Youtube comments of Craxin01 (@Craxin01).
-
5800
-
2400
-
604
-
569
-
334
-
317
-
221
-
207
-
190
-
187
-
165
-
161
-
161
-
149
-
146
-
145
-
143
-
141
-
127
-
125
-
111
-
102
-
101
-
96
-
95
-
93
-
90
-
88
-
85
-
85
-
71
-
69
-
68
-
60
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
42
-
@KaiStarkk The electoral college was put in place to benefit slave holding states. Since representation is based on population and, at the time, slaves were 3/5ths of person, they could breed slaves (felt sick typing that) until they had greater representation and thus, more power. It was one of those absolutely ridiculous compromises our nation was founded on that make it such a hellscape today. When it comes to national leadership, one person one vote is the only equitable way to deal with things. If it were only one person one vote for national politics, the national politicians, that is president and vice president, would have to campaign everywhere, not just 8 or 9 swing states. Maybe that'd benefit the bigger states a little, but the system now benefits states that have little population, like Wyoming. One Wyoming vote is worth 3.7 California votes. Why should it take 4 Californians to equal one Wyomingites?
40
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
@camerongunn7906 Actually, there are successful conservation works in Africa too. No one is really going to just conserve to conserve, you can't eat good will. But, you find a way to make it profitable, and put the proceeds to paying people, then it works a treat. Alligator farming is only one model. Some African preserves are allowing hunters to pay to hunt there and the staff leads the hunter to a problem animal (overly aggressive, sick, lame, etc.) and use the proceeds to pay staff, maintain the animals, keep out poachers. It works pretty damned well.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@dkaob8351 I always hated the idea of IQ anyway. There are so many components to human intelligence. One might be brilliant at math but lacking in other areas. One could have a high degree of emotional awareness of others but not know how to engineer something simple. You're going to tell me one number can encapsulate all pieces of human intelligence?
I'd suggest the founder of Kinkos might not have had the typical forms of intelligence sought by college administrators such as math, science, history, business and the like, but he certainly showed a high degree of acumen in basic problem solving, finding good fits for niches, probably also empathy. He might not have been strong in a college environment, but he clearly was smarter than many who graduate from college. I've actually found a LOT of college educated people tend to suffer a lack of critical thinking skills, basic empathy, problem solving skills, discerning fact from opinion. Hell, the more educated a person is, the more I find they believe, genuinely and truly believe, that they know way more than they really do. I have an uncle like that, great as a dentist, but every other subject he gives advice on, I find the opposite much better. While college is useful for some things, medicine for example, most of the rest is just fluff and glorified vocational training.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
If there is a God out there, then he allowed the creation of medicine, or he directly inspired the doctors to invent medicine. Either way, God would be FINE with us using modern medicine to treat illness and injury. It reminds me of an old joke about the believer who lashed himself to a post at low tide, and proclaimed that God would save him. Three times, as the water rose higher and higher, different people tried to free him with the believer protesting, claiming God was going to save him. He drowns and his spirit goes before God. He asks God why he didn't intervene, and God said, "I sent three men to save you, what more did you want." This kind of belief is abhorrent and should be grounds for prosecution for the parents and removal of their children.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jamiemcgill67 It's rather obvious you can't sell something for exactly what it cost you to make it. Any business has overhead, employees, utilities. The difference is wanting eternal ever growing profits. If you're a business and you make a billion dollars this year and a billion and a half dollars next year, universally, that's going to be considered good. If you make a billion this year and a billion next, that's considered stagnation when I would argue that's stability. Make a billion this year and 900 million the next, shock horror, now you're LOSING money when, in fact, you still made money, just not as much. Greed is the unfulfillable thirst for ever more wealth. There are only so many resources in this world, and allowing so much of it to be controlled by so few people is greed. In old fairy tales, dragons hoarded wealth, destroying the lives and livelihoods of everyone around until a hero came to slay the dragon. Why do you think the French people revolted in their Revolution? Greed, taking far more than you need and hurting everyone around you. But, I kind of figured your question was disingenuous, I'm expecting some pity conservative nonsense in return.
