Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "Secular Talk" channel.

  1. Easy bud. You were almost channeling Cenk there for a minute.
    10
  2. What were the scores for women who make all of the money and for men who make none of it? It seems like that's an important part to leave out. Are women even happier being married to a gigolo? Are men happier at home eating Bon Bons? Maybe in order to reach true equality, we need to first spend a Millennium or two with the roles reversed.
    8
  3. It's almost as though the people who have been screaming their heads off about Trump's win... are a bunch of ignorant children who have never paid attention to an election before. Grandstanding and false campaign promises are part of the process. Trump was a Democrat from New York before he decided that the Republican party was his ticket to the Presidency. That doesn't just go away.
    6
  4. Bottom line: You said yourself that two opposing hate groups showed up armed with rifles and not one shot was fired. IT'S NOT THE GUNS OR THE RIGHT TO CARRY THEM THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
    3
  5. +ensayofr Lots of Muslims already carry guns (did that fact scare you?). There's no religious background check to buy a firearm or to get a carry permit (in the places that require one). You see, the FIRST amendment secures your Right to choose whatever religion you want and the SECOND amendment secures your Right to own and carry guns (keep and bear arms). Also, why the hell are you talking about having guns at every protest? Who said anything about making it mandatory to carry a gun at a protest? What is it about YouTubers and extremism? Everything is black and white with you. And yes, I am technically a genius, but that hardly helps your argument any. Thanks for noticing and highlighting that fact, though. Stay in school, work hard and someday you may understand that oversimplification and sweeping generalization are never the correct responses to any problem.
    2
  6. +Gabriel Cowley That "sub-group" makes up the majority of what people see as the "representatives" of the group. When you think of any group, you tend to envision it's most public form. In the case of Feminists, the most public representation is the extremists and nobody is coming out to denounce them. An example of this is the current Republican Presidential candidate. Right now he represents the Republicans in the race. Anyone who sees coverage of him sees the "face of the Republicans." The main difference is that unlike with Feminism, there are plenty of Republicans who publicly denounce Trump for not representing the Party accurately. If "Feminists" don't want "man haters" to represent them, they should say or do something about it. As it stands though, it seems like the majority of Feminists don't have a problem with it.
    2
  7. Happy to oblige.
    2
  8. I like this line of thinking. Both parties are disqualified! Gary Johnson is the President!
    2
  9. +Artaneius Really? Personally, I don't see how equality can exist without morality. It's people's morality that leads them to consider the strife of others and do something about it. Immoral people do not concern themselves with the problems of the world unless said problems adversely affect them as individuals. They worry only about that which brings them personal gain and pleasure. I suppose a world without morality would be somewhat equal. I mean, at that point EVERYONE would treat each other badly...but I don't think that's the kind of equality we want.
    2
  10. +Gabriel Cowley Whether it seems strange to you or not, it's how things work. We're talking about public perception, not what your responsibilities are. If you are okay with certain people representing a group you belong to, you let them speak for said group. If you are not okay with it, you speak up. You use the example of whether you should speak out against Communists. That depends. Do you feel that Communists are publicly claiming that their brand of "Leftism" is the only true Leftism? Do you think that the public, in general, feels that anyone left of center is a Communist? If so, I would imagine you might have something to say about that. I assume that you don't though, given that you are using this example to try to disprove my statement. Again, this is a perception issue. Feminists are perceived as "man-hating femi-nazis" because they are being represented as such. If it's not up to Feminists to deal with whether or not they're okay with being perceived this way, who do you propose is responsible for dealing with it?
    1
  11. +Gabriel Cowley All good points. But consider this: A) Whether the extremists are getting attention by themselves or by "anti's" holding them up as examples, they're still being seen. Denouncing them sends a clear message to all. Staying silent allows everyone to draw their own conclusions as to why you're staying silent. Meanwhile, you take the "high ground" of not directly attacking your opposition. B) If the general populous were able to easily dismiss extremists, ignore the opposition and draw their own conclusions, Feminism would be more popular and we wouldn't be seeing more and more people coming out publicly to ensure the world knows they're not a Feminist... right?
    1
  12. +Felix Avenier Careful. You're treading very close to making a "No true Scotsman" claim. The fact is that we don't get to just dismiss our least desirable representatives by simply holding up a dictionary. There are truly off-the-wall people who claim to speak for Feminism. They spew all kinds of nonsense and hate in the name of an ideology that is supposed to be based on equality. They don't adhere to the dictionary definition of Feminism. That doesn't mean they're not Feminists. It just means they're bad Feminists. I guess what I'm trying to say is that actions speak louder than words. At the time of the Crusades, Christianity wasn't a "peaceful religion based on the teachings of a pacifist savior," regardless of what the written definition claimed. It was a religion of fear, hate and genocide. The book didn't change. The people did.
