why does someone always have to babysit you
In post 5588, karnos wrote:In post 5587, Psyche wrote:how about the idea that lowering taxes could raise the deficit?
is this a policy argument against donald trump that's not ad hominen you only read today?
Arguments exist, but I haven't read them. Every time Trump is discussed, the attacks go for the throat "NO HE IS EVIL BIGOT" "RACIST!" "MISOGONIST RAPIST!"
My point was, maybe if those arguments were actually used, instead of stupid ad-hominum arguments, Trump voters could potentially be encourage to vote elsewhere.
In post 5592, karnos wrote:In post 5584, Psyche wrote:have you heard the sentence "a border wall would be really expensive"
It really wouldn't be.
The interesting thing is, if you actually understand economic theory, the cost of a larger project like that which mostly involves low-skill labor is that the majority of the money is going to workers who might otherwise be collecting welfare, people who will spend the money on basic needs quickly, spurring the economy. I don't know exactly what Donald's plan is, but I'd much rather pay people to work on infrastructure improvements than just hand them welfare.
In post 5630, TwiszTed wrote:In post 5615, Psyche wrote:Like, there is a lot more you can infer that matters from the sincere and well-informed support of Donald Trump by white nationalists than you can from David Duke's preference for steak.
I thought liberals hated assumptions about a person based on things beyond that person's control.
In post 5682, Shiro wrote:Can someone give me the list of basic human rights Trump is striping away from people?
In post 5729, T S O wrote:And right on cue there are people moaning about the electoral college. I too love systems that have worked for decades until they don't work out well for my candidate.
In post 5861, Davsto wrote:especially those of professionals
i mean they get paid for those statistics, how can you trust that!!!
In post 5982, Shiro wrote:In post 5980, Shaziro wrote:The argument is usually that Jesus, the prophet of Christianity, was a peaceful hippy guy, while Mohammad was a violent warlord with a child bride who treated women like cattle. Now, this ignores the Old Testament in which God, among other things, drowned all of humanity and destroyed two cities for being gay and/or promiscuous.
Yeah, jesus did the whole, die for your sins so we don't have to be cruel like the old testament kinda deal. He basically retconed everything.
In post 6000, Ser Arthur Dayne wrote:However, those who DO take their book seriously (you can call them "religious" or "extremists" or whatever) are much much more prone to violence than people who take Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc seriously.
In post 6006, Shiro wrote:The scripture itself doesn't say, go kill infidels wherever you find them nor that dying for God in jihad bypasses purgatory and put you in heaven.
The thing with Islam is that it is a culture. It advocates one caliphate under one God. Muslims that don't stand by that in all reality aren't really Muslims.
Not o. Islam mate. It says right in the book, you don't jihad then you are a hypocrite
Why do you think isis kills other Muslims as well. Isis isn't hijacking Islam, isis is Islam in its purest form.
In post 6011, Shiro wrote:
I thought Accountant did cause that was the topic, religious violence for conversion which is pretty unique to Islam. #As in supported by text)
In post 6008, Psyche wrote:you're dodging it
why ask someone's religion to do this filtering instead of asking them how they relate with concepts like freedom, tolerance and human rights? why filter muslims instead of filtering subscribers to rape culture, honor killings, cultural separatism and so on?
the reason people call you an islamophobe is because you're disinclined to appreciate subtleties like these
makes it seem like you're more about keeping society homogenous than about keeping it safe and free, like violence perpetrated by some groups perturbs you less than violence perpetuated by others
In post 6024, Psyche wrote:See, garmr, I know that you're referring not to the text but to a specific subset of people who profess to follow it. That's why I said "you should just go ahead and make clear that it's people inclined to specific cultural practices rather than broad religious traditions you want to exclude from immigration".