5
-
@jamiemcgill67 Most of the responses I get are conservatives defending the indefensible, so I prejudged the comment. That was my fault. If I had to go with a rule of thumb for how much is too much, anything that causes instability is too much. The typical conservative defense of aggressive profit seeking is, "why do you want to punish success?" I don't, I want to punish greed, the hoarding of wealth, taking from people who have little if anything, selfishness, destroying everything around you. They don't pay their workers even though they're the reason they're making money in the first place. They take money from the government in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. It's a system built on eternal growth, and that is inherently fatal on a world with finite resources. If we rewarded and prioritized stability, regulate things in a social democracy, we'd be far better off.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm on the near left myself, and I don't like a lot of the SJW culture myself. A lot of bad ideas being mixed in with the good. But the only think I can't stand more than an SJW is a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth anti-SJW. They SPRINT to the right because they don't want to be associated with radical feminists, Antifa, BLM, or other "libtards." I don't much like them either, but I like them more than a laissez faire, holy rolling, ultra-corporatist, anti-government, authoritarian right-wing asshole.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I've been wondering of late when an unrepentant bigot becomes an unrepentant bigot. For all the best intentions, we can end up creating the monsters we end up fighting. I think of people trying to train their dog and inadvertently training bad behavior. The dog barks at night waking its owner. The owner gets up, maybe yells at the dog, maybe throws it a treat. The dog isn't barking so the owner assumes the bad behavior is corrected. Only, the dog was looking for attention, and negative attention is attention. Yelling at the dog gave it what it wanted. The treats reinforce that barking means getting treats. Now the owner has a dog that just will not stop barking in the middle of the night and assumes the dog is poorly behaved when the owner created the behavior. Not the initial behavior to be sure, but it's still going to take a lot of training to reverse the inadvertent training that has caused the dog to behave badly now.
J.K. Rowling I am fully comfortable calling an unrepentant bigot. When did she become that? Was it the first instance of barking at night, or was it the subsequent reinforcing of the barking? What does she really want? Attention. What is shaming her doing? Giving her attention. If we starve her of attention, good or bad, she won't have any real power. Shame rarely stops bigots from being bigots. Shaming people playing a game will, at best, make them feel bad and maybe think of abstaining in the future, but at worst, makes new allies for the opposition. IE, creating the monster we are fighting. I don't know what the right answer is, but I think the risk outweighs the good.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Half of the country didn't vote for Trump, hell, half the VOTING population didn't vote for Trump. He's got MAYBE a third of the country, and, yeah, they've been fooled. I have a republican friend who works for a patent attorney, he's not a government worker, but the majority of the patents he has to research are from the US government. He's not out of work, but he's working less and less as this goes on, and, yeah, he's feeling the pinch now. I think, eventually, the majority of people who STILL support Trump are going to feel betrayed by him sooner or later, and it'll bite him in the ass hard enough to draw blood.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Too many people think every situation is somehow completely unique. How many times have people been fed up with the current party, the two-party system, and just decide to vote third party because, "this time, it'll be different"? Every time a third-party candidate gets on the ballot, it just guarantees one of the two major party candidates wins. This time will be no different. Since it's who gets the most electoral college votes, not who wins at least 51% of the vote, all third-party candidates can ever do is take enough votes away from a candidate to spoil what would have otherwise been victory. Jill Stein is going to go down with the likes of Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Ross Perot, loud idiots who care more about attention than actually fixing anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kevley26 Corn. You can grind it up into masa, deep fry it, and add MSG to it to make Doritos with a lot of calories and low satiation (most snack foods are DESIGNED not to be satiating so you eat more), or you can sell someone the corn and let them make a handful or tortillas, cornbread, or grits out of which aren't laden with so much added fat, salt, and sugar and which satiates far better. Don't pretend food manufacturers are doing you a favor or trying to keep you healthy, they want as much money as they can for as little expenditure as they can, and if they give the whole world diabetes in the process, they don't care. Greed destroys everything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The second amendment was written at a time when a well trained man that's an excellent shot could MAYBE kill two people a minute. Now we can kill a dozen in a second or two. Also, the provision was to promote people to form militias in order to protect the union from external threats in a time when our founding fathers didn't want a standing military. A standing military, soaking up tax revenue, needs to justify its existence, so every problem looks like a military problem. They wanted US to be, not a military, but a ready force in case of invasion. They were noninterventionists. We HAVE a standing military, so the need of militias is moot. And don't tell me it's to "keep the government in line." If the government decides to radically take over, your little collection of pistols and rifles and meager stockpile of ammo isn't going to hold up against the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Yeah, collect