    1
  13. +Gabriel Cowley Oh, I'm not saying to accept that it's the most prominent side. Nor am I suggesting launching an assault on extremism. That, in itself, would be extreme. Merely a change in dialogue. For example, rather than just "Feminism isn't about women's superiority" one would say "Feminism isn't about women's superiority, regardless of what [insert extremist] would like you to believe." A simple change but an effective one. Enough of these small clarifications and the extremists will do what they always do: form a new group where they can claim to be right about everything and be supported by their extremist pals. They'll still be lunatics but at least they won't be setting the movement back any more. What's more, they'll draw the fire from the "antis" who currently attack Feminism primarily because of the extremists. The very existence of MRAs proves that the crazies are having a lasting, negative effect. The discussion hasn't really been about equality for quite some time. It's not that people like you and I don't want to talk about equality. It's that the conversation immediately gets dominated by both "Feminists" and "MRAs" who want to shout about how evil the other is. The peaceful are never well served by allowing the violent to speak for them.
    1
  14. +Gabriel Cowley Oh, I'm not saying to accept that it's the most prominent side. Nor am I suggesting launching an assault on extremism. That, in itself, would be extreme. Merely a change in dialogue. For example, rather than just "Feminism isn't about women's superiority" one would say "Feminism isn't about women's superiority, regardless of what [insert extremist] would like you to believe." A simple change but an effective one. Enough of these small clarifications and the extremists will do what they always do: form a new group where they can claim to be right about everything and be supported by their extremist pals. They'll still be lunatics but at least they won't be setting the movement back any more. What's more, they'll draw the fire from the "antis" who currently attack Feminism primarily because of the extremists. The very existence of MRAs proves that the crazies are having a lasting, negative effect. The discussion hasn't really been about equality for quite some time. It's not that people like you and I don't want to talk about equality. It's that the conversation immediately gets dominated by both "Feminists" and "MRAs" who want to shout about how evil the other is. The peaceful are never well served by allowing the violent to speak for them.
    1
  15. +Gabriel Cowley It's a fine line, indeed. Good talk. I thoroughly enjoyed this exchange. Maybe we'll get lucky and infect the rest of YouTube with civility (though it seems unlikely). Have a great life, friend.
    1
  16. The second amendment to the Constitution exists to protect us from a tyrannical government. If Hillary Clinton tries to abolish the second amendment, she is taking the first major step towards that tyranny. MANY 2A supporters have said that it would be the last straw. That our right to dissolve and rebuild our government (as outlined in the Declaration of Independence) would be exercised at that point. Predicting that people would do exactly what they said they would do is not a death threat. If I said "This white guy is going to walk down the street shouting 'white power!' and nobody can do anything about it. Well, maybe the Black Panthers will do something but that will be a sad day" is that a death threat? No. It's a statement of the obvious outcome. Well, obvious to anyone who isn't trying to twist things to fit their agenda, anyway.
    1
  17. +darkenergylambda No. She said she would do everything in her power to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling - that the 2A applies to self defense. She's also said that she wants to do away with handguns and semiautomatic rifles. She's also said that she's fine with guns for hunting but nothing more. You're defending her, so why does it seem like I've seen more of her speeches? Secondly, I don't drink. Sorry. As for your sad interpretation of the second amendment, your ignorance to the types of firearms available at that time and your lack of understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia," I would invite you to take your history lessons from historians, not morning talk show hosts. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But thanks for playing.
    1
  18. +DAK4Blizzard Let me see if I understand your argument. You're saying that the second amendment isn't to secure our ability to defend ourselves against tyranny.....because other Countries have strict gun laws and democracy? That doesn't make any sense. You might want to try again because your comment reads less like a coherent thought and more like you accidentally regurgitated two separate things you've read before at the same time. Maybe start with explaining your first position: If the second amendment isn't what I claim it is, then what is it? Then maybe you can move on to explaining why you think other Countries' laws have any bearing on the reason our Constitutional Rights exist.
    1
  19. +DAK4Blizzard Oh really? Please quote the part that says anything about hunting or even securing property for that matter. Last I checked there's nothing in there about either. Now, the Supreme Court has said that our Right to keep and bear arms is ALSO (meaning additionally to the original intent specified) for the sake of self defense and defense of property but even THEY have made no mention of hunting that I've ever seen. Where are you getting this ridiculous information from?
