Search results

Heh. You know, I was going to say how I'd written my clauses carefully with 'this thread' and 'until', but it suddenly dawns on me that this forum is a waste of my time and I'm still here out of habit. It was worth something when it wasn't a self-segregating population (i.e. not a subforum)...

Nope. Definitely still you. Clearly and obviously. Whatever else Mayhem said, he's unequivocally correct about one thing: If there was only one ban to be made, none would make a bigger improvement to discourse, reduce the amount of bullshit and vitriol spewed, spare the mods the time, etc...

Well, now I know I need to be more in tune with my shows if this is my first notification...I guess I'd better get on it! This makes me happy to hear.

I was delighted Spider-Man was finally done right. I've been wanting to see this, but haven't made it out to yet. Glad to hear promising things.

Going to have to go with T'Pol on this one. The show overly sexualizing her probably doesn't hurt (I'd argue it hurts the show, but not my fantasies!)...

Ugh. It's always a shame when the tide brings the sewage back. Is this the self-defense mechanism you're going with these days when finding your shitty perspective in the minority? A clever person would get a better perspective. But there's always the less clever option of sticking with ****...

- Chumbawamba

Eh. I give up. It's taken half a dozen posts to get part of an answer, just on affirmative action. I'll just have to assume your reasons, I guess. Let's go back to this, then:

I didn't ask you to. I asked you whether you agree with them or not (which you mostly addressed) and why (which you did not). I assumed animus when I asked him a very straightforward, direct question, would choose the non-"I'm a vile piece of **** human garbage heap" answer. He did not. I no...

Supa has a subtle point - just throwing a list of cases is meaningless. Context, please? Do you agree/disagree and why? Ha, yeah, to be fair to you, it still is. I have a hard time calling it that having studied engineering physics. This is...very true. Though to be fair to BsS, I haven't seen...

I don't know I'd call political theory a science. Do a Google image search of "political compass" and you'll find hundreds of variants (including triangles). I think it's important to have some frame of reference for a productive discussion, as a 1D spectrum is ****. And yeah, Joe Schmoe on the...

Supreme Court picks.

I'm fairly in agreement with where the Political Compass put him: He isn't defined so much by right or left so much as extreme authoritarianism and whatever economic whim, rightwing or leftwing, will enrich him in the moment (which to be fair, is inherently rightwing). The dude wants to be a...

I mean, it is. Its abrupt interjection into a back-and-forth about immigration is out of place and apparently without a point though. :dunno:

Cheap immigrant labor*, although it stands true enough as it was. Other issues around immigration - refugee policies, cultural diversity, ****** policy, etc., etc., isn't left-right. It's on the other axis.

Unsubstantiated hyperbole aside, that's irrelevant to the fact that cheap labor is an economically rightwing idea.

You literally have this backwards - immigrants as cheap labor is an economically right idea. Capitol loves it. Free market, remember?

This conversation still suffers from literal one-dimensional thinking. Right-left are economic; authoritarian-libertarian are social. There are other grids besides the Political Compass one I favor (for simplicity), but they all agree that you can't accurately describe political positions...

Are they? I haven't been hearing much from the communists at all. Can you link me to any coverage?

I'm not sure I can agree with much of this, Jagger. A 'moderate Democrat' is just a Republican who's okay with gays and abortion. D's and R's represent the center-right and far-right, respectively. In fact, the erroneously labeled 'far-left' is actually trying to pull the Democrats closer to the...

I don't know about 'sides', but I can give you names: Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrinch. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is what allowed the media to become the shitshow it is today. When media serves two economically right-wing parties, said media has to fuel other fights to get viewers - so...

About ****, out of partisanship. I'm sure you think that makes you any less a piece of ****. I'm done talking to you. You've made it into my signature, congrats. Moving back to at least potentially constructive conversation... Ace's partisan glee aside in making this topic, this cover shows...

Right. Like (my emphasis added): Will was bad calling for mass ******* in Maryland, but I honestly believe Will is insane (clinically, not prejoratively). You just seem to be a legitimately bad person. Anyway, I don't need to keep hammering the point, as it's there for everybody to see.

Strictly speaking, you did not type out I-a-p-p-r-o-v-e, it's true. I mean, anyone who isn't a piece of **** ****-apologist would say yeah. But you, my emphasis added: Ergo, a piece of **** ****-apologist. Seriously. You're a piece of work.

I'm curious how far condoning that behavior on a porn forum will go.