thousands of men and arm them well... Bombs take care of that shit REAL quick, and they have Nintendo pilots in air conditioned rooms flying drones with high explosive missiles. You ain't resisting shit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aolson1111 Didn’t stop to think consumer protection and corporate protection can have the same key pieces? Ever look into what started the FDA and the USDA? It was cheap practices that adulterated foods to make them more immediately profitable but also tended to make workers unsafe and consumers sick. Now, I’m no cheerleader for big business, we’d all be much better with many more small businesses instead of fewer big businesses. Even so, most modern regulations started when we had more smaller businesses than giant nation-spanning food producers. I’m looking at things from a broader historical perspective than a narrow modern one. The issue today is one of corruption, which is our fault for electing such easily corrupted leadership and not holding them to account coupled with narrow perspectives and low information. Yes, corporations have garnered a lot of power, so we need to show them we hold the real power. Get and stay informed, hold to your values, vote with your wallet to hold corporations accountable, and stay involved in the process. We can return the system to what worked, making regulations more about consumer protection than corporate profits.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think the word you were looking for is "mainstreaming." I don't agree with the White Nationalists. They're going off demographics and census statistics, which are misleading as hell. They're going off of super PC culture and JWs, which I am afraid of too. There's a disturbing trend of racism toward whites and misandry (hatred of men) on the left that is driving people into the arms of Trump and the White Nationalists. SJWs calling for white people to be silenced in public spaces in favor of hearing, what is most likely the same ideas, black and other minority groups first. Feminists calling for men to be displaced from their jobs in order to stack demographics artificially in high-prestige jobs to be "more equal." If you're a white man in the US today, you're probably terrified of the left anymore. I'm sick of gender studies and African American studies in publicly funded universities being allowed to teach people that white men are evil and that hating them is totally justified. I never hate groups, save for some obvious exceptions (Nazis, terrorists, etc.), I hate individuals and their actions. White people in the past did some nasty things, but equally, white people more recently did some good and decent things to remove those corrupted systems. Men may have done bad things in the past, but men aren't a monolithic group that shares a hive mind. Blame the individual for their individual actions. If these SJW groups go away, or stop attacking entire demographics of people because "reasons," Trump and the White Nationalists will lose a lot of their support and momentum.
2
-
Some modern art is interesting or provocative, even beautiful. But, a great deal of it is boring, stupid, or just garbage. Andy Warhol, some would call him an artistic genius, I think he was a damned fraud. He was just crazy, and the fact that people bought into his insanity was also crazy. Hell, he even called his studio The Factory. As though he were manufacturing art as a mass-produced product. I took art classes, and it takes time, effort, and focus to make a painting or a sculpture. Even Jackson Pollack considered each drop of paint before he put his work out. But glasses on the floor, and the double whammy of people thinking it's art then the man who put them there believing the bullshit, I call it modern fart.
2
-
2
-
The entire reason we're putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is because people are demanding we have a woman on the bill. Not because they want someone who wasn't either a president or founding father, not because they think Andrew Jackson committed atrocities (most people who were arguing for a change didn't know about Jackson's atrocities), it's because our currency is a sausage fest. They want a woman on a bill because vagina. Now, I'm actually not opposed to having her on a bill. But I'm not under illusion that it's for anything but sexist reasons. Once they get one woman on, there are still 5 bills with males on them. They'll soon ask for two more women. They'll come up with a lot of horse-shit reasons why one male needs to go (probably Grant next, then Hamilton), suggest some women with a very tangential link to American history, and then that'll be it, right? Fuck no, the SJWs who are pushing this aren't going to be happy unless all the bills and coins are female. I wouldn't have made the change, because I don't fucking pander to idiots. Who really looks at the bills and understands who these men are? Maybe Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin. Most people can't say anything about Jackson, Hamilton, or Grant. I think if we need anything it's to honor two of the men on the bills (Washington and Franklin), but taking all people off the bills. These men didn't want people on the bills because they felt that was what European empires did, and that wasn't was America was going to be. A nation of laws and not of men. So, lets go with something we can all appreciate, landmarks or historical settings on our bills.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
These ultra-feminists and their bizarre ideas of human nature. Men aren't taught to be excited by breasts. It's a prominent secondary sex characteristic. Of course, feminists don't subscribe to the idea of biological development or sexual dimorphism. Biology develops the way it does in human beings because of evolution, making males and females different. Men are naturally stronger physically than women. That's just a fact. Neurologically speaking, women and men are just different. Men have a less dense and narrower Corpus Callosum, the bridge between left and right hemispheres of the brain, than women do. Men tend to be more linear thinkers than women. Women tend to be more abstract thinkers. Men tend to be better at problem solving, women tend to be better at multitasking.