    1
  20. +DAK4Blizzard And there you have it. That would be the inherent flaw in your argument. You seem to think that your observational opinion has some bearing on the legal ramifications of our Constitution. Trust me, it doesn't. You and your opinions are in no way important to our founding documents. A couple of things for you to do some research on to help you better understand the Country you live in: A) The Constitution B) The Declaration of Independence C) The Federalist Papers These are a good place to start. And remember, your opinion is not legal doctrine. P.S. The United States is not a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic with some key democratic features. I understand that you don't like history but refusing to understand it for the sake of lying to yourself about the Country you live in is just sad.
    1
  21. +DAK4Blizzard SCOTUS can't repeal an amendment. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know the first thing about our government, our founding documents or how the system works. I'm not going to be your history and law professor. If you have ground to stand on, do so. So far I've had nothing to defend against because you haven't said anything remotely accurate to refute my original claims. Please, either present something more substantial than "I've never seen an armed rebellion and other Countries have gun laws, so the second amendment is for hunting" or find someone else's leg to hump. I'll help you. You need to show how "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" means "Guns are for hunting and home security." I don't even need to cite the Federalist Papers to show that you're wrong. A basic grasp of the English language is really all that's needed.
    1
  22. +DAK4Blizzard You still haven't said anything that counters my claims. Why would I bother digging through anything to refute...nothing?
    1
  23. +DAK4Blizzard Win your point? You never made any points about the security of a free State. You said we don't use militias to defend the Country any more. There's a big difference between defending the Country as a whole and defending a State. Tell me, in the event of a tyrannical government taking power (and givennour two options, it's hardly far fetched), which branch(es) of the military would be designated for the government and which would be set aside to protect us from said government? Oh, that's right. There isn't a clause for that when you enlist. When you serve in the military, the President is your commander in chief. We're on the cusp of having either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in charge of the most powerful military in the world...and you don't think we still need to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny? Ha! You're a funny one, I'll give you that.
    1
  24. +DAK4Blizzard Yes, because historically, the bigger army always wins, right? I mean, that's why we're still a British colony after all. It's also why we so easily dispatched the Vietnamese and the North Koreans in those wars, right? Wait, no. We didn't. So let's try to tidy this up because now you're just trying to spread it in every direction possible. Your claim is that the second amendment - which specifically lists militias as the primary reason for our Right to bear arms and outlines no other reason whatsoever - is not for the sake of being able to form militias. You claim that it has somehow transformed into meaning that we get to have guns for home defense and hunting and that it no longer applies to militias because you feel we don't need them any more. That's a pretty bold claim but I'll make it really easy for you. Just provide a link to the documents that changed the meaning of the second amendment to exclude militias and to include hunting (I've already seen the Heller transcripts, so I don't need you to show that they add self/home defense to the definition). It's that easy. My claim is that the second amendment applies to militias and self/home defense. I've now cited my sources, which are the second amendment itself and the SCOTUS' Heller decision. Your "every day observations" don't trump written law. So, all you need is two sources. One for the addition of hunting to, and one for the exclusion of militias from the definition of the second amendment. It's really that simple. Please don't respond without your sources. You don't actually have an argument without them. Your opinion as to whether militias are necessary is irrelevant. My opinion as to whether militias are necessary is irrelevant. We're talking about the legal definition of the second amendment to the Constitution. So, no more redirects. No more rhetoric. Just facts. PROVE that I'm wrong or walk away.
    1
  25. +DAK4Blizzard So you're saying that you can't provide any evidence to support your claim that the second amendment is NOT for the sake of militias and that it IS for hunting.....so you're going to attempt to redirect. Again. Sorry but no dice. Provide sources to back up your claims. It should be easy. Why are you dodging? Is the second amendment for hunting or not? If so, show documentation. Has the second amendment been changed to exclude militias or not? If so, show documentation. I'll be happy to pick apart the rest of your nonsense as soon as you back up the cornerstone to your entire argument. If you can't then you don't have an argument to pick apart.
    1
  26. Wait. A nuke is not a gun. Why do people always talk about explosives and armed vehicles when talking about guns. A bomb is not a gun. A tank is not a gun. A grenade is not a gun. Why is that hard to understand? Or is it that you understand it perfectly but saying outlandish things like this makes your opposition look bad?
