It's one thing to own a handgun as a means of protection, but another thing entirely to possess an AR-15 for recreational purposes. Nobody in the U.S. has any real need to own and such weapon, much less to be able to buy one with greater ease than buying a car.
Edit: Source (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/)
Quote from: mikey on February 22, 2018, 05:26:51 PM@Playful
what if you have no interest in using guns, only collecting them?
Then the following would still apply:
Intense background and criminal background checks and anything violent automatically disqualifies you.
Follow the Japanese model where you must have two gun safes in different areas of the house, one to store the gun and one to store the bullets and you must provide the police with information on where those safes are.
No concealed carry and only handguns may be allowed to be out in public.
If transporting a weapon, it must be in the trunk of the vehicle, in a bag or some other case, safety on and unloaded and may not leave the vehicle until you are at the destination.
If you live in a rural area where police (and people, for that matter) are few and far between, something akin to a deer hunting rifle should provide plenty of protection from predators and poachers, you still have to follow the aforementioned steps.
The "Remove AR-15s and the likes" bullet point could be considered an exception strictly for gun collectors, that bullet is mainly for defensive or recreational purposes. People do not need to defend themselves with a semi-auto, nor hunt with one.
To be fair though cars take much more work to build than a gun so buying a gun should be easier. It's getting the right to do so that should be harder.
However the process Playful was describing is actually a tougher process albeit a similar one. As far as I'm aware it is not required for a background check to be made for someone to drive and learning gun safety is much more hands on than car safety because there's a whole lot more that could go wrong.
Also despite the fact that most people who own handguns for protection will never get to use them and despite the fact that many of them lack proper training it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that owning a gun and having been trained in how to use it can be a valuable means of security. Guns have actually stopped a large number of people from being victims of violent crimes.
Suicide is another issue in this country but taking guns out of the home will not solve the problem as people will just find other ways of killing themselves. We need to look at why people kill themselves to better help them. Similarly we need to look at why it is that people want to kill people and take steps to prevent said eventualities.
Hunting accidents are just like car accidents. We don't ban cars because of car accidents. Why should we ban guns for gun accidents? As with cars create more safety measures and procedures to prevent such accidents or to lessen the fatality of the accidents.
For the most part you are right. Individuals have no legitimate reason to own high powered guns. Theree are however large quantities of people in the gun control debate who want to ban guns altogether and to say these people don't exist is intellectually dishonest at best and lying at worst.
EDIT: ninja'd again
what if they made gun safety a requirement in the education system (Disclaimer: this is a joke)
the suicide argument is interesting, but if I were to kill myself I'd rather use a gun than risk it not working, so I could see how it would lower suicide rates
the curious mind in me wants to see gun control implemented just to get actual real statistics that we can use to compare but if we did implement gun control there wouldn't be a reason to un-implement it :/
Quote from: Trainer Ave on February 22, 2018, 06:20:35 PMTo be fair though cars take much more work to build than a gun so buying a gun should be easier. It's getting the right to do so that should be harder.
...that's not at all how buying things works. Just FYI.
As Dudeman said, guns & cars should have similar amounts of difficulty to buy one in regards to laws and education, because they're both insanely dangerous for other people / can be used as a weapon to kill another.
Cars take more work to build than guns, which means cars are more expensive than guns by a long shot.
I like playful's suggestions better than anything else I've heard
Quote from: Sebastian on February 22, 2018, 03:44:38 PMMight be best to move the topic here.So, I assume by "action" you mean more laws? Personally, I believe laws only take guns away from the good guys. I can't think of a murderer that would legally buy a gun and go through the rigamarole of obtaining a gun legally. The bad guys will always have guns. Heck, I've seen reports of robberies where they had automatic weapons which are already illegal.
By this logic, you could say "People who really want to will always find ways to get drugs, so we should make them legal." or "People who want to have abortions will always find ways to do them [possibly unsafe], so we should make them legal." or "People will always steal, so we should make shoplifting legal." or "People will always drive above the speed limits, so we should remove them." or "People will always enter the country through illicit means, so we should just allow them to." or any number of other similar corollaries.
Now, this isn't to say I think that all five things mentioned in the above paragraph should be legal or illegal. I just happen to know you'll think at least one of them should be illegal.
I understand your point, I do. But for every person who goes into the black market to acquire a firearm there's also a person who is less committed to their murder plot and would likely have given up on attempting to acquire a dangerous firearm if they were illegal, or would have been too stupid to get it successfully and been caught in the process. If enforcing stricter regulations and making firearms (or automatics, or semi-automatics, or rifles, or whatever subset of that you want) illegal prevents so few as one death from a mass shooting incident, I'd say it's worth it.
Quote from: Altissimo on February 23, 2018, 05:12:56 AMBy this logic, you could say "People who really want to will always find ways to get drugs, so we should make them legal." or "People who want to have abortions will always find ways to do them [possibly unsafe], so we should make them legal." or "People will always steal, so we should make shoplifting legal." or "People will always drive above the speed limits, so we should remove them." or "People will always enter the country through illicit means, so we should just allow them to." or any number of other similar corollaries.
Yes, but shoplifting, speed limits, etc. aren't tools that can be used to protect your family, yourself, etc.
As I said before, more laws would only take guns away from the good guys. In my opinion, shoplifting, abortion, or whatever isn't ever right and shouldn't be in the same category as a gun since there is a good use for guns, unlike stealing, etc.
I think we should make drugs legal
In many countries where drugs are legal there a few people that do them. Part of that is the culture because just not seen as cool to do drugs in those countries like it is here
You can make the laws have a provision where law enforcement can still carry weapons, but in other countries where nobody has guns, violence by guns is far lower than in the US.
Violence still happens, but the whole point of gun control is to limit the kinds of weapons people can legally get as well as the means they can obtain them. You'll still have they very, very, very small group of people getting them illegally, but outside of organized/gun-related crime or terrorist conspiracies, the average person will have no idea how to buy an assault rifle if it's not sold in a store.
All the same though banning guns entirely would be a direct violation of the Constitution.
The Constitution was made to be amended.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on February 23, 2018, 09:22:10 AMThe Constitution was made to be amended.
that's literally why they were called "amendments"
also I highly doubt the guns in America's possession now are used to create a "well-regulated militia" so
High powered guns I do agree should be banned but handguns literally have no justifiable reason to.
Quote from: Trainer Ave on February 23, 2018, 10:58:32 AMHigh powered guns I do agree should be banned but handguns literally have no justifiable reason to.
You haven't seen people advocating to ban handguns, they've been advocating to ban semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.
Handguns, while still lethal, does not have nearly the same capacity to kill large numbers as any semi-automatic rifle. That's why people are demanding bans on those semi-auto weapons.
I demand a ban on cars, that's all I care about
I have seen people advocating to ban all guns not just the semi-automatic ones
Damn those semi-automatic cars
FCC Chair PAI Receives NRA Gun Award For Courage (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/375310-fcc-chair-pai-receives-nra-gun-award-for-courage)
ok what in the actual freaking hell of this absolutely asinine world is this
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on February 23, 2018, 04:18:51 PMDamn those semi-automatic cars
Andy always manages to make me genuinely laugh.
Also for anyone who got word that CNN was trying to make the students read scripted questions, turns out that was false:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/02/23/scripted-controversy-cnn-releases-emails-of-correspondence-with-florida-student/?utm_term=.cd50136bd195
We're reaching max level of stupid on Earth with every passing day.
We're not reaching maximum level if it's getting worse everyday. Even when we reach something absolutely pathetic, humanity finds a way, and the bar drops lower still.
Increasingly high levels of stupid then
High levels of stupid
Or low levels of smart
Questions for later
Quote from: Dude on February 23, 2018, 07:55:06 PMWe're reaching max level of stupid on Earth with every passing day.
Agreed.
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on February 23, 2018, 04:18:51 PMDamn those semi-automatic cars
Damn why didn't I write semi-automobiles?!?!?
been regretting all day
http://time.com/5175069/john-oliver-italy-last-week-tonight/
Well ok... this was unexpected.
I mean it wouldn't be a bad thing....
It just probably wouldn't be the best thing.
From what I saw of the italian election, it might actually be the safest thing though.
tbh i completely forgot italy actually existed
like i knew the word "italy" existed, i just forgot it was an actual place where actual people live
Italy: The New Australia
So this thread is about to hit 100k views.
Huh.
(https://i.imgur.com/VpqwjSR.png)
posted and got this:
(https://i.imgur.com/MMfhdiC.png)
So this just happened on The White House's Youtube channel:
(Warning: Gore/Blood)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C_IBSuXIoo
what
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on March 08, 2018, 11:48:37 PMSo this just happened on The White House's Youtube channel:
(Warning: Gore/Blood)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C_IBSuXIoo
what
Top comment:
QuoteGod I wish this had Wake Me Up Inside playing in the background, and at the end it had scrolling text from Windows Movie Maker that said "thx for watching like and subscrbe :)"
Video is unlisted now. Wow.
weird stuff
I think the whole point of this administration is to keep people in such a state of bewilderment that they can't focus their opposition into a singular movement, despite the great work being done to strip US citizens of their liberties, privacy, power, etc.
I can't think of any other reason shit like this could make it into the public eye. Not because of the message, plenty of politicians speak against violence in video games, but how fucking crude it's being put forth. It just makes no sense for any political entity to being peddling tripe like this, yet here we are.
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on March 09, 2018, 09:15:40 AMIt just makes no sense for any political entity to being peddling tripe like this, yet here we are.
When that political entity is headed by Donald Trump, I honestly think it makes perfect sense.
they're trying to implement a socialist regime
take away the guns
take away the video games
take away the mcdonalds
take away the internet
take away the individual
we've already got the absurdly high incarceration rate of just under 1% so what's a few more
Don't forget porn. They're trying to ban that too.
They are 100% NOT trying to implement a socialist regime. The US has a government quite literally owned and run by capitalists, why would they be trying to install a system that would result in them losing wealth?
The passed budget bestowed an extra 150 BILLION dollars to our military and Trump basically came out in saying he wants to take guns away from US citizens. The Republican party is an open enemy of the 1st Amendment and the Democrats are fine with the Republicans doing their thing as long as those sweet donor dollars keep rolling in. They're cutting education to keep us ignorant, cutting medicare and medicaid to keep us distracted by illness, promoting fake news and misinformation, while denouncing actual news as fake news, to keep people in a tail spin where they can't tell truth from lies, reality from fiction. Fuck McDonalds.
This is not socialism, this is plutocratic fascism.
wow facism and socialism have so much in common
Either you're trolling or you have no idea what either of those words mean.
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on March 09, 2018, 09:54:45 AMThey are 100% NOT trying to implement a socialist regime. The US has a government quite literally owned and run by capitalists, why would they be trying to install a system that would result in them losing wealth?
The passed budget bestowed an extra 150 BILLION dollars to our military and Trump basically came out in saying he wants to take guns away from US citizens. The Republican party is an open enemy of the 1st Amendment and the Democrats are fine with the Republicans doing their thing as long as those sweet donor dollars keep rolling in. They're cutting education to keep us ignorant, cutting medicare and medicaid to keep us distracted by illness, promoting fake news and misinformation, while denouncing actual news as fake news, to keep people in a tail spin where they can't tell truth from lies, reality from fiction. Fuck McDonalds.