Feminists never stop and think, "why are human mammaries so prominent, while most mammalian species' aren't?" Any other mammalian species with swollen mammaries are likely pregnant and\or nursing. Human breasts are large giving the appearance of being swollen with milk, providing a visual cue that the female is sexually productive. It invites sexual interest. So, these men are only reacting naturally, and these feminists are the ones missing the point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is a religious joke, I'm not a religious person, but this gives good religious argument against faith healing.
A man claims his faith in God is so absolute, that he'll be saved no matter what. So, he lashes himself to a post in the ocean at low tide, waiting for God to save him before high tide drowns him. When the water is up to his waist, a man in a speedboat sees him and offers to help. "No, God will save me." So the man leaves him there. When the water is up to his chest, a man in a fishing boat offers to help. "No, God will save me," So the fisherman sails off. When the water is up to his chin, and he's struggling to keep his mouth above water, a man in a row-boat comes to help. "No, God will save me." The man drowns and is standing in front of God in Heaven. "Why didn't you save me?" God shakes his head in sorrow. "I sent three people to help you. Why didn't you accept?"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I remember when a show like The Walking Dead or Breaking Bad would never be allowed on TV, partially because of FCC regulations but also because of advertisers not wanting to be associated with that sort of content. Whenever they would show a horror film or a film with sexual themes, they'd be censored out the wazoo. Now, advertisers are flocking TO these kinds of shows, because they are popular. This will be painful for a bit, but it'll be MORE painful to YouTube, once the popular channels stop making content and YouTube starts losing money, then they'll be forced to reverse course. It's all an excuse to appease the vocal SJW crowd. But, sometimes silence is more effective than shouting. They shout and curse people like us, we quietly take our business elsewhere, YouTube loses money, we win out in the end.
2
-
2
-
I think BLM has some good points to make, some good ideas to adopt... However, it's becoming more and more militant. It doesn't take a "card carrying member" of a movement to spark violence. There have been BLM protests with chants like "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon," and, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now." Even if MOST of the BLM protestors are peaceful, their rhetoric is extreme and often violent, and all it takes is one easily persuaded fool to take up arms because all he or she hears is the echo chamber. They had a British citizen in the US try to kill Donald Trump because of the SJW echo chamber, and this Dallas shooter was similar. Now, maybe he had other influences, but the violent rhetoric needs to end NOW. I kept hearing the shooting in Baton Rouge as "cold blooded" and that the police "have the right to kill with impunity." Both statements are patently untrue. It gets people angry and riled up. All it takes is one lit match and this pool of gasoline will go up FAST. Be angry, of course you should. But be reasonable and rational, and a LOT more can get done with FAR less bloodshed. This Dallas shooting has tightened resolve on both sides, and no one will win now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kyle, I like you, but you're trying to walk the fence a bit here. Specifically about the term regressive being "smeary." No, it's descriptive. The Liberal position is supposed to be about societal freedom and personal responsibility. We're supposed to have freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which the regressive left are desperately trying to do away with. You're not allowed to speak ill if Islam, or you're "Islamophobic." That's regressive, attempting to move backward to a time when speech was controlled by the government. "Hate Speech" is an authoritarian and regressive idea.Now, you're point about being tolerant of intolerance is absolutely true. You can be tolerant of a religion but not its practices. Islam is anti-woman through and through. But, unlike what you kept doing in this segment, I won't apologize to Muslims for that statement, because I'm not criticizing a people, I'm criticizing an ideology, and ideologies don't have rights and MUST be open to scrutiny and ridicule. It's no wonder the PC culture and the SJW crowd are so enamored with Islam, it has the same regressive attitudes that Islam does.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If we're talking about investing is poorer communities as reparations, that's good. It'll effect more black communities than white, but the white communities won't be left out, there'll be significantly less pushback. If we're talking about the US government cutting every black person a check, that's a VERY bad idea. One, it's genuinely racist, favoring one group over another only based on skin color. Two, it's an attempt to punish white people today for crimes they had no part in. I can honestly say that there were slave owners in my ancestry. However, that ended over 150 years ago. My grandmother's grandfather was born AFTER the repeal of slavery. This isn't about settling a debt, this is about asking someone to pay for the crimes of another, and that's extremely immoral. I'd almost be willing to serve these reparations if it meant that forevermore the black community would be forbidden from playing the race card, drudging up slavery, demanding special treatment, or complaining about their current lot in life. But we all know that just wouldn't be the case. We'd have given the mouse a cookie, and they would begin demanding a glass of milk. Furthermore, this isn't all black people demanding reparations, it's primarily the poor blacks demanding this. The well off middle class and wealthy don't care about this. They got their slice of the pie, so they aren't envying everyone else's.