    1
  27. +GorillaGuerilla I never said otherwise. I was referring to the vein popping out of his forehead towards the end there.
    1
  28. +tetapunui Military killing machines? Really? I love it when people who know nothing about a topic insist on speaking with self-proclaimed authority on said topic. This mindset would be adorable if it wasn't so toxic. Come back when you can tell me the difference in lethality between an AR15, a Ruger Ranch Rifle and a Mossberg 500. The truth might just shock you.
    1
  29. +Elite 1984 A) I never commented about military vs civilian guns. In fact, I didn't even list any military guns B) I never said anything about knowing the difference between ARs, bolt guns and shotguns. I spoke of the lethality of the three I listed. Furthermore, I didn't list any "bolt guns." A Ruger Ranch Rifle is semiautomatic. C) You're wrong. When making claims about which guns to ban and which ones to keep, a working knowledge of firearms is extremely important. Otherwise you just come off as some kind of an idiot who wants to ban things based on looks instead of capabilities. Especially if you want to ban a type of rifle that is neither more lethal, nor more used for crime than another.
    1
  30. +Elite 1984 Now you're simply putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about whether he was allowed to have an opinion about violence. I called him out on his BS statement about "military killing machines you can buy from a gun show stall in America." It's a false statement unless he's talking about current military grade handguns or antique surplus rifles, which are the only kinds of military weapons we can buy. Given the fact that nobody has ever mentioned having a problem with 1911s, Sig Sauers, etc or Mosin Nagants, SKSs, etc, I have to assume that he's one of the masses of uninformed media slaves who thinks guns like the AR15 are military firearms. They're wrong. The military has never and will never issue AR15s to any of their service men or women. Furthermore, civilians do not have access to the M4s, M16s, etc that the military uses.
    1
  31. +Elite 1984 And the fact that you imply that without select fire an AR15 is anything more than a neutered rifle, not fit for anything more than personal defense (since it fires a sub-par round for effectively taking any large game consistently) is just as laughable. It's just a home defense rifle and people are losing their minds over it. My .308, 30-30 and 12 gauge are devastating firearms. My .223 is an afternoon of fun at the range and an effective way to stop a threat without too much over penetration. It's no more effective in a mass shooting scenario than a pistol carbine or even a couple of handguns. That's just a fact. Now, for the last time, I don't give a damn about his political views or his ability to voice them. I never questioned his political views or mentioned them in any way. I called him out on a BS statement because I can't stand people who talk about things they don't understand. To clarify, that would be the guns themselves. Not the violence. Not the politics. The guns. I can't possibly make myself any clearer on this point so if you still don't get it, that's your problem.
    1
  32. +Elite 1984 Are you friggin kidding me? How are you not getting this yet? HIS VIEWS ABOUT THE GUNS THEMSELVES ARE TOXIC! THE FACT THAT SO MANY IDIOTS KEEP IMPLYING THAT THESE CIVILIAN RIFLES ARE SOMEHOW MORE DEADLY THAN OTHER CIVILIAN RIFLES IS TOXIC! THE IDIOCY SURROUNDING THE IDEA THAT GETTING RID OF CERTAIN RIFLES BASED ON COSMETICS WILL SOMEHOW SOLVE ANYTHING IS TOXIC! How is this not obvious to you? You seem otherwise intelligent, yet you keep letting my point go right over your head.
    1
  33. +Elite 1984 Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel justified in your little tirade. There are these really cool things in the English language called inference and implication. You might want to study up on them. Knowing what they are and learning to recognize them is the difference between understanding what someone is saying beyond their written/spoken words and having to take everything at face value. I'm just kidding. I'm quite sure that you know full well what the underlying implications of his statement are and you're just looking for an excuse to give me a hard time. You found a tiny bone to pick and gave it your best shot. In other words, you're no better than I. Way to raise the bar...
    1
  34. +Elite 1984 There's no back pedalling to it. I do know what I said. I do know what I meant. I explained clearly what I meant, repeatedly. You're the one who is still having a hard time understanding. You tried to claim I was attempting to nullify his general opinions by countering a specific absurdity he made about firearms availability in the US. You ignore the fact that I haven't made a single claim against anything else he said. You don't like the fact that your argument makes no sense, so you're (yet again) trying to claim that I meant something other than what I said and meant. I'm sorry if everyone who has knowledge about firearms doesn't fit nicely into your little narrative but that's life, bud. But please, feel free to continue to misinterpret my clearly written statements. It is your right to be as ignorant as you want to be. Some children find it helpful to put their fingers in their ears and sing "LALALALALA" to avoid hearing things they don't like. This obviously won't work for a text based conversation but I suppose you could just close your eyes really tight and stomp your feet. That will sure show me.