This is not socialism, this is plutocratic fascism.
I'm pretty sure congressional Democrats are NOT OK with what Republicans are doing.
The Dem's opposition to the GOP is so ineffectual that it's almost a joke to call it an opposition. Even when they had the majority in the House, Senate, and had the White House they couldn't get anything done without it being completely undermined by the Republicans. Compare that to what the Republicans have accomplished since Trump's election.
The DNC hasn't been a liberal party since probably LBJ. Clinton was basically a Republican running under the DNC banner, because it gave him wild crossover appeal to voters and donors alike. And at this point, they have no real agenda or integrity aside from maintaining the status quo and looking progressive while stepping on as few corporate toes as possible. Of course you've got Bernie's camp who are actually on the left, but they make up a minority within the party and aren't without their own flaws.
And that's the DNC's catch-22, they can either adopt a more progressive, populist agenda like what Bernie presents and gain back some trust from their constituents, remain relevant, and probably get a bunch of votes along the way, but lose a whole lot of money in doing so. Or continue down their current, more profitable, path and die a slow, disappointing death.
thanks obama
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on March 09, 2018, 01:32:05 PMThe Dem's opposition to the GOP is so ineffectual that it's almost a joke to call it an opposition. Even when they had the majority in the House, Senate, and had the White House they couldn't get anything done without it being completely undermined by the Republicans. Compare that to what the Republicans have accomplished since Trump's election.
The DNC hasn't been a liberal party since probably LBJ. Clinton was basically a Republican running under the DNC banner, because it gave him wild crossover appeal to voters and donors alike. And at this point, they have no real agenda or integrity aside from maintaining the status quo and looking progressive while stepping on as few corporate toes as possible. Of course you've got Bernie's camp who are actually on the left, but they make up a minority within the party and aren't without their own flaws.
And that's the DNC's catch-22, they can either adopt a more progressive, populist agenda like what Bernie presents and gain back some trust from their constituents, remain relevant, and probably get a bunch of votes along the way, but lose a whole lot of money in doing so. Or continue down their current, more profitable, path and die a slow, disappointing death.
I've honestly seen it more like in the initial Obama years, congressional democrats wanted to continue a centrist agreement with republicans and stay bipartisan, while the republicans focused on obstruction of any policies made by democrats.
Remember, the US still has a huge bias against socially left policies due to the cold war, so it's hard to propose policies like SPHC like western european countries without being called a communist. I mean, the Obama years were pretty center left, and yet a bunch of people called him a communist.
If they actually pushed for real progressive policies, there would be a lot of backlash and possibly some conflict.
When you actually go by Bernie's policies, they're wildly popular among the citizens.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/bernie-sanders-says-americans-back-his-agenda-and-hes-mostly-right/
The DNC leadership is ofc bought and paid for (and Hillary is the epitome of that).
SFK is 100% right. Mikey, you're confusing socialism w/ authoritarianism/totalitarianism.
Whoa PDS hi!
Hi there.
Also lol @ Obama being remotely "left"
- Continuation (or at least ambivalence to) the War on Drugs (though to be fair he did free a lot of nonviolent drug offenders)
- Broke the record on deportations
- Despite having a supermajority in Congress, passed a watered down version of a public option and mandated everyone to buy insurance in the private sector (originally an idea proposed by Nixon & the Heritage Foundation)
- Guantanamo still open
- Despite promises to leave the mid-east, still involved in 7 countries military over the course of his administration
- Bailed out the banks
- Blatantly cracked down on reporters and whistleblowers
He was significantly better than those who came before him. The ACA was a step in the right direction but he had the power to go so much further and didn't.
.
so what if god allows impeachment
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on July 13, 2018, 03:38:19 PMSocialism is always the first step towards communism because it gives the government so much power and is taking away our rights, and removing GOD from our nation and erasing history from schools. Praise the LORD for Donald Trump GOD put him there in his place and no one can take him out unless GOD allows it.
Our nation has freedom of/from religion, pushing any sort of belief on kids in our schools violates that. Would you want muslim beliefs pushed on you in a public school?
Quote from: swimswamit on July 13, 2018, 06:03:50 PMOur nation has freedom of/from religion, pushing any sort of belief on kids in our schools violates that. Would you want muslim beliefs pushed on you in a public school?
nooo you just said you weren't going to make a counterargument (i saw that!) and i was gonna say it was a smart decision to do so
i couldn't help myself, plus what i said was rude. GOD did i mean it though
.
Ok I wasn't going to post but you are just trolling everyone, right?
...Right?
.
Hoo boy...
I'm not a Hillary fan but she is also a Christian and neither her nor Trump seem very big on religion. Not sure why God would pick one or the other here, both have some rather terrible policies. I would even say that Trump's are less Christian than Hillary's whether they work better or not..
NVM
I'm not mad. If I'm feeling anything right now, I'm concerned for amurrica.
Regarding socialism, I mean, what people think of socialism and also what people generally want when talking about socialism are two drastically different things.
Most people who are progressives/left/"label themselves as socialists" really want something more akin to a social democracy, or the nordic model of capitalism.
Basically, large social welfare systems (free/very cheap cost of tuition for college / education / free healthcare / utilities etc.), where the money is funded through high taxes (usually upwards of at least 30% of your income). But, since you won't require to pay so much for what was mentioned before, you generally have a much larger disposable income (aka what you can spend on frivolous / entertaining means), since it won't be paid for that hospital visit or that college tuition or whatever.
It's one of the main reasonings why many european countries / countries with this social democratic system are considered the happiest / highest standards of living in the world.
Taxes are less "stealing your money" and more "chipping money into a pot that everyone gives and takes when there is a need". It really has nothing to do with "government control", and generally makes people's lives easier, across all economic classes.
Also, like, god, not everyone believes in it, so it shouldn't be forced onto those who don't believe in it. Hence why government should have a complete separation of religion and state, to stay unbiased regarding policies and stay completely neutral. What the US has regarding religion is seriously backwards, honestly.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on July 13, 2018, 06:51:21 PMSorry guys for going overboard with all the politics stuff and making some people mad. Can you guys forgive me?
if I can continue, It's just your view that you've decided who God has ordained to be President even though it's just your own political beliefs. Did God speak to you and tell you that Trump is the right President for our country? If not you're just playing God and deciding what he does/doesn't want.
We're not mad though, don't need to forgive you. It's your beliefs and we're here to discuss/counter
seeing that god is gay I doubt god put trump in office
NVM
awh did I miss the biannual nsm politics shitposting?
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on July 18, 2018, 10:51:06 PMawh did I miss the biannual nsm politics shitposting?
Don't worry, you aren't missing out; NSM is just one huge shitpost
K so apparently we finally got a new governement. And Stefan Löfvén stays as prime minister. So the socialist party stays in government with some other center-political parties: The Enviroment Party, The Liberals and The Center-party. I mean it's ok, since the're aren't really any good parties who can form a government, neither the right nor the left has a majority, since the nationalist party has so much percentages. So y... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ at least we got a government. Funnily enough, the budget was voted for before the prime minister voting, and the right wing parties budget got through. Which means that we have a center-left government which is ruling with a right wing budget. ...y. ..... lol. But y, feels good that we got a government at least, and that the politics is working. Better than nothing I guess.
I will be upset if any of my taxes go to a wall
Whew...I don't usually get too involved in political things, but apparently NY passed a bill today saying that someone can abort up until the day of birth. My gf lives in NY, so she was the one that shared this info with me. I was kind of shocked at that.
Quote from: Sebastian on January 22, 2019, 07:36:58 PMWhew...I don't usually get too involved in political things, but apparently NY passed a bill today saying that someone can abort up until the day of birth. My gf lives in NY, so she was the one that shared this info with me. I was kind of shocked at that.
That I haven't heard before, and I live in NY. I'm pro-choice but I still think that abortions should be allowed up to a certain point in the baby's development (iirc up to the third trimester is the limit most people agree with).
I mean, making sure abortions are legal should be a thing, just due to right of autonomy, but there is a generally moral line involved.
Edit: Did some more research. Abortions past 24 weeks only can happen if it's in the threat of the mother or if the fetus is nonviable.
"In the face of calls at the federal level to weaken abortion rights, the bill maintains abortions as legal within 24 weeks of the start of a pregnancy – "or at any time when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.'' Late-term abortions had previously been authorized under state law if they meant saving the life of a woman."
https://buffalonews.com/2019/01/22/long-stalled-abortion-bill-passes-new-york-legislature/
Yeah, that's completely fine.
Ah, ok. That clears that up. Yeah, what I heard was more off the cuff and not grounded in any source lol.
EDIT:
This is what I read:
(Green = new; Red = what's being taken out)
Spoiler
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/50527334_396132907800569_5805959678613520384_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=828afb38b07c51f70dd0aa4c5a1776f1&oe=5CF55EDB)
So apparently the EU is in process of making a new copyright directive. Which has been really controversial. There are 2 articles that have been harshly criticized, article 11 (called "link tax"(by people)) and article 13 (called "censorship filters").
Article 11 is the less harmful. It says that internet platforms must pay a tax to link to news material. Which is just strange and dumb, since the links take you to the news sites which makes them bigger and maybe even make them earn more money so.... pretty bad idea. But from what I've heard it's mainly various news publishing firms that angry at google and other internet companies for making a lot of money on ads, which they thought they should earn instead. They're angry that they haven't earned as much money as google on ads, because ads have been a big source of income for news publishers. So they try to enforce a law to make them get more money. Aka. some link tax. Or maybe the internet platforms need to pay for a license, idk. The point is that facebook and other platforms need to pay somehow or buy a license to link to news sites. ... y just as dumb as it sounds... ...