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's a good thing that the government sets standards for food. Take the chocolate example. What if a company found a way to make something that tastes like chocolate with no cocoa solids or cocoa butter and then sold it to you as chocolate? If it takes good, most people wouldn't care. If, like most artificially flavored products, it tastes like garbage, people would feel ripped off. So, the government sets standards, fall outside those minimal standards, and for transparency's sake, you now have to call your product chocolate flavored. These rules aren't to tell us what to call things, it's to tell corporations not to cheat people with fake nonsense dressed up as something authentic. So, yeah, you and I call Dairy Queen soft-serve ice cream, but Dairy Queen cannot, and it's a good thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Purity tests hurt everyone. They hurt people who are "impure," they hurt people who aren't "pure enough," and, assuming such exist, they hurt the "pure." What good is it to win a single victory, then lose not only the war, but your entire society? Personally, I'd take the money, work my ass off to get into office, then work my ass of to repeal the kinds of financing of candidates that incentivizes this wholesale corruption. I might only serve one term as my donors would abandon me and pay for attack ads, but hopefully I'd inspire people to vote for more like me. This is a war of attrition, and we have to survive the little attacks to fight the big ones.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The environmental impact of ranching is not all the clear cut. For one thing, the majority of farmland in the U.S. is not capable of being used to grow crops. Wrong terrain and bad soil, for example. Most of that land is grassland and WE can't eat grass, but the cows can and convert the nutrition of the grass into nutrition we can consume in the form of meat or dairy. The water they consume isn't generally pumped out of aquifers or being taken away from people but falls from the sky in the form of rain which waters the grass they consume. The methane content they produce, mostly through manure, is hard to say to be more than preindustrial levels, since the majority of that land was taken up by wild ruminants. There IS an impact, but we can't really say how much it is, or that wild hunting is more environmentally ethical. The only reason we can, at this point, say that hunting is more environmentally ethical is because there are so few people doing so. If we tried to produce the same level of meat through hunting as we do ranching, we'd quickly be able to say it is not only environmentally unethical but also unsustainable. We have a way to go to creating environmentally sustainable ranching, but we'll get there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Elijah KalganI'm on the left here, but I am pro death penalty. Why? Because there is no rehabilitating Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh. Putting them in a cell for the rest of their lives makes US feel better, because we aren't being killers. But, when you drill right down to it, keeping them alive does no one any good. Put them down, quickly, mercifully, the way you would a rabid dog. Two shots, back of the head, they're dead, and little to no suffering. There are just evil people in the world and the most merciful and humane thing to do is kill them off. Same thing with the Cartels. There's no negotiating with them, no rehabilitating them. Putting them in a cell, unless it's under the Earth and cut off totally from the outside entirely, they'll communicate with their cartel lieutenants and keep the murder going. No, you take them out, you kill them as quickly as possible, and you bury them in a nondescript hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere. The only thing evil understands is death, so give it to them in 45mm doses. The more bleeding heart types my cry and wring their hands, but their children will be safe, and that's what we all deserve.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think the majority of the issue here is we have two sides with all-or-nothing approaches. One side wants to control everything, and the other want no government control over ANYTHING. Can't we have a happy medium where some things are left to choice and some are controlled for public safety? Have an argument, present facts and evidence, come to a reasonable conclusion and proceed accordingly. A car works with one foot on the gas, one on the brake, and both controlled together. We have the left on the gas, the right on the brake, and both refuse to let up ever. All we're doing is spinning our wheels. And, yes, I know the gas is controlled by the right foot and the break the left IRL, it's an analogy.