In post 6018, Psyche wrote:Like, it seems like a pretty easy compromise with the left that achieves exactly what you want. There are still some free speech issues, but it would much better odds to survive strict scrutiny. Filter adherents to terrible cultural practices, but not with religious or geographic tests. The "good" muslims/middle-easterners you admit exist can still get in, and the rest will kept out. What's the problem? And more importantly, why does this have to be proposed in the first place? If your passion for this issue is driven by sincere concern about your country's safety, why are we talking about muslims instead of rapists, murderers and terrorists?
In post 6030, Shiro wrote:I am at work and I take a bit to answer chill :p
Because, how do you filter cultural practices, if not by country and religion?
Because convicted rapist,murderers and terrorists aren't allowed in already. Non convicted ones, well, you have no way of knowing.
In post 6053, Sudo_Nym wrote:The country was also founded partially on slavery. Does "what makes America great" stem from this fact as well?
In post 6054, Titus wrote:The country wasn't founded on slavery. It was an evil the founders accepted at the time.
In post 6069, Shiro wrote:I ansewred, You said, you can interview them and I said, you can lie, a passport cannot.
In post 6144, T S O wrote:In post 6067, Psyche wrote:PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT A MUSLIM IMMIGRANT BAN:
Why not filter adherents to terrible cultural practices, but not using religious or geographic tests? The "good" muslims/middle-easterners you admit exist can still get in, and the rest will kept out. Like, it seems like a pretty easy compromise with the left that achieves exactly what you want. There are still some free speech issues, but it would much better odds to survive strict scrutiny.
What's the problem with this idea? And also importantly, why does this have to be proposed in the first place? If your passion for this issue is driven by sincere concern about your country's safety, why are we talking about banning muslims instead of about banning rapists, murderers and terrorists?
How exactly would you go about this cultural practice adherence test? It's certainly an interesting idea.
In post 6163, Shaziro wrote:Again, he didn't state "Liberals hate Trump" he stated that liberals on twitter appear to be willing to throw their opinions of somebody's work which is completely unrelated to their political leanings out just because of that person's political leanings.
the electors are almost totally binded to the outcome of their state's popular votepisskop wrote:In post 7539, Psyche wrote:i have to wonder if you're an american if you think the current electoral college system does anything to make elections less about appeals to emotions, welfare, entertainment, immediate gains
Than a direct democracy?
In post 7705, karnos wrote:In post 7680, Showtime wrote:In post 7676, karnos wrote:No, it really doesn't. But still, I'm glad you are sticking to your guns on this, because it destroys all your credibility and I won't have to waste time wading through other BS you spew in this thread in the future.
I'd say "pot, meet kettle", but really, even that's giving you too much credit.
Come back when you can read and have some sort of answer to the actual issues raised.
Showtime, you lost. It's okay, everyone loses occasionally, but this loss is especially enjoyable for me because you were just acting oh so cocky about being right. And now you are at a loss for words, you have no response at all, because you know you have been caught in a lie.
In post 7816, Persivul wrote:
Speaking of Milo and bias in media...media is always gay this gay that...EXCEPT when they link Milo to the alt right. They rarely mention that he's gay. Doesn't fit the desired alt right narrative.
In post 7870, pisskop wrote:In post 7868, Psyche wrote:i should link the thread i made a while back but if pisskop isn't trying why should i
I could go get the stats that implicate the culture of these minorities as a large culprit instead of necessarily their skin colors but you arent interested in [i[why[/i] poverty is prevalent, just who you can blame and what kind of money needs to be spent to assuage your phantom guilt.
In post 8028, inte wrote:fucking trump supporters. picking up what they want to hear, ignoring what they don't want to hear, and always arguing away from the actual points at hand
In post 8070, Fluminator wrote:Speaking of which. One of the mysteries of this site to me is how some of you people have so much free time to research so many facts and studies.
In post 8124, karnos wrote:
>it's closer to 99 than 49 imo
Some idiot thinks 99% of the voting population voted Trump. I mean, that would have been awesome, but sadly my number was far more correct.