Article 13 is worse I think (although maybe more understandable). It says that big internet sites (like youtube etc.) need to implement a filter that filters out copyrighted material. And everyone understands the reasoning behind this one. It's one of the side effects of internet, that you can share everything online very easily, and also copyrighted material. And people who own copyrighted material think that it's right and just that the same copyright laws apply to internet as to the regular world. And also that they're work have been use freely and that youtube is irresponsible and also making money out of their work. And well... sure I get the idea with the filter. the problem is just that... it's so naive and so unrealistic. It's like those copyright holders think that they can control their work the same way that they can control material things like their car. And that's just not the case. I'm also against the idea of that this filter proactively filters out content, without even knowing if the content owner wants it or not. I think a better idea would be that the copyright owner themselves contacted the platform they have an issue with and ask them to remove their content from it. Rather than the sites doing it proactively (with a filter). because there might be a lot of copyright owners who don't even care about if they're content is up on youtube or whatever. Like I didn't hear so much complain back in the days when youtube was still big (although less commercial as it is now). And the internet has existed for a while, and there must been a lot of sites who had copyrighted material on them. And if that was such a big deal, you'd imagine that the content owners would have taken steps against it back then. And I'm thinking for this myself. Let's say some random site would put up my arrangements (which I technically don't fully own, I only own my derivative version of the original work as long as it doesn't conflict with the copyright of the original work (that's what the Swedish law says about that)), and I didn't like that. I feel like it's more reasonable that I contact the site in question and ask them to take down the arrangements rather than me pushing for a law that would make it so that all sites have to implement a filter to, so that my arrangements never gets uploaded without my permission. And I can understand that if you're a big artist, a lot of sites all over the place might upload your content without your permission, and going after all might be a lot of work. But still, having a filter is like having a guard in each bar checking if you have the right to perform cover songs from the artist, it's just so much control and very little gain, and serving very few people while applying so much control to the rest of society. I simply think it's not worth it. Before I felt like people were just angry about piracy that people could download cd's for free. Now the people advocating for copyright protection and so on just seem crazy about the internet like they're seeing a demon in each corner. While seeming to not understand the fact that it's hard to control ideas since the're not physical, but ideas. And not starting from that viewpoint, but instead seem to insist that ideas are just as much of a property as physical ones like cars and land and houses, and should have the same protection. Which I think is just, out of this world, and is just the not case. So I mean, I value art and creativity and agrees that the idea of copyright can have some merit in protecting cultural works. But even I think that those copyright advocates just seem to crazed and not in touch with the real world, and also pretty old fashioned, not understanding internet pretty much at all.
So I hope these laws don't get in place and that we have more realistic copyright laws, rather than strange ones thinking that ideas and physical objects are the same sort of property.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/496189069873774593/554296819912409098/Disappointed_Luigi.jpg
Copyright laws are starting to get rediculous, and confusing recently.
(I know my post can be long. But you don't have to read them if you're not interested in what I have to say.)
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on March 10, 2019, 06:44:19 AMCopyright laws are starting to get rediculous, and confusing recently.
I agree, what I thought more as a formality just seem more to be some way to having a grip of the entire internet (I'm imagine some villainous guy having a grip of the entire earth or the internet, lol). Which I definitely don't think was or is the purpose of copyright laws. Also hate that the discussion regarding copyright often is overrun with interest groups here and there rather than sound and reasonable discussion. People tend to lobby a lot for various interests, and sometimes divide it into a political stance, rather than having a reasonable discussion of what a good copyright framework could look like. Which I think is the better way to go about it. Personally I'd like to have copyright protection. But I'd like to have a more nuanced one than now. Probably with shorter protection length, and more protection to the original work than derivative works. And no filters, and various reasonable fair use exceptions. I think it's better, and still just. But I've thought about this a lot, and having a hard time coming up with some sort of "golden solution" to this issue, that would satisfy everyone in all scenarios. The question is harder than I thought.
I kind of understand those laws, but how do copyright laws over in the European Union effect us?
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on March 10, 2019, 01:40:44 PMI kind of understand those laws, but how do copyright laws over in the European Union effect us?
less european content for us to love hate
Spoiler
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/455086368595640326/554421991306690561/1528925229426.png
I mean you live in the US, so doesn't matter that much for you guys. But still it might effect you as the US and EU have sort of close relations. But, it can be harder for american companies to do business in EU, because of the regulations and strict policies these articles purposes. Some US news publishers has just stopped posting news in the EU, because of the regulations (until they find a solution for that). So y, doesn't affect the US that much. Maybe more so the internet in general. But I still think it's a bit relevant (obviously for me who lives in the EU (in Sweden)).
It was kind of interesting today, as I participated in a panel discussion regarding the previously mentioned EU copyright reform. And the panel was made up of various people from different backgrounds related to questions about copyright.
The panel consisted of:
Mattias Bjärnemalm - Pirate party member, and specialist in digital questions in the EU green group
Sanna Wolk - Professor in law, especially intellectual property law
Emanuel Karlsten - Freelance journalist
Elisabet Widlund Fornelius - CEO for "Musikförläggarna" (the music publishers), umbrella organization for music publisher and it's rights holders
Jan Fager - legal scholar at TU, the media houses branch organization
Annika Bevington - chief legal scholar at Google in the Northern Europe
It was a really interesting discussion actually. The ones negative to the EU proposal mentioned problems regarding freedom on the internet with censorship filters, and problems with increased market position for bigger companies with the new regulations. Among those skeptic of this proposal was The pirate party member, the freelance journalist and the google legal scholar. They had issues regarding the freedom of information and problems with licences, that these regulations would create. The proponents of the articles was the CEO of the music industry rights holders organization and the legal scholar at the publishing house organization. They argued that these new laws would help media publishers and content producers. The media house guy was concerned that people might not go to news websites if they can see enough information in links (for example on facebook, or on google news), and that that could be bad for news publishers. And the woman from the music branch organization was concerned with websites like youtube earning money on other rightsholders (artists) work, and how the artists should make money (if youtube uses their work). And mentioned Spotify as an example of a company with a good business model for artists in comparison to youtube (which was worse). The legal scholar in intellectual property was a bit neutral, having seen this debate since the 90s, and having heard both sides, and highlighted the need for a good discussion in this topic, as she had experience of the debate polarizing with people taking either position and then arguing for that position to the teeth, and instead promoted a more sound discussion in order for better arguments and dissensions to be made.
All in all I think it was a really great discussion and really great talk. There was a lot that came out of the discussion. I agree that article 13 can be problematic as it forces all websites (which hosts user-generated content and target an EU audience (since it's an EU law)) to actively either sign deals with rights holders or to actively prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded by users. Which isn't that easy, and greatly restricts freedom on the internet. So I'm against this one. But I understand the general concerns from rightsholders, how they are able to make money, when everything can be shared online for free. Which isn't an easy question, and a pretty problematic one as well. I don't agree either with article 11, that news publishers should get extra rights for their material. And I don't see how links to their material is a problem, I think they are more good for news companies than bad. But, y really fun taking part of a political panel discussion, and this one I think was really great and kind of productive. And tomorrow I'll join a protest against the directive.
I actually read the whole post :V
A lot of the "in favor" seems to be leaning a lot on conjecture as in "this is what will happen when the article passes" so I'm curious if they had any examples or statistics to share supporting it at the panel
Sounds interesting. I've always been interested in polotics, more around the time of the 2016 us election, to this day. I have been before that, but it's gotten way more interesting recently.
Not article 13. Apart from youtube's own content ID.
Article 11, (the news one), actually was a law in Germany and Spain. And it failed miserably. In Germany, it made google news leave Germany. Which made the major news publisher be like "oh fuck. We lost a bunch of traffic due to this." and then handed out a free license to google (which increased google news already dominant market position in Germany, and giving no revenue to the news publishers as it was a free licences). But in Spain they thought that the problem was the free licenses, so they banned giving out free licenses. And then google just left. So in both instances, it just failed, and it didn't help the news publishers at all.
And well article 13 haven't really been tried. The best is youtube's content ID. At the moment the content ID scans the content and notifies the rights-holders, which then have 3 different choices (take down video, monetize or do nothing). But with the new regulations, the videos containing copyrighted material wouldn't even be uploaded at all, unless youtube has a license from that particular rights-holder. So it would be a filter that proactively filters out content, rather than after it's uploaded. And youtube and other platform owners would liable as well, not only the user who uploaded the material. And also, it's not only youtube that will be affected with the new law, it's all websites that hosts user generated content (and is targeted towards an EU audience (since it's an EU law)).
This has absolutely nothing to do with that, but on Tuesday I got to go to a women's republican meeting, and they were discussing some different recent bills presented in south Dakota.
Participated at a demonstration today against these articles (article 11 and 13). It was great, and it gathered kind of lot of people, around maybe 50 or so. And also from different backgrounds. But most of which seemed concerned with filters and freedom on internet. Various parties was supportive of the protests (and thereby against these EU proposals). Among them, obviously the Pirate party (who organize the demonstration), but also the center party's youth organization, the green party's youth organization, the new party "the shift" (a breakout group from the Swedish green party), and also the left party's youth organization (which did not participate at the demonstration, but wrote a supportive letter for this protest and against the EU copyright laws). So it was great that there existed a lot of political support against these laws. There was also a hip hop/rap artist who performed there, with songs which were against these kinds of internet regulations. So it was a pretty good event. Hopefully these laws will be voted down. They just seem bad, imo.
I'd be interested to know if these laws will affect us in any way. Possibly not since we're hosted in the USA, but who knows...
Y probably not. It's kind of complicated with these laws. I think that sites that "target an EU audience" are those who will be affected. And it's more a matter with big sites I think. And those sites will likely do the thing like with GDPR, aka. just block traffic from EU. It's kind of hard and airy to what the target an EU audience mean, I mean pretty much every website does that to some extent. So I guess technically this site would affected, since this website is available in the EU. Yet again I doubt it will be an issue. Even if these laws are implemented, I doubt every website will take action. Most website will probably only take action if they get complaints from rights holders. It seems more to be an issue with rights holders and like youtube (or "tech giants" which I've heard rights holders and music industry people complain about).
The thing is that even though this is an EU law, servers and sites outside of EU will also be affected if they "target an EU audience" (or something like that). But y, those sites and servers could just block out EU traffic (like what happened with some sites after GDPR). So that's how sites outside of EU will be affected if implemented. But y, small sites and other non-commercial ones probably won't have that many issues, unless rights holders gets pissed of at them. However one hing which could be a concerned is that the EU usually tries to "sell" their rules and regulations when doing free trade agreement (to be on even foot with the trading partner), so if the EU would do some new trade agreement with the US, the EU will probably bake this law into that trade agreement, so these laws could spread to countries that the EU could do trade agreements. Which can be an issue for countries outside of EU.
So these bullshit articles apparently were voted yes on, today... ... Thanks EU for screwing over it's own citizen. ... ... So fucking pissed off. There is an EU-election soon, and I'm definitely going to vote for some ultraliberal (and maybe EU-skeptic) party. Because EU is so fucked up at this point. I used to think that the EU at least stod for some good things and European values like freedom, democracy etc. But nowadays it just seem like some big dumb weak superpower that only is full of power-hungry people and money. I'm sick and tired of it, at this point there seem to almost be more value leaving the EU than staying in the EU. Because who the hell wants to be in union that just pushes dumb and restricting laws. It makes you feel like the EU is more a prison than a union.
Really gonna push forward for new laws removing these insane ones, and for a more liberal EU, rather than a toxic superstate.
sure would be nice to have a presidential veto around now
Lol I doubt that that president would veto against it. It's the EU you're talking about, home to a "big number" of lobbyist and interest groups and carrier politicians. Those are probably the most common employment/occupation in Brussels xD.
at the very least trump understands that his job is to veto anything that has "Dem" on it
ROTFL! The green new deal bill that Alexandria ocasio cortez created, was just so bad that not even a single senator voted for it! Not even the Democrats! https://video.foxnews.com/v/6018794682001/#sp=show-clips
*links fox news*
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YwH11IgYZwY/hqdefault.jpg)
Unsurprisingly, a quick google search shows there are plenty of people that both do and don't support it.
Too extreme or not, at least she's trying to do something about emissions.