2
-
Respectfully, I disagree. Republicans have a tendency when in power, and especially when not, of thumbing their nose at the rules, obstructing the proper function of government, and playing by different sets of rules than anyone else. If Biden does expand the court, Republicans will have a new arrow in their corruption quiver. They'll do everything to obstruct government, blame Biden for the gridlock, and the next time they have enough power to do so, they'll run roughshod over everything. Should the get the power, not only will they pack the courts worse than before, they'll make it illegal to balance the court out. The court doesn't need expanding, it needs unmooring from partisan politicking and oversight to prevent wholly unbalanced decisions that only make the system worse, and we aren't going to get that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stevemcdonald6001 Well, the major problem we had with the whole Watergate thing is, though he resigned in disgrace, he never really suffered any real consequences. He should have been removed, he should have been charged with at least one crime, and the people of this nation would have realized that responsibility is what rules this nation. What happened? He resigned, his second vice president, an appointed one that the people never chose, took over, and he pardoned Nixon. His idea was that a pardon has guilt implicit within it, but what it did was erode political responsibility to a horrible degree and open the door for Regan, then the Bush's, and to a lesser degree Clinton. We desperately need responsibility reinforced and pushed forward. It was meant to be the bedrock foundation of our nation's political establishment, but it's been eroded and replaced with greed and self-service. Trump is a symptom of just how rotten our political system has become, and how that has so polarized our nation. I like to think (though I cannot prove) that 50 or 60 years ago, a man like Trump couldn't get within a thousand miles of winning the Whitehouse. But, when your opponent was very corrupt too, this was almost inevitable. Unfortunately, I think it'll just get worse as time goes on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem with cancel culture, or whatever you want to call it today, is the rush to judgement. The taking of an accusation as gospel truth and deciding to ruin someone's life because of it. Famous example, Johnny Depp being accused of being a wife-beater. The rush was to remove him from the Pirates of the Caribbean movie franchise (successfully) and the Fantastic Beasts movie series (unsuccessfully) all because of an accusation. Nothing was proven, no investigation was completed, no trial in progress. After some investigation had been done, after the call to cancel, THEN it was shown he wasn't the abuser at all, Amber Heard was abusing him and claiming to be abused to get him attacked. One of her attacks on him nearly severed a finger.
Is cancel culture a problem? Absolutely, especially when it comes to forgetting to do the hard work of figuring out what the truth is first. I wouldn't be against it for people who can be proven to be bad actors. Your Jared Fogles, your Harvey Weinsteins, your Bill Cosbys, people who went through a proper investigation and shown to be bad actors. But when it's the rumor mill and #metoo activism being used to hurt someone without evidence, it's bad and needs to be both called out and stopped. Cancel cancel culture.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The founding fathers had some good ideas, some ideas worth preserving in perpetuity, some ideas that will stand the test of time, but they were still human. For crying out loud, they decided to make this country without settling the slavery issue. Does that seem particularly wise to anyone? Have a painful, raw, unsettled argument baked into your foundational document? People have massive fervor over our constitution, like it's some holy writ, and yet, haven't read the fucking thing! No women voters, no slave voters, most white people couldn't even vote because you had to own land to qualify. We didn't directly pick the president NOR senators, and we STILL don't directly pick the president. Then we have the religious zealots who proclaim love for the constitution, then wipe their ass with the 1st amendment's provision to separate church and state. It's the skeleton of a good document that can be built on, but it's not perfect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nuclear energy, properly maintained, is very clean. We need to be using more, especially over dirty coal (no such thing as clean coal) and non-renewable fossil fuels. While natural gas burns clean, the gas itself is horribly polluting if\when it gets out into the environment and is more of a greenhouse gas than even carbon dioxide. Bioreactors using non-fossil gas (decomposing materials) is clean and gets both the gas and organic compost (great fertilizer). Solar is fine, but it's not going to replace other energy production methods until it get more efficient and\or we develop high end storage of energy. Hydroelectric trades clean waterflow for electricity by damming it up, which causes its own environmental disasters. Geothermal is VERY location specific. As for nuclear being a "stopgap," that's foolishness. It's clean, efficient, and easy to produce for very long term. Until we can either produce higher efficiency solar (75% or above) or develop cold fusion, we're better off using renewables as a stopgap and using more nuclear.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I love this trend of primarily Evangelical Christians complaining about Santa Claus. One, Santa Claus is a fictionalized character based on a canonized Christian saint, Saint Nicholas. Two, they're angry Santa is taking attention away from Jesus, even though the holiday was never about the birth of Christ until long after the Christians coopted it. Finally, and most telling, they're worried telling their children about Santa, someone who doesn't exist, might make them question if Jesus exists, which there is precious little evidence he ever did. That isn't a religious attitude, it's a cultish one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The news acts like their job is to get a guy who says it's raining and a guy who says it's sunny, and let you decide what's true or not. No, their job is to find out what the weather is and report that. They're too interested in facts and not enough about truth. In the above example, it's true one guy says it's raining and another says it's sunny, but the truth is what the weather actually is, which might be one, might be the other, might be both, and might be neither. And I get it, they might get it wrong, which is why