Huh. Well! You are, in no uncertain terms, a piece of **** and human garbage, but at least I can't label you a hypocrite here. My earlier statement about the world needing less people like you was spot on, it seems. Ace?

Ace, Animus - I want to be sure, in no uncertain terms and making no assumptions: You are condemning Harvey Weinstein's sexually predatory behavior, yes?

I **** to drop pessimissm on you, but the solution to these ills is critical thinking, and even that has been politicized and demonized by a large political ideology that depends on the lack-there-of to survive and passively ignored by their partisan rivals for their own gain. It's tied in very...

Sure mongo, but he's an independent lazy, ignorant, rambling racist embarrassment, so, you know, it's cool.

If only I had actually said that. I'll take the turn to misrepresenting statements as a concession that your assertion is garbage. I'd recommend you stop making such **** statements, but fuck it, we both know you'll keep on keepin' on with that. I can safely assume parsing over your other...

Sure, insofar as 'significant' is meaningless without context. More significant than the national budgets under Congress's purview? You want to take that position? Remember what we're arguing. It isn't whether Obama is good or bad - I do not support, like, or think Obama was a good president...

Do you dispute Congress is responsible for the budget and therefore the debt?

Ah, debt. So what you really mean to say by that metric is, "The 111th-114th Congresses were the biggest mistake(s) this country has ever made." Yes?

I have yet to hear of a metric for this claim that wasn't completely made up or entirely bullshit. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Aha, greed. So the country be damned, as long as your 401K looks good. The world could surely use less people like you. So far. Give Trump time - all it would take is a savvy voice in his ear to manipulate him into doing good. They just have to tell him it's anti-Obama and the people and news...

Nevermind those two; Robert Mercer was Donald Trump's campaign sugar *****. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/robert-mercer-donald-trump-donor.html https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage...

It's a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid. So go figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post

So you actively support harmful policies and politicians to America for...fun? Spite? Stupidity? What's your justification, if you aren't conveniently parceling out who you define as 'America'? You mean to say you're ready to shoot Americans who disagree with you in the face, without even...

Neoliberalism. Which is really classical liberalism, or right-wing economics - but because the word 'liberal' has been so tied up in social libertarianism and thus stuck onto Democrats, the term was essentially re-invented. Which is all to say: Every administration and congress has ascribed to...

Well, it's not really the impartiality, it's that the article wasn't saying much, other than complaining that none of the things conservatives wanted to stick to Obama stuck. And as you mention, you can tell how contrived many of them were by Trump's doing similar or worse with only crickets...

Some of the stupid **** your worldview rests on becomes a little more clear to me by realizing you basically define 'America' to exclude all your political/cultural/whatever 'opponents'. This naturally includes the majority of Americans, most of whom are harmed by the aforementioned stupid ****...

There may yet be a silver lining. Medicare for all/single payer has more support among politicians and the people than ever before. Republicans are basically afraid to have town halls now and Democrats are being ****** into positions they may not like due to primary challenges. People actually...

We don't, really. This is more partisan bullshit. There are a few who genuinely respect the office, but most of the time you see anybody talking about this, they were spitting on the last president that wasn't on 'their team'. The office hasn't been respectable since our foreign policy involved...

For a good time, just put 'Koch bros' in your thread title and watch BC go off on Soros even if your thread isn't about the Koch brothers, like he did before. Back to the topic at hand: I'm not sure if they're still in office, but it wasn't that long ago that there were GOP lawmakers hoping for...

Exactly.

...and correlate that with the number of people those countries are representing, is my point. I'm arguing the smaller the population, the closer the government is to the people (even in the case of the two geographically large, yet population small countries you mention). Let's put it this...

I couldn't agree more. I support most independence votes/movements. If you're referring to nationalism as a driver for these independence movements, I'd more or less agree with your sentiment that this isn't a constructive way to go. But I think we've largely also seen that the bigger the...

Considering they get decide what is constitutional, that last bit isn't true at all. For example, they can decide you essentially do not have Fourth Amendment rights regarding your person - and have done just that (see: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders).

This study contradicts numbers I've seen (CBO, 2007, for example), but it's more recent, so who knows. As has already been stated, the source is dubious. Due diligence asks that one actually go through the study, but time-as-a-precious-resource begs to regard bad sources as simply bad and leave...

Fake news brah. You know how I know? Some blog said it. Also, follow the money, except all that oil industry money or those documents showing Exxon knew about this for decades. Ignore that stuff. 'Cause...FREEDOM!!!1!1!1!!! Unfortunately, those that are trying to do just that have to contend...