Quote from: mikey on March 27, 2019, 10:38:55 PM*links fox news*
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YwH11IgYZwY/hqdefault.jpg)
That's link tax and copyright infringement right there Mikey! xD
Haha! (That's actually called the fallacy of a red herring) Although that is irrelevant to say that it's just because I used fox news. No seriously though, that deal would be a complete disaster. Throwing our country into around 93 trillion dollars debt within ten years time, plus it would be almost impossible to change out our whole infastructure.
For only being 15 you sure do sound a lot like your dad
Thank you!
This thread should be renamed as "The Rant Thread 2"
Quote from: LeviR.star on March 28, 2019, 07:46:00 AMThis thread should be renamed as "The Rant Thread 2"
ROTFL!
Quote from: SlowPokemon on March 28, 2019, 07:06:17 AMFor only being 15 you sure do sound a lot like your dad
assuming someone's dad is still around in 2019 LUL
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on March 28, 2019, 06:50:57 AMHaha! (That's actually called the fallacy of a red herring) Although that is irrelevant to say that it's just because I used fox news. No seriously though, that deal would be a complete disaster. Throwing our country into around 93 trillion dollars debt within ten years time, plus it would be almost impossible to change out our whole infastructure.
It would be a red herring to claim your argument is false thereof, not to say you lack substantial evidence. Regardless, Mikey probably agrees with you, he's just memeing on you for linking to a source that only holds weight in echo chambers.
For example, I could respond to this post by saying that we're going into even more debt by reacting to global warming than trying to prevent it. Look, I even got proof! (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal_n_5c9af1ede4b072a7f6012f5b) Except I don't because it's fucking Huffington Post.
Protip: It's OK to get news from FOX, hufffpost, or whatever - just double check it with sources that don't only argue from one side and link to those instead.
A red herring fallacy is when you throw something into the argument, can be similar or totally different just to throw off the whole argument onto a different track. And why I said that before about the debt skyrocketing is because to do what she wants, we would basically need to rebuild the United states, and some of her ideas are just plain rediculous. I'm not an environmentalist, but I have researched, and there are even environmentalists calling the whole bill rediculous. To cut all of our fossil fuels, kill our cows, get rid of airplanes, just why. That would be completely impossible.
why do i bother
No one is debating you on this. People are just loling at fox news. If you don't want to be lold at don't cite fox news. Instead of memeing at you like everyone else, I'm trying to help you so people don't make fun of you in the future.
Fallacies? Yes, if I were to say you're wrong because fox news sucks, that would be a red herring, specifically ad hominem. No one said that.
I think the animal part of green movement is kind of weird. A lot of the problems with climate change seems to have emerged after the industrial revolution. And well... ... before that people depended a lot on cattle. Like there got to have been way more farmers back then than nowadays. Sure it got to have been expensive with cattle back then I guess, and I guess people ate more vegetables back then. And because of more automation nowadays you can have more cattle. But still, people have always had cattle like cows so... makes little sense. I guess overconsumption of meat is bad (for the environment probably) and you could argue that people should eat more vegetables (which I think is good and would agree on). But being against cows and such in general makes less sense. The methane gas, which is what is bad about cows, is also kind of less bad (I've heard) than carbon dioxid (from cars and such), as the methane gas is worse than carbon dioxide, but "disappears" away faster, so less harm in the long run, but worse short term. It's probably worse with long transportation of meat, rather than "all those cows".
Quote from: FireArrow on March 28, 2019, 02:35:43 PMwhy do i bother
No one is debating you on this. People are just loling at fox news. If you don't want to be lold at don't cite fox news. Instead of memeing at you like everyone else, I'm trying to help you so people don't make fun of you in the future.
Fallacies? Yes, if I were to say you're wrong because fox news sucks, that would be a red herring, specifically ad hominem. No one said that.
Yes, I do realize that now. I can ramble on about things especially politics, I don't post much on here 1 cause I said I wouldn't really, but this was too rediculous for me not to say anything about.
For now I guess I'm just not gonna argue, think whatever you want, there are better ways to spend time.
Don't be discouraged from posting your opinion, just link to a neutral source next time so we can click on it and post our opinion too rather than the source already telling us what we should think.
And Tobbeh, industrialization also increased the number of cows, and cow farts are much worse than car farts.
Quote from: FireArrow on March 28, 2019, 02:48:57 PMAnd Tobbeh, industrialization also increased the number of cows, and cow farts are much worse than car farts.
I've heard that cow farts are worse in the short term and that car gases are worse in the long term. Aka. cow farts are more harmful as a green house gas, but it decays faster, but cars are less extreme but decays slower. So the gases from the cars sort of stay there once they're out. And the cows are worse but for a shorter time.
it's not that fox is a biased source (which depends on WHICH fox it is, the broadcast we get in salt lake county is pretty unbiased but if you go south even an inch you get "DEMS LOOK STUPID AFTER MUELLER PROBE") it's that fox has a reputation for being biased so even if the article is accurate nobody will take you seriously
so yeah, don't link fox just find the same news elsewhere
nobody is bashing you or arguing with you lol
except slow I guessQuote from: Tobbeh99 on March 28, 2019, 02:38:37 PMI think the animal part of green movement is kind of weird. A lot of the problems with climate change seems to have emerged after the industrial revolution. And well... ... before that people depended a lot on cattle. Like there got to have been way more farmers back then than nowadays. Sure it got to have been expensive with cattle back then I guess, and I guess people ate more vegetables back then. And because of more automation nowadays you can have more cattle. But still, people have always had cattle like cows so... makes little sense. I guess overconsumption of meat is bad (for the environment probably) and you could argue that people should eat more vegetables (which I think is good and would agree on). But being against cows and such in general makes less sense. The methane gas, which is what is bad about cows, is also kind of less bad (I've heard) than carbon dioxid (from cars and such), as the methane gas is worse than carbon dioxide, but "disappears" away faster, so less harm in the long run, but worse short term. It's probably worse with long transportation of meat, rather than "all those cows".
I could be wrong, but I believe the problem with farming is that to make room for the growing needs of animals a lot of deforestation occurs
There's actually numerous problems with cattle farming. Excess methane and deforestation (as two of you said), as well as the degradation of land in certain areas not suited for cattle (due to their hooves and weight), the ludicrous amounts of fresh water required to sustain just a single cow (multiplied by... many cows), and the overconsumption of grass (which threatens (other) native wildlife), among other things.
The problems with animal farming (cattle in particular) is the absurd inefficiency and rather silly distribution of the Earth's finite resources towards making it happen, which goes into and beyond climate change issues.
solushun: eat moar chikin
Quote from: mikey on March 28, 2019, 03:18:45 PMI could be wrong, but I believe the problem with farming is that to make room for the growing needs of animals a lot of deforestation occurs
Yes. Unless you're farm is situated at a plain of some sort. But that's a common issue I've heard in like Brasil and those parts. That they have to take down a lot of woods in order to start a small farm. Although if you have a lot of plain terrain, then well... it's not that big of an issue.
Quote from: Dudeman on March 28, 2019, 03:45:31 PMsolushun: eat moar chikin
eat more evil mormon chicken
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on March 28, 2019, 07:54:42 AMROTFL!
It hurts me personally that you don't just say "ROFL."
my gay confession is that I still eat it because its good
I love beef! Hamburgers, ground beef for tacos, it tastes so good!
I thought it was a downgrade from time beef and darkness beef
Awww man! Now my beef is soggy!
Quote from: Deku Trombonist on March 29, 2019, 06:06:02 PMI prefer sky beef
Quote from: mikey on March 29, 2019, 06:38:51 PMI thought it was a downgrade from time beef and darkness beef
This is lowkey the best joke on the forums on several levels
Turns out I was a bit mistaken on that EU law (but it still suuuuuckkks). Websites won't need to filter everything, but still sort of. They only need to do so if the rightsholders "identifies" the material. Seems just lucky that it's worded that way. That the rights holders "indetifies" works. That means that rights holders will have to point out the works they want to have unavailable (which means filtered). But the catch is that even if just 1 rights holder says "I don't want my works on this site", then that would mean that that site would have to check every upload so that that particular work is not on that site.
So if I have a site on which people can upload images to. And some rights holder gets angry that his content is on my website. Well... ... now I have to ensure either a) That the deal I make with the rights holders works (if I make one) or b) that the works are made unavailable (through filters, it's the only way). So I have to check every fucking image so that none of them are that guys work. ... ... I also like how stupid this law is. It says "in cooperation with rights holders" like they really think that all web sites that host user generated content have a bunch of deals with rights holders. Like... it's not happening. But according to EU, EU wants websites to cooperate with rights holders, for some reason.
So it flaws on many areas. It assumes people are going to make a bunch of deals all over the place (that websites and rights holders just do a bunch of deals (and trying to force them to do this by law). And then the obvious filter problem. So y, maybe the law wasn't horrible as you have to actually identify the content (as a rights holder) (like the only good part about the law, so it's not an automatic filter). But still extremely bad.
I think I understand article 13 better now. Wow, that's really not good. Pretty much like Obama's net neutrality program, but global.
Well y. But this article will obviously make rights holders earn more money (lol). And make people respect peoples rights on the internet (loooool). ... ...
Maybe so, but it's just another form of government control.
Prager University? Didn't we just have this conversation about unbiased sources?
Prager University is as much of an educational institution as Trump University.
Yes, article 13 sucks, as for net neutrality being bad...
Dude, you're literally quoting propaganda. But don't listen us random internet liberals, read the comments by republicans on the video you freaking posted. The majority of both democrats and republicans want net neutrality (Obama not withstanding), the only people that disagree are ISPs who want money and the minority of people who believe the literal lies they push out to get that money.
Like seriously, "Yes, I am getting money from ISPs. Yes, they could fuck everyone over to make money. But they're totally not lobbying to do that, we're just repealing it because Obama liked it and you guys hate Obama yeah!" Most conservatives were smart enough to see through it, please be too.
Can't tech just do it's thing? Also just because a majority of people want something doesn't necessarily make it good, saying that is just a fallacy of appeal to the people. Plus, hey we are all biased, ig I see what you mean in posting a link to a biased video or site, but I still do look at both sides before making a decision, and ya know, conservatism is what our country was built upon, and it is what has separated us from the socialistic/communistic countries who have totally ruined economies. If you give all the power to the government, it becomes a socialist nation, which then moves into communism. History repeats itself, and it has happened this way many many times over. I like Trump because he is actually restoring power to the people, and states. Obama threw our country into 20 trillion dollars of debt by adding government programs, among other things, with money that we don't even have. He has added more national debt on than all the other presidents combined. getting off onto a rabbit trail ig, but that's what socialism is, it's to take away our rights and let the government have more and more power over us. I cannot, and will not stand for a party who stands for these things, among many other things like infanticide, taking away guns, and rights. Weird how they don't mention how even though a guy with a gun starts a shooting in a mosque, and then someone else carrying a gun stops him and ends the shooting. Or how they knew the Russians never helped trump to win the election in the first place, but went on to waste 300,000,000 taxpayer dollars, and found absolutely nothing. Politics has almost completely changed from doing your job, to destroying, and harassing the president in any way possible. I didn't ever support Obama, but I didn't go protesting, and burning things because he won 2 elections, God put him there in that place at the time to accomplish his will, and I believe he has put Trump in now to hold back the evil that is to come. Disagree with me if you like, as you have made up your minds, and I have made up mine. Maybe it's not worth posting on here again then, I am going in a world where I will be persecuted and hated for what I believe, but I'm not gonna lie about it or cover it up. Since we have already made up our minds I don't see much point in posting on this thread anymore. There are better ways to spend time, and I really mean it this time. You don't have to bother replying to this, IK what you all are gonna say.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 02, 2019, 09:39:02 AMMaybe it's not worth posting on here again then, I am going in a world where I will be persecuted and hated for what I believe, but I'm not gonna lie about it or cover it up. Since we have already made up our minds I don't see much point in posting on this thread anymore. There are better ways to spend time, and I really mean it this time. You don't have to bother replying to this, IK what you all are gonna say.