    1
  35. +Elite 1984 You could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes by just saying "Nuh uh, that's you!" Using more words doesn't make it a better argument. You're wrong. Deal with it and move on. You're not helping yourself by continuing to argue because you're still arguing against a position I never took. Rather than accepting that and moving on, you feel the need to try to convince me that I meant something that I didn't. This tactic is never going to work. If you're not going to leave it alone, you could at least try to argue against my actual statement. Otherwise you really are just arguing against your own misperceptions. A person's positions and statements don't change just because you want them to. You're not nearly that important. Now, do you have anything to say that doesn't involve you claiming you know my motives better than I do?
    1
  36. +Elite 1984 So....you DON'T have anything to say other than to try to argue against statements I never made. Fine. Every comment I've made is still here. If I said something having to do with something other than his statement about the guns themselves, feel free to point it out. If not, you don't have an argument. It's really that simple. No more vague claims or double speak. Quote me. Post exactly what I said that speaks to anything other than his ignorance of firearms or firearms ignorance at large. Just think, if you can do so then you "win" or whatever.
    1
  37. +Elite 1984 To the first part: How is it so hard for you to realize that I wasn't "trying" to disregard the rest of his statement? I didn't comment on anything else he said because I don't take issue with anything else he said. Is that really so hard for you to wrap your head around? Are you really so polarized that you can't possibly comprehend that there are people in the world who aren't definitively "Left" or "Right" on every, single sentence spoken in this world? To the second part: You're cherry-picking and you know it. Troll harder. Now, if you don't have a point of your own to make, I don't see how this conversation has anywhere to go. The really funny part is that you obviously have way more interest in discrediting me than he does and he's the one I called out. Are you his mother or something? I've got news for you lady; if you don't want your kid getting picked on, you shouldn't let him play on the Internet...or anywhere public.
    1
  38. +Elite 1984 This isn't a disagreement. I made a statement. You completely misunderstood that statement. You've been humping my leg about it ever since. It's really that simple. Make all of the claims in the world and it doesn't change. But please, keep wasting your time trying to prove your point. The sheer number of keystrokes you've wasted at this point makes the whole thing hilarious at this point. Please, type up ten more paragraphs about how my statement about guns wasn't REALLY about guns. Tell me more about my political views because clearly you know me better than anyone on earth, including myself. In fact, I'll bet you could even tell me who I'm voting for in the next election, since you're such an expert on all that is Charles. Come on, let's see your next novel. I'll bet it'll be just as funny as all the rest.
    1
  39. +Elite 1984 Come on, can't you do better than that? You essentially just repeated your previous drivel. Are you getting tired or just out of new ways to say, "You may have said one thing but you really meant something completely different and I'm right because...um....reasons"? Come on, you can do it. Well, probably not, since you don't actually have an argument but it's not like you've let that stop you so far. Tell me more about the things I never said, hero.
    1
  40. +Elite 1984 Except that I said A and openly admit to saying A. You claim I said B and have yet to provide any evidence of me saying B, so you resort to trying to claim that I meant B when I said A. I don't blame you. You're far from the first person to try to change the argument when they don't have any ground to stand on. Nor are you the first to resort to weak insults as a defense mechanism. It's okay, you don't have to keep trying. Everyone reading this knows you've got nothing.
    1
  41. +Elite 1984 Holy cow. You really are simple, aren't you? Okay, one more time. Slowly. - I called him out on his ignorance of GUNS, not gun violence because I disagreed with his statement about GUNS. - FOR THE RECORD (again): I do not take issue with ANY other claim in his comment. How many times have I reiterated this? I AGREE with every other statement in his comment. - His views on GUNS are toxic. I said it because it's true. It's the same garbage that every other unaware person is spewing about these rifles and it is false. It's a fear tactic used to make the general public fear these guns more by making people think they are capable of more than they are. I don't care what the topic of conversation is. When people attempt to perpetuate this misinformation, I'm GOING to call them on it. That's right, you've done absolutely nothing to stop me from doing so. - Your case is closed because you never had one. You came here looking for a fight so you did your best to twist my statement because when you tried to counter my initial and ACTUAL claim, I made quick work of you. You clearly don't like being wrong so you made up an argument about my intent because you can't technically lose an argument where neither side can provide a source link. All you have is your ability to claim I'm lying. That's it. Nothing more. The problem is that your claim that I'm lying is no more valid than my claim that I'm not and since your claim is the accusation, the burden of proof (not opinion, PROOF) lies with you. You didn't pick a winnable fight. You picked a stalemate at best. I would strongly recommend petitioning your school to start a debate team. You desperately need the practice. "Nuh uh, you meant something else" is a terrible argument no matter how many times and different ways you say it.