Valence IATs measure associations between concepts and positive or negative valence. They are generally interpreted as a preference for one category over another. For example, the Race IAT shows that more than 70% of individuals have an implicit preference for Whites over Blacks. On the other hand, only half of Black individuals prefer Blacks over Whites (cf. the earlier "doll experiment" developed by psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark during the early civil rights era).
In post 8194, Garmr wrote:In post 8170, Accountant wrote:Slavery has been abolished but oppression remains
It is oppression we are trying to fix
Can I ask you a question. I'm white and i'm first generation Australian and my family came from Europe and has been there for 100s of years. I was not part of the slavery america did nor have I ever lived there. Why should I be treated as part guilty party for what some red neck Americans did 100s of years ago why should I be lumped in because of my white skin. In fact why should white people in general be treated that way even if they are born in america if they don't have ancestors going back to then.
I would even go argue that even if those people related that have ancestors that had slaves shouldn't be blamed for actions they didn't commit and treating white people like the villains is just going to cause more racism. I think it's stupid for someone to have white guilt.
Also I would argue that after slavery things mended up pretty well and there was a brief period of time where black people had all the same opportunity's and such then it declined because of reasons. (you could say it was nixon or the fbi if you believe in that or many other reasons including ones that don't have to do with white people like the increase in single mothers in the black community) So you could argue the damage from the slave days has pretty much been repaired but other things have devastated black communities in recent years.
In post 8261, Ranmaru wrote:This just in:
My friend was walking by Penn's Campus in Philadelphia, and overheard three rich white kids. They were talking about who they were dating. One of them asked "Did you take out that sweet n*?" The other was like "Yeah I took her to a fancy ass restaurant the other day and she didn't like the taste or portions what a n* am I right?"
He was shell shocked, and surprised to hear this coming from people that should know better.
In post 8389, karnos wrote:Science would imply the scientific method, in which there is a hypothesis, an experiment, and a conclusion.
Global warming is all hypothesis, a few failed experiments, and not a single conclusion that has confirmed a hypothesis.
In post 8520, Fluminator wrote:Was she sorry for actively deleting emails from this private server that she probably didn't want to be held accountable for?
Also a funny thing about people being outraged at Russia interfering is
1. America very literally does it all the time in other countries.
2. They could only know if they were hacking into Russia's systems.
In post 8521, Persivul wrote:No. Other countries have interests in our elections. Other leaders openly supported Hillary. Was that weird?
In post 8554, Persivul wrote:Instead of whining about the Russians, read this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/m ... ump-232547
In post 8562, karnos wrote:In post 8561, kuribo wrote:
So you're good with spending money on legitimate environmental claims, which is to say all of them?
How much have you donated to environmental research?
In post 8564, karnos wrote:In post 8563, theplague42 wrote:That's not what he asked
I said "are you?"
I'm not sure how "That's not what he asked" makes any logical sense at all. Are you feeling okay? "Are you?" obviously means I am asking the EXACT same question he asked.
I then followed up with a second question.
In post 8567, Persivul wrote:In post 8560, Psyche wrote:In post 8554, Persivul wrote:Instead of whining about the Russians, read this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/m ... ump-232547
why not both???
Because I have yet to hear the point of whining about the Russians.
In post 8654, pisskop wrote:Let me ask you, psy, were the sanctions worth it?
The next time they support a proxy war or fire up a country we stuck our thumb into, was it worth it?
We 'hurt' them economically. Sure. Now when they incite a war that was already costly in revenge was it worth it?
In post 9138, pisskop wrote:ut 'white godess'? Bah, if thats too much to stomach then every single time somebody uses an adjective that excludes people youd better be there to yell about it
In post 9161, T S O wrote:You have so much rage and anger stored up inside of you, Psyche. I don't understand why you're like that.
In post 9170, Kublai Khan wrote:Why is Milo a person worth celebrating?
Is it because he brings good ideas to the national table for discussion or is it because he bothers people you don't like?