I agree with you here. I recommend to just let it go. No amount of opinions or discussion will change anyone's mind.
The reason you didn't protest Obama is because he was in office when you were age 4 to 12
That's kind of a low blow. Just because he is young doesn't mean his opinion shouldn't be respected as much as the next person's.
I didn't mean anything by it other than "I didn't protest Obama" is kind of a logical fallacy in itself because children 4-12 don't generally protest politics
Quote from: Sebastian on April 02, 2019, 09:52:59 AMI agree with you here. I recommend to just let it go. No amount of opinions or discussion will change anyone's mind.
I haven't read this thread and do not know (nor care to know) about whatever argument is going on, but this comment jumped out to me. I really don't think the point of political discussion is ever to change anyone's mind, especially with how increasingly tribal politics has become, but rather to put your ideas forth for the "audience" at large, so to speak. One on one, obviously no one is going to change someone else's ideology, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak about things just because we disagree. That is the antithesis to a healthy dialogue.
Just thought that was something important to note.
Typically, yes, I'd agree with you, but if the history of political discussion on NSM has anything to say, it would say that a lot of poo-throwing eventually ensues after political discussion is started. Unfortunately, not everyone acts like an adult when discussing controversial topics. Also, a lot of political discussion that I've seen on here has the goal of changing others' minds. That's why I said what I did.
hi
conservative here
the worst part about today is the GOP's platform is shifting from the Good Conservative Era of people like Eisenhower and is now more of an "anti-Democrats" party which sucks because the democrats are also shifting but further away from my own values so now I along with other religious conservatives are either forced to jump onto the Trump train or be left without a party
my point is (to Splatoon Inkling) you don't have to blindly accept the party's platform if you don't agree with it and you definitely don't need to post about how bad a Democratic bill is
people this is not about dems vs. reps, it's about net neutrality. Most republicans worth their salt support it because it prevents censorship and democrats worth their salt support it because it stops corporate take over. The only people who don't support it are people who blindly support current elected republicans, which are a minority because they really don't represent conservative values (which is why most people that vote right dont like trump so much as they like him more than dems.)
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 02, 2019, 09:39:02 AMCan't tech just do it's thing? Also just because a majority of people want something doesn't necessarily make it good, saying that is just a fallacy of appeal to the people. Plus, hey we are all biased, ig I see what you mean in posting a link to a biased video or site, but I still do look at both sides before making a decision, and ya know, conservatism is what our country was built upon, and it is what has separated us from the socialistic/communistic countries who have totally ruined economies. If you give all the power to the government, it becomes a socialist nation, which then moves into communism. History repeats itself, and it has happened this way many many times over. I like Trump because he is actually restoring power to the people, and states. Obama threw our country into 20 trillion dollars of debt by adding government programs, among other things, with money that we don't even have. He has added more national debt on than all the other presidents combined. getting off onto a rabbit trail ig, but that's what socialism is, it's to take away our rights and let the government have more and more power over us. I cannot, and will not stand for a party who stands for these things, among many other things like infanticide, taking away guns, and rights. Weird how they don't mention how even though a guy with a gun starts a shooting in a mosque, and then someone else carrying a gun stops him and ends the shooting. Or how they knew the Russians never helped trump to win the election in the first place, but went on to waste 300,000,000 taxpayer dollars, and found absolutely nothing. Politics has almost completely changed from doing your job, to destroying, and harassing the president in any way possible. I didn't ever support Obama, but I didn't go protesting, and burning things because he won 2 elections, God put him there in that place at the time to accomplish his will, and I believe he has put Trump in now to hold back the evil that is to come. Disagree with me if you like, as you have made up your minds, and I have made up mine. Maybe it's not worth posting on here again then, I am going in a world where I will be persecuted and hated for what I believe, but I'm not gonna lie about it or cover it up. Since we have already made up our minds I don't see much point in posting on this thread anymore. There are better ways to spend time, and I really mean it this time. You don't have to bother replying to this, IK what you all are gonna say.
Thank you for this completely unrelated post. Wanna reread my post and talk about this issue without partisan politics now or nah? All I'm trying to do is let you know that the information you have about net neutrality is wrong, not because its conservative - its people who could careless about conservatives trying to dupe them, and its something realllllyyyy good that you'd want if you knew what it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 02, 2019, 12:49:18 AMPrager University? Didn't we just have this conversation about unbiased sources?
Prager University is as much of an educational institution as Trump University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU#Content
QuoteIn one video, a presenter argues that "racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and Islamophobia" are "meaningless buzzwords"
lol
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 02, 2019, 09:39:02 AMCan't tech just do it's thing?
If industry "did its thing," the vast majority of people would be working in hot, dark, treacherously unsafe factories with long hours and low pay. When the goal of business is to make as much money as possible for as little cost, they're going to try and squeeze out as much profit as possible. That's why we need regulation, including net neutrality, to protect us, whether it be as workers or as consumers. With the lack of such protections, the consumer will start paying more for something with less functionality. Like honestly, even just reading the first paragraph (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality) of the Wikipedia article on net neutrality, why does that sound like a bad thing?
Quote from: FireArrow on April 02, 2019, 09:56:53 PMpeople this is not about dems vs. reps, it's about net neutrality.
This is well said; I wish more people thought like this. Too many people think of politics as a team sport rather than striving for what's in the best interest of everyone as a whole. I'm registered Republican but I nonetheless have some pretty liberal viewpoints on certain issues.
Quote from: FireArrow on April 02, 2019, 09:56:53 PMpeople this is not about dems vs. reps
that's the problem
the gop is operating under the assumption that dems like it = bad
Yeah, the trump revolution was this weird uprising of revisionism and semi-fascism that had nothing to do with what most conservatives stood for. Problem is if GOP tried to disown trump and his follows, they wouldn't have enough votes to be relevant in elections, so to keep the party whole it's been repurposed as the "anti-democrat" party since it's pretty much the only thing the two halves can agree on.
idk thats just my take
quick visit, want to say, real US conservatives are people like maryland's governor. Ideas like budget balancing and small government aren't that bad policies to believe in.
BUT, and this is a big but, when there are people who support things that are outright inhumane (child separation at the border, blocking muslims from entering the country, defending white surpremacists), then that's not being a conservative, that's being an asshole.
Strong border security is definitely conservative politics
Quote from: mikey on April 09, 2019, 04:34:15 PMStrong border security is definitely conservative politics
Strong border security is one thing, discriminatory border security and splitting up families is another.
Or if we want strong border security and/or are worried about drug cartels, violence, etc. from Latin America, we could end the fucking drug war and get rid of the vast majority of the demand for the cartels in the US lol. The US is the main source of demand for these drugs, and the majority of immigrants crossing the southern border are fleeing drug cartel violence (BTW, the majority of illegal/undocumented immigrants come here on planes and overstay their visas).
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 10, 2019, 07:18:54 PMOr if we want strong border security and/or are worried about drug cartels, violence, etc. from Latin America, we could end the fucking drug war and get rid of the vast majority of the demand for the cartels in the US lol. The US is the main source of demand for these drugs, and the majority of immigrants crossing the southern border are fleeing drug cartel violence (BTW, the majority of illegal/undocumented immigrants come here on planes and overstay their visas).
Exactly. Shutting down the border won't stop the demand, so that path is massively inefficient. It's just a scapegoat to villinafy immigrants that happen to have a different skin pigment.
If the issue is illegal immigration, then the target should be overstayed visas.
If the issue is drug trafficking, then the target should be the demand of drugs within the US.
Neither issue will be fixed by closing down borders / building a wall. The only people affected by that is the legitimate, legal asylum seekers from countries which are unsuitable for their safety who are caught in the crossfires.
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on April 11, 2019, 08:00:37 AMExactly. Shutting down the border won't stop the demand, so that path is massively inefficient. It's just a scapegoat to villinafy immigrants that happen to have a different skin pigment.
I'm not really sure where you are getting this idea. A lot of people like to call people racist when they make decisions they don't like. I honestly thought we've come beyond that sort of petty behavior.
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on April 11, 2019, 08:00:37 AMIf the issue is illegal immigration, then the target should be overstayed visas.
If the issue is drug trafficking, then the target should be the demand of drugs within the US.
Neither issue will be fixed by closing down borders / building a wall. The only people affected by that is the legitimate, legal asylum seekers from countries which are unsuitable for their safety who are caught in the crossfires.
Overstayed visas and drugs in the U.S may be problems, but so is border security. Protecting the southern border with a wall is only a logical measure to be taken if there are illegal immigrants coming into the country illegally. The building of a wall is not a scandalous order under those circumstances. Whether they're "legitimate, legal asylum seekers," or anyone else trying to get into the United States, entering the United States illegally is uncalled for.
Also, whatever happens in Mexico comes in second to what happens in the U.S because we (U.S leaders, law enforcement, etc.) have a duty to take care of our citizens first before anyone else. It's not because we don't like Mexicans, but because we have an obligation to the citizens of the U.S first (to protect them, etc.).
Wanting a wall is fine and dandy but doesn't solve any problems
I dunno where the idea that people crossing is the problem came from, the border is insanely dangerous and controlled by cartels and vigilantism
Quote from: Sebastian on April 11, 2019, 03:39:51 PMI'm not really sure where you are getting this idea. A lot of people like to call people racist when they make decisions they don't like. I honestly thought we've come beyond that sort of petty behavior.
Overstayed visas and drugs in the U.S may be problems, but so is border security. Protecting the southern border with a wall is only a logical measure to be taken if there are illegal immigrants coming into the country illegally. The building of a wall is not a scandalous order under those circumstances. Whether they're "legitimate, legal asylum seekers," or anyone else trying to get into the United States, entering the United States illegally is uncalled for.
Also, whatever happens in Mexico comes in second to what happens in the U.S because we (U.S leaders, law enforcement, etc.) have a duty to take care of our citizens first before anyone else. It's not because we don't like Mexicans, but because we have an obligation to the citizens of the U.S first (to protect them, etc.).