    1
  42. +Elite 1984 That is exactly the closing argument I expected.
    1
  43. Wait, let me word that properly for you: "The NRA is stopping the Federal Government from taking Rights away from thousands of people who the FBI has never even CHARGED with a crime, let alone got a conviction. Nobody currently on the terrorist watchlist has ever carried out an attack, yet a couple who wasn't on the list did." So, let me see if I can understand. You folks want to ban a specific type of rifle that is responsible for less than 1% of all gun crime in the US. Ban magazines that, again, are used in less than 1% of gun crime. And take Rights away from American citizens without due process, because someone at the FBI decided to put their name on a list. Yeah, that's insane. Please stop with the emotional, knee-jerk reactions. A quick question: Can anyone tell me what the process is for getting put on the watchlist? I'd love to know because the FBI sure is playing that one close to the vest. Do you have to be directly involved with terrorism? Do you have to be friends with someone who is involved with terrorism? Do you have to have spoken to someone who is involved with terrorism? What is the minimum requirement? By the way, if you honestly feel that the 20,000 people on the list are a real threat, WHY AREN'T YOU MAD THAT THE FBI IS ALLOWING 20,000 DANGEROUS PEOPLE TO WALK THE STREETS?! If they're that bad, why do they have access to the public? Why can they buy everything they need to build explosives and also be allowed access to schools, malls etc? You're mad that they have access to guns? If they're really terrorists then I'M mad that they have free access to my children's school!
    1
  44. Here I thought it was a conspiracy theory, not an actual conspiracy. His wording makes it sound like the conspiracy theorists are right (I know that's not what he actually meant).
    1
  45. When has a minimum wage increase ever occurred without an increase in the cost of living? Why do people deserve more money than the amount they agreed to work for without doing more work than they agreed to do? What are minimum wage employees willing to do for their extra income? Is there a compromise to be reached or is it just "We want more money so give it to us!"? I see a whole lot of reasons why people want more money for doing the same amount of work they were doing yesterday but I don't see anyone explaining why employers should feel obligated to pay them more. Does it suck at the bottom? Of course. It's the bottom. The idea is to do your best to climb up from the bottom. Not to ask everyone else to give you carpet and air conditioning. Anyone clamoring for a higher minimum wage rather than more mid-tier jobs is doing it wrong. If you want more money, do something that's worth more. If you are genuinely trying to do so and there are no GOOD jobs available, THAT'S what you write to your representatives about. If the masses would stand up and say "We want to do better and be better and we can't do that until there are offices to fill and desks to sit behind!" it would come across a lot less lazy and "take care of poor us" than the current mantra of "Gimme gimme gimme! We still work at jobs that are supposed to be for high school students and retirees but we want to support a family without putting out any extra work or learning a new trade!" If you're really trying to settle for making a living wage at a McJob, I feel sorry for you. Somewhere along the line you gave up on yourself.
    1
  46. That's because we've become a Country whose primary focus is social issues. Actual political issues are boring and don't make for fun Twitter fights. We're rapidly becoming a nation of overgrown teenagers. Why concern ourselves with what a candidate's policies are when we can talk about how they make us feel?
    1
  47. Of course it's racism. I mean, how deplorable - to claim that white people are only useful as backpacks?! That's not just racist, it's sexist because it's a woman! Plus, she's a lesbian so BONUS OPPRESSION! Wait, what? It was a joke about a small, slow person riding on the back of a tall, fast person for the sake of getting around faster? Nevermind. Nothing to see here.
    1
  48. +Wander With Purpose My argument? Seriously? I thought I lobbed that one low enough that it wouldn't go over anyone's head. Apparently I was wrong.
    1
  49. +PS Wright Always happy to share.
    1
  50. If someone is elected to the office of POTUS, takes their oath to uphold the Constitution and has already made public statements that run counter to the Constitution....shouldn't they then be charged with perjury? At absolute least, shouldn't you be disqualified from being able to run for office if you have stated publicly that you are not going to uphold the Constitution? In case you're wondering, this applies to both major party candidates. I think it's time to disqualify them both and make this an election for the candidates who actually support the US and its way of life.
    1