Entering the country through land borders seeking asylum is legal based on US and UN law/code, without previous preparations.
https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum is a good source (nonbiased as per MBFC https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/international-rescue-committee-irc/)
And it isn't like there's miles of open border in which drug cartels enter the country. It's the opposite, where most illegal activities enter the country through legal points of entry.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/fact-check-mike-pence-donald-trump-drugs-crossing-southern-border-wall/2591279002/
The wall is a populist idea that is inefficient and medieval. It's there only as a symbol against what one of the US's major core principles: being a place open to everyone no matter their backgrounds, beliefs, appearance, and so forth so they can have their own ability to freely live their life.
You can't call someone crossing the southern border an illegal immigrant just because they aren't a citizen. That's not how it works at all.
True, well said Seb. Also weird how it's said there is no crisis yet thousands of illegal immigrants are pouring in every day now. There are two ways to come into this country, legally or illegally. When people come in illegally something is definitely wrong. We are free, but we are free under the law. Therefore abiding by it. If someone cares about the country they are going into they are gonna try in their best effort to abide the laws, and come in legally.
I mean, I understand that we're a country open to everyone no matter their backgrounds, beliefs, appearance, etc. but under the law.
Quote from: Sebastian on April 11, 2019, 08:17:07 PMI mean, I understand that we're a country open to everyone no matter their backgrounds, beliefs, appearance, etc. but under the law.
My point exactly. Also, I believe we need to build a wall, why? Because walls work. I find it very hypocritical of these poloticians to be saying so yet there are many of them who themselves have walls around their properties. When Obama said we needed a wall the Democrats were all over it, they wanted it too. As soon as Trump said we need a wall it's terrible. Why? Because he's Trump. He can't do anything right. He's not a politician. He is an outsider. They never wanted him in, he has his own money because he is a very smart business man and actually knows how money, business, and economy work. They can't buy him out or bribe him like the other poloticians.
BUild thE NSm WalLL !!@!
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 11, 2019, 09:02:27 PMMy point exactly. Also, I believe we need to build a wall, why? Because walls work. I find it very hypocritical of these poloticians to be saying so yet there are many of them who themselves have walls around their properties. When Obama said we needed a wall the Democrats were all over it, they wanted it too. As soon as Trump said we need a wall it's terrible. Why? Because he's Trump. He can't do anything right. He's not a politician. He is an outsider. They never wanted him in, he has his own money because he is a very smart business man and actually knows how money, business, and economy work. They can't buy him out or bribe him like the other poloticians.
Obama never pushed for a border wall. Some small fencing areas while he was a senator, sure, but not a full on wall that goes across the entire southern border. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/
Quote from: Sebastian on April 11, 2019, 08:17:07 PMI mean, I understand that we're a country open to everyone no matter their backgrounds, beliefs, appearance, etc. but under the law.
Yes, that is what all of those immigrants coming from the southern border are. They're not illegal, they're
legal immigrants. Any immigrant coming from the southern border who requests asylum, are by definition of both US and international law, legal.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum
What happens is that ICE (specifically the ERO) deports asylum seekers based on the reasoning of their homeland not posing "a credible threat". Or alternatively, it's due to the absolute
insane backlog of immigration court orders which lead long waiting people into a difficult and vulnerable position in which they could get deported. Because the current executive branch continues to label legal asylum seekers as "illegal immigrants", which is a lie.
The only
real illegal immigrants in this country are those who overstay their visa, or break the law (as in theft, fraud, and other non-specific misdemeanors or felonies) while under legal asylum protections. Undocumented immigrants, those coming from the southern border, are
legal asylum seekers.
Because right now due to the rhertoric in the US to demonize and animalize immigrants cause stories like this to occur daily:
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/bc7t37/elevenyearold_ordered_deported_without_her_family/ekoh4su/ (link is to a non-paywall c/p of the article in question, MBFC: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/houston-chronicle/)
Some snippets:
QuoteThe family entered through the southern border in early October, telling U.S. government officials that they feared returning to their native El Salvador. They were released to pursue their asylum case in the backlogged civil immigration courts, and since then have complied with court orders and appearance dates.
QuoteDora Alvarado felt something was off when she arrived at immigration court in Houston March 12 with her two daughters. A court translator told her that she and her 15-year-old, Adamaris Alvarado, were listed on the docket that day. Her 11-year-old, Laura Maradiaga, was not.
Days later, Alvarado received a letter in English — a language she cannot speak or read — bearing Laura's name. It wasn't until the trio returned to court this week that a different translator told her the letter was the 11-year-old's removal order.
Quoteeven as the Trump administration has tried to curtail access to asylum to deter more from coming. The government has overturned a provision allowing those fleeing gang and domestic violence to qualify for the protection and made it more difficult for immigration judges to close cases on their own, exacerbating a backlog of more than 800,000 cases that was further jeopardized by the month-long government shutdown earlier this year.
QuoteThe administration has also tried to ban those crossing illegally from seeking asylum and force others to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases proceed through the courts, though federal judges have blocked both the latter measures.
And important key note: If you enter the US without permission, that is an "illegal crossing". But if you do so seeking asylum, then it is considered legal based on, again,
US: https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum
QuoteYes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or request the opportunity to apply for, asylum. "There's no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance for the purpose of seeking asylum," says the International Rescue Committee's director of immigration, Olga Byrne. "You just have to show up."
"While the administration is saying people should come here legally and follow a legal process, it's making it impossible to do so," says Byrne. "So many individuals and families have been trying to follow a legal process, but instead they've been stranded in Tijuana or other northern Mexico towns because they have been denied access to any U.S. official."
and International: https://www.unhcr.org/asylum-seekers.html
Law.
And I haven't even mentioned the immorality and danger that comes from separating children from their families in these situations, or deporting individual children who don't necessarily have a caretaker in their original country. Or how the federal government has had a piss poor ability to track these children. Or how the camps in which these children stay at are akin to freaking camps from wwii (our own japanese camps).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html / https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1475-immigrant-children-missing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/20/yes-you-can-call-the-border-detention-centers-concentration-camps-but-apply-the-history-with-care/?utm_term=.218578420af6
A quote from Trump. President Obama separated the children, by the way, just so you understand. President Obama separated the children. Those cages that were shown -- I think they were very inappropriate. They were built by President Obama's administration, not by Trump. President Obama had child separation. Take a look. The press knows it, you know it, we all know it. I'm the one who changed that. I'll tell you something: once you don't have family separation, that's why you see many more people coming. They are coming like it's a picnic, like 'let's go to Disney Land.' President Obama separated children, I was the one who changed it.
Even though I agree with the quote you shared, I don't think some people take Trump very seriously.
Anyway, Playful, I do see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, I don't really know enough on the specific topic to comment further. I do know, however, that there are a lot of lies and dishonesty out there, whether that be social media, news broadcasts, articles, etc. This is why I don't really ever get into politics, but rather focus on other truth.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 12, 2019, 07:31:50 AMA quote from Trump. President Obama separated the children, by the way, just so you understand. President Obama separated the children. Those cages that were shown -- I think they were very inappropriate. They were built by President Obama's administration, not by Trump. President Obama had child separation. Take a look. The press knows it, you know it, we all know it. I'm the one who changed that. I'll tell you something: once you don't have family separation, that's why you see many more people coming. They are coming like it's a picnic, like 'let's go to Disney Land.' President Obama separated children, I was the one who changed it.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/09/711446917/fact-check-trump-wrongly-states-obama-administration-had-child-separation-policy
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/more-family-separation-spin/
Took me under a minute to find multiple articles that fact checked that statement. You're using lies to make an argument. That's not political debate, that's literally misinformation and pushing a propagandic agenda.
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on April 12, 2019, 08:09:42 AMhttps://www.npr.org/2019/04/09/711446917/fact-check-trump-wrongly-states-obama-administration-had-child-separation-policy
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/more-family-separation-spin/
Took me under a minute to find multiple articles that fact checked that statement. You're using lies to make an argument. That's not political debate, that's literally misinformation and pushing a propagandic agenda.
lol, using biased fact checks. Anyway why are they here in the first place? If they are illegally here they shouldn't even be here. We have been catering to them giving them so many freebies. We have been catering to so many other countries and putting them first before our country. The media has to put a twist on everything it seems like.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 12, 2019, 09:04:27 AMlol, using biased fact checks. Anyway why are they here in the first place? If they are illegally here they shouldn't even be here. We have been catering to them giving them so many freebies. We have been catering to so many other countries and putting them first before our country. The media has to put a twist on everything it seems like.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
-Left Center,
Very High Factual Reportinghttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/factcheck/
-Center,
Very High Factual ReportingThey're not even extremely biased, if at all (since most biases occur within opinion pieces/editorials, NOT fact checks). They both are extremely credible sources and dismissing them is absurd. If you aren't going to even remotely be a fair player in political debate here by ignoring facts and truth when provided, then I'm going to return by completely ignoring you and your viewpoints.
And that second part of your statement was already covered in the 9+ links I shared in extensivity.
Well, you are a liberal, I am a conservative. We will never agree on everything and that's just the truth. Trump is gonna do as he wills, he's the president, your just someone who's sitting there in front of the computer ranting about everything you think he's doing wrong while he's a multi billionaire who knows how business and Economy works. I'd like to see you complain when you get to that status.
@splatooninkling notice how youre the only one using words like liberal and conservative? Stop seeing every source that disagrees with you as biased and every disagreement a personal attack.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 12, 2019, 10:08:03 AMhe's a multi billionaire who knows how business and Economy works.
Emm, if I'm not mistaken, there have been ... some controversies over his business management, if I'm not mistaken. Not like every billionaire is a douche bag, Bill Gates and even Jeff Bezos have received very little criticism (from what I've heard). But for Trump, there seem to have been some shady stuff going on.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 12, 2019, 10:08:03 AMWell, you are a liberal, I am a conservative. We will never agree on everything and that's just the truth. Trump is gonna do as he wills, he's the president, your just someone who's sitting there in front of the computer ranting about everything you think he's doing wrong while he's a multi billionaire who knows how business and Economy works. I'd like to see you complain when you get to that status.
here's a little puzzle for you
you are a conservative and I am a conservative
why do we have differing viewpoints?
Ok, guys. Let's just try to relax. Yes, everyone has differing viewpoints and sources, but it is important to keep our statements kosher.
@Splatooninkling: Please avoid personal attacks/insults especially if you don't agree with them.
As for the sources, I understand inkling's hesitancy against them. It's practically impossible to not have bias in some form, even for the media bias fact checking website. I find it odd that a large amount of the conservative news sources are labeled as "extremely bias, propaganda, fake news" by the media bias fact checking website, yet a very small amount of liberal sites are labeled extreme. It seems to me that that website it biased toward liberalism, which makes me question it's opinion on the sources it's fact checking. Also, any Christian/religious source that I found on there was labeled as "extremely biased" or "propaganda." Mediabiasfactcheck is clearly discriminating against Christians and other religious groups, which makes me wrinkle my brow about what they say about news sources.
Maybe it's because sources that purport to be Christian tend to express more extreme/biased viewpoints?
Perhaps, but I'm sure they feel the same way about liberal sources. My point is that everyone is biased. It's impossible not to be.
Quote from: Sebastian on April 13, 2019, 01:52:22 PMMy point is that everyone is biased. It's impossible not to be.
The true moral of the story here. ^
There is no such thing as unbiased journalism, and no person is completely unbiased. And that's okay. We have our biases for a reason and shedding them doesn't make you necessarily smarter. Being a "centrist" is not more intelligent by default.
The best we can all do, for any given argument, is just to take into consideration
all sources that come your way, and weigh them all together. Often, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
For such a small community here, the small glimpses I get into this politics thread are surprisingly aggressive. I just don't see who the arguing is really going to benefit here.
Quote from: Blinky on April 13, 2019, 02:09:12 PMThere is no such thing as unbiased journalism, and no person is completely unbiased.
Not one is suggesting completely unbiased journalism exists. Notice how mediabiasfactcheck doesn't have an unbiased category? We're not saying use sources that have 0 bias - we're saying use sources that present factual information and try to present it with as little bias as possible.
There's no such thing as unbiased journalism but their is such thing as responsible research.
Quote from: Sebastian on April 13, 2019, 01:42:17 PMMediabiasfactcheck is clearly discriminating against Christians and other religious groups, which makes me wrinkle my brow about what they say about news sources.
No.
List of liberal sites it labels as very biased. (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/) The problem is your standard of "Christians" and "Conservatives" is yourself. Your opinions are more extreme than most Republicans and Christians. Of course its going to seem like bias checkers discriminate against you when you're on an extreme political end (right or left) and you see it as a moderate or average position. Trust me, I know plenty of people on the far left who throw hands up whenever they get fact checked because how dare you suggest their unprofessional echo chambers be anything but true - be better than them!
I'm sorry If I offended you playful, I do not want to try to make attacks on anyone. And yes we all have biases. There is no such thing as a person without bias, that would just be totally unrealistic. And yah, I'm an independent Baptist. You can't get much worse than that! ;D
Quote from: FireArrow on April 13, 2019, 02:19:26 PMList of liberal sites it labels as very biased. (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/) The problem is your standard of "Christians" and "Conservatives" is yourself. Your opinions are more extreme than most Republicans and Christians. Of course its going to seem like bias checkers discriminate against you when you're on an extreme political end (right or left) and you see it as a moderate or average position. Trust me, I know plenty of people on the far left who throw hands up whenever they get fact checked because how dare you suggest their unprofessional echo chambers be anything but true - be better than them!
Well, I wouldn't say I'm an extreme conservative, but I do get what you're saying.
I guess I could call myself mote of an extreme conservative. Although how would you classify that? You just said seb that you don't think your an extreme conservative, but support the more extreme conservative things as well. I'm just confused as to how exactly you would classify that.
I once read a new York Times article (several years old at this point, probably never finding it again) that essentially amounted to a writer asking her coworkers why people thought nyt was so biased (something outrageous like a quarter of their readers are conservative at the time) and answers ranged from "we aren't" to "the truth has a liberal bias"
Anyway if you're looking for something you can trust I've always been impressed with npr, they always seem consistently moderate and often have interesting guest speakers
There's no methodology that's the answer to everything, so the larger percentage of the body of issues you apply a set of values, and the larger extent applied - the more extreme you are. I would personally apply mostly left values with some right values, BDS and Noc would do mostly right values with some left ones. You two appear to apply conservative values to almost everything, seeing any liberal solution as immediately wrong, hence "extreme."
Quote from: mikey on April 13, 2019, 07:06:31 PMI once read a new York Times article (several years old at this point, probably never finding it again) that essentially amounted to a writer asking her coworkers why people thought nyt was so biased (something outrageous like a quarter of their readers are conservative at the time) and answers ranged from "we aren't" to "the truth has a liberal bias"
Anyway if you're looking for something you can trust I've always been impressed with npr, they always seem consistently moderate and often have interesting guest speakers
I absolutely love npr and support this 100% - im guilty of it being my only news source if I dont bother to research further.
Quote from: FireArrow on April 13, 2019, 07:15:08 PMI absolutely love npr and support this 100% - im guilty of it being my only news source if I dont bother to research further.
if you have to have only one source npr ought to be it
Quote from: FireArrow on April 13, 2019, 07:12:44 PMYou two appear to apply conservative values to almost everything, seeing any liberal solution as immediately wrong, hence "extreme."
There have been conservative views I've disagreed with and liberal views I've agreed with. I don't apply conservative values to everything, but rather I do apply Biblical values to everything, which do sometimes differ with conservative views. For example, I do believe that some conservatives are a bit ugly/unkind at times (I used to be one of them back before I grew up). They like to be all "I'm gonna be a patriot" or "I'm gonna start a revolution if these dems don't shape up" or "I'm gonna drive this point into the ground no matter what." I believe that those types of conservative ideas aren't Biblical ideas, so I guess you could say that that is one example of a differing view that I have.
Quote from: Sebastian on April 13, 2019, 07:43:44 PMThere have been conservative views I've disagreed with and liberal views I've agreed with. I don't apply conservative values to everything, but rather I do apply Biblical values to everything, which do sometimes differ with conservative views. For example, I do believe that some conservatives are a bit ugly/unkind at times (I used to be one of them back before I grew up). They like to be all "I'm gonna be a patriot" or "I'm gonna start a revolution if these dems don't shape up" or "I'm gonna drive this point into the ground no matter what." I believe that those types of conservative ideas aren't Biblical ideas, so I guess you could say that that is one example of a differing view that I have.
I actually do have to agree on this one. And yes I'm conservative, but I don't think it's a solution to everything at all. But I'm not about to side with liberalism as they are totally against Christians. The true problem with this country is sin. We have strayed so far away from the Bible in just about every aspect. We need Jesus, we need the bible. Jesus is the answer to our problems. God puts leaders in there place to serve his purpose. I believe God has put Trump in office to help hold back the evil that is to come for a while. No doubt our country is drifting further into sin. The bible says that we will be persecuted and hated because we are not of the world. That is true Christians. Our problem is rebellion against God, and the only way to fix our problems is to return back to him. There truly is no political leader who can fix that.
Hey FireArrow are you totally against Christians?
No?
Now where on earth did our good friend splatoon inkling get that idea...
Also this is straying into religious discussion but God didn't anoint Trump man
How "christlike" is trump?
Attributes of Christ include:
Loving
Humble
Meek
Selfless
Merciful
How many of these words truthfully describe our president?
I am, saying that God puts our leaders into place, and takes leaders out. I'm saying our nation has chosen to reject God, and is the reason why we have so many problems today. Yet God can use even worldly people to accomplish his purpose. Trump too is a lost and hell bound sinner just like everyone else if they don't accept Christ as their savior, and I do pray for his salvatian. He claims to be a Christian, I'm not totally sure of it, but I am praying.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 13, 2019, 09:26:22 PMI am, saying that God puts our leaders into place, and takes leaders out. I'm saying our nation has chosen to reject God, and is the reason why we have so many problems today. Yet God can use even worldly people to accomplish his purpose. Trump too is a lost and he'll bound sinner just like everyone else, and I do pray for his salvatian. He claims to be a Christian, I'm not totally sure of it, but I am praying.
Monarchs claiming to be chosen by god is exactly what kept europe in the dark ages for hundreds of years. I agree that america as a whole is turning away from the concept of traditional theism and I think it's causing problems. But if I was to choose a politician to represent conservative christianity, trump is never in a million years my choice. I liked McMullen and Cruz quite a lot and the fact that Trump was nominated over them shows that conservative christians in general are likely more of a minority among conservatives nowadays. The idea that Trump is some warrior chosen by god is heartwarming but to suggest our political leader is chosen/predetermined kind of undermines the concept of free agency. Humanity as a whole is allowed to make poor decisions- Trump is one of them. God ain't gonna come down and say "nope try again" unless your name is specifically David son of Jesse (well actually that was Jesus!), so I guess if that's your idea of being chosen then sure, he's chosen. I really don't think that as christians we should be pushing trump as a holy man.
I did support Cruz, as he is a Christian, but he is just another politician, and he wouldn't have been as strong of a leader as Trump. God is ultimately in control of what happens. Trump is obviously not a holy man, but that's why we need to pray for him and for our leaders.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 13, 2019, 09:57:10 PMI did support Cruz, as he is a Christian, but he is just another politician, and he wouldn't have been as strong of a leader as Trump. God is ultimately in control of what happens. Trump is obviously not a holy man, but that's why we need to pray for him and for our leaders.
God's omnipotent, not controlling. If he was, we wouldn't be able to choose, then at that point wouldn't it just be God saying who gets to go to heaven or not? Seems like a broken system :p
Again, I think Trump does not exhibit qualities best suited for leaders whatsoever. No love, no humility, no selflessness whatsoever. Being a leader isn't about aggression. While cruz didn't necessarily display traits like this in spades to the degree that people like Jefferson or Eisenhower did, he definitely has the qualities that Trump doesn't and in the modern era would make a fine leader. You're probably gonna hate to hear this but I think it's true: Obama is a better leader than trump is.
I like the notion of praying for the success of our leaders.
Quote from: mikey on April 13, 2019, 10:06:18 PMGod's omnipotent, not controlling.
Not to get too much into religion, but I agree with this. I think God gives humans the free will to decide their own fate, even if that leads to problems. I'm not really a fan of people who turn to inaction because they believe that God is going to run their life for them.
The reason that "liberal bias" seems so rare in the U.S. is because what the U.S. perceives as liberal or leftist is nowhere remotely that almost anywhere else in the world.
In the United States, universal healthcare is considered a radically liberal idea. Everywhere else in the industrialized world disagrees; profits should not be put before people's lives. Private market health care is more costly and gives lower quality outcomes to the majority of people, because it rations care based on the size of someone's wallet rather than need (as you might find in other nations).
The idea of taxing income past 10,000,000 at 70% was labelled an insane idea when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed it, but the vast majority of the rest of the world has comparable tax rates. In fact, during the golden age of economic expansion in the United States, the post-war 1950s, our top marginal tax rate was 90%.
The Overton Window (ideological views considered acceptable in mainstream discourse) has been shifting further, and further, and further, and further, and further to the right in America for so long now that Obamacare was called a liberal plan, despite being originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation.
Similarly, Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to over a million undocumented immigrants. Now, the supposed "crisis" on our southern border has people believing completely made up statements like "thousands of people are pouring in every day."
BTW, again, if you want to stop the immigration issue, end the war on drugs.
Splatoon, with all due respect, it doesn't seem to me that there's anything Donald Trump could do to be the wrong leader, based on your statements. If Trump were actually a biblical man, of course, he would be being held up and praised. But if he's not biblical, then we just pray for him. If God is ultimately in control of everything, then why ever care about politics at all?
I'd be interested to see which policies of Trump's you think are good, specifically as it pertains to biblical values. In particular, verses like:
I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.
Matthew 25:35
The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:34
You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19
Quote from: Sebastian on April 13, 2019, 07:43:44 PMThere have been conservative views I've disagreed with and liberal views I've agreed with. I don't apply conservative values to everything, but rather I do apply Biblical values to everything, which do sometimes differ with conservative views. For example, I do believe that some conservatives are a bit ugly/unkind at times (I used to be one of them back before I grew up). They like to be all "I'm gonna be a patriot" or "I'm gonna start a revolution if these dems don't shape up" or "I'm gonna drive this point into the ground no matter what." I believe that those types of conservative ideas aren't Biblical ideas, so I guess you could say that that is one example of a differing view that I have.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 13, 2019, 08:58:44 PMI actually do have to agree on this one. And yes I'm conservative, but I don't think it's a solution to everything at all. But I'm not about to side with liberalism as they are totally against Christians. The true problem with this country is sin. We have strayed so far away from the Bible in just about every aspect. We need Jesus, we need the bible. Jesus is the answer to our problems. God puts leaders in there place to serve his purpose. I believe God has put Trump in office to help hold back the evil that is to come for a while. No doubt our country is drifting further into sin. The bible says that we will be persecuted and hated because we are not of the world. That is true Christians. Our problem is rebellion against God, and the only way to fix our problems is to return back to him. There truly is no political leader who can fix that.
I'm using conservative with christian interchangeably - which direction your extremism comes from is not important, my point still stands. Christian values aren't immune to scrutiny intrinsically and pretending otherwise would be intellectually dishonest because they aren't homogeneous. What makes your interpretation of christian values better than Obama's, Alexandria Cortez's, Hillary Clinton's? What about Noc, BDS, or any other more conservative Christians on NSM who feels alienated by trump? Prove to me that "Christian Values" isn't just a pretext to pretend righteousness in bias and absolve need for evidence.
Also inkling my dude if god put trump in office that also means he put obama in office like this idea of divine right does not follow. If god exists he's got much better ways of saving us than getting into politics
My whole point is that God can use anyone to accomplish his purpose. Not saying that we shouldn't care about politics, but that God is still ultimately in control. Daniel 2:21 states He changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.
Whewww. I missed a lot.
First of all, Splatoon, I wouldn't necessarily says that liberals hate Christians. That's kind of a foolish claim.
Quote from: mikey on April 13, 2019, 10:06:18 PMGod's omnipotent, not controlling. If he was, we wouldn't be able to choose, then at that point wouldn't it just be God saying who gets to go to heaven or not? Seems like a broken system :p
Yes and no. It's a balance between God's sovereignty and human choosing, which is obviously beyond our comprehension. I have this discussion with friends of mine all the time. :P
Put simply, we don't understand everything, which is good. If we could understand everything about God, then we wouldn't need him. That's how I'd resolve that. I don't think it's a smart thing to say, "Seems like a broken system" if you believe in God, cause he's clearly infinitely powerful and can definitely understand things beyond our comprehension.
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on April 13, 2019, 10:20:54 PMNot to get too much into religion, but I agree with this. I think God gives humans the free will to decide their own fate, even if that leads to problems. I'm not really a fan of people who turn to inaction because they believe that God is going to run their life for them.
I partly agree with this. Yes, I don't agree with people that totally turn to inaction, as you said.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 14, 2019, 02:27:00 AMI'd be interested to see which policies of Trump's you think are good, specifically as it pertains to biblical values.
Obviously, Trump isn't perfect. In fact, he has quite a few problems. As I have stated in the past, I saw Hillary as the greater of two evils. One example of a biblical view I do agree on with him is the aspect of abortion. I could never vote for someone who is in favor of abortion no matter how rotten the other candidate is. It's my personal conviction not to break on issues like that.
Also, PDS, randomly regurgitating Bible verses isn't helpful. With all due respect, you don't have a great track record with keeping Bible verses in context. If you'd like to discuss that in the appropriate topic, I'd be happy to.
Quote from: FireArrow on April 14, 2019, 04:21:55 AMChristian values aren't immune to scrutiny intrinsically and pretending otherwise would be intellectually dishonest because they aren't homogeneous. What makes your interpretation of christian values better than Obama's, Alexandria Cortez's, Hillary Clinton's?
There is a difference between conservative/Christian values and biblical values. There are many people that use Christian values as a fascade for guarding all their personal ideas when in fact many of their ideas aren't biblical. So whoever is saying that christian values and biblical values are the same I'd heavily disagree with.
As for Obama, Hillary, etc. (Which could be examples of the point I just made)
They are clearly not holding to biblical values if they're supporting abortion, homosexuality, etc.
So, yes, they may claim to have some christian views, but they clearly aren't biblical if they're referring to that.
Also, there are several ways in which Trump isn't holding to biblical values either, so back to what I said earlier-- lesser of two evils in my opinion.
@splatoon Ok, I believe you. God is and always has been in control of our elections. God put obama in office to save us and put trump in office to punish us for trying so hard to smear obamas very moderate and effective presidency. Go, prove me wrong.
@seb Stop changing the word your using to avoid the question. Fine, biblical values - what makes you an authority on what "correct" biblical values are? You use gay marriage (I presume?) as an example, but I know plenty of christians who would argue its a biblical value to let gays make their own decisions and let god be the judge, and they'd likely take you a fool if you were to say your values are because the preachers at your church know better than theirs (Im intentionally not talking about abortion because that gets complicated fast.)
Do you see why you can't make an argument, quote a source that always supports your value system, and expect to have the argument to be taken seriously? I know fox news is going to call alexandria cortez an idiot every single time she does anything, and when I call you out on using it as a source to prove she's an idiot, you can't say Im discriminating against conservarives/christians/etc. to avoid responsibility for proper research or debate. Thats really the only point Im trying to make (and that net nuetrality is good and necessary for both liberal amd conservative values.)
I'm not sure what question you think I'm avoiding.
As for biblical values, the Bible explicitly states that homosexuality is wrong (I could reference passages). I'm not sure what those other Christians you're talking about are saying. Christians and everyone respond to those passages differently (some think they should be free to practice it, some think they shouldn't etc) which is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible states it as wrong. I don't care what their preacher or my preacher says. I care about what the Bible says, and I understand that not everyone agrees with that, which is fine.
I personally believe that the Bible is the only source of absolute truth, not the conservative view. That's what I'm saying. And for the second time I'm not always saying the conservative side is correct. It's wrong sometimes.
That's all I'm saying.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm trying to say that there are a lot of liberal extremists who stand against Christians. Not all liberals are against Christians.
Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and butt out. If you wanna message me privately, that'd be great, but debating publicly seems pointless.
I kind of see your point. Yah I'm gonna leave too, for real this time though. As it is just pointless to argue this any further. I've made up my mind and you guys have all made up your minds. It's not going to resolve anything to keep going.
Christians are persecuted in America? lol. They're the majority and currently have influence on every level of govt.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 14, 2019, 02:27:00 AMI was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.
Matthew 25:35
The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:34
You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19
not using KJE smh
Quote from: Sebastian on April 14, 2019, 12:31:15 PMI personally believe that the Bible is the only source of absolute truth
there's this real COOL BOOK
you should CHECK out
IT'S called the BOOK of MORMON
protestants are weird imo tbh ngl
As great as it would be to live in a society whose values mirror my own perfectly, that isn't conducive to running a country with 300+ million people, all with different morals and politics. As far as what does work, I think the two party system is a good solution and foil to tyranny and the constant push pull of the two parties helps keep america from going too far in any direction, or at least it has in the past
Having state legislature also helps alleviate the societal value disconnect.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 14, 2019, 03:17:46 PMChristians are persecuted in America? lol. They're the majority and currently have influence on every level of govt.
Jews are persecuted in America? lol. They're the majority and currently have influence on every level of govt.
Quote from: Splatoon Inkling on April 14, 2019, 03:08:49 PMI kind of see your point. Yah I'm gonna leave too, for real this time though. As it is just pointless to argue this any further. I've made up my mind and you guys have all made up your minds. It's not going to resolve anything to keep going.
I personally would like to see you recognize that you don't have to blindly support the GOP just because the conservative party used to also be the Christian party. Platforms change, don't change along with them. Your moral code is more important than the government's moral code.
Quote from: mikey on April 14, 2019, 03:22:33 PMJews are persecuted in America? lol. They're the majority and currently have influence on every level of govt.
...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
...?
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/i-was-highlighting-how-stupid-it-sounds-to-say-stuff-like-that
How is it equally stupid to say those things? Your statement was factually incorrect b/c Jews make up <5% of US population whereas Christians are >70%
also another article regarding deportation of someone who was living here legally after their spouse in the military died (luckily it was reversed, but likely due to media attention): https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2019/04/15/ice-deports-gonzalez-spouse-u-s-soldier-killed-afghanistan/3477332002/
Snippet:
QuoteGonzalez Carranza said he came to the U.S. illegally from Veracruz, Mexico, in 2004, when he was a teenager. He said he and Vieyra married in 2007.
After his wife was killed in Afghanistan, Gonzalez was granted what is known as parole in place, which allows immigrants in the country illegally to remain in the U.S. without the threat of deportation, Hernandez said.
An immigration judge then terminated deportation proceedings against Gonzalez based on the parole in place, Hernandez said.
However, ICE refiled the case in 2018, Hernandez said.
A judge ordered Gonzalez deported in December 2018 after Hernandez didn't show up for his court hearing, Hernandez said.
But the reason Gonzalez didn't show up is because he never received the notice, Hernandez said. He said ICE sent it to the wrong address
Gonzalez Carranza didn't find out a judge had ordered him deported until ICE officers came to his house last Monday and took him into custody, Hernandez said.
And this as well:
QuoteWang also said it Gonzalez Carranza should not have been deported if there was a stay of removal. She said, however, it is "not uncommon" for ICE to violate stays of removal.
On Monday, Hernandez sent out a news release to draw attention to Gonzalez Carranza's case.
Hernandez said he can't understand why ICE deported him. Gonzalez Carranza has no criminal record, he said.
MBFC: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/arizona-republic/ (Right Center, High Factual Reporting)
You can sort of see why some politicians want ICE (or at least the ERO aspect of ICE) to be dissolved, or remanaged.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 15, 2019, 10:05:21 PMHow is it equally stupid to say those things? Your statement was factually incorrect b/c Jews make up <5% of US population whereas Christians are >70%
I'm not trying to make the statements equal
you sound so conspiratorial when you're yelling about how the christians are controlling everything lol
that's it
also there's no way that many americans are christian (or at least even semi-devout)
Quote from: mikey on April 16, 2019, 04:58:37 PMI'm not trying to make the statements equal
Your post literally was doing that.
Quoteyou sound so conspiratorial when you're yelling about how the christians are controlling everything lol
that's it
Missed the point. I was saying that to show that the idea of Christians, the majority in the population by a vast margin with the most representation in government, being discriminated against in the United States is fake. Not even REMOTELY close.
Quotealso there's no way that many americans are christian (or at least even semi-devout)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/224642/2017-update-americans-religion.aspx
Either that or it's a "No True Scotsman" situation.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 17, 2019, 06:43:32 PMYour post literally was doing that.Missed the point. I was saying that to show that the idea of Christians, the majority in the population by a vast margin with the most representation in government, being discriminated against in the United States is fake. Not even REMOTELY close.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/224642/2017-update-americans-religion.aspx
Either that or it's a "No True Scotsman" situation.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that christianity and its subgroups is the largest practicing religion by a freaking massive margin in the US.
Is there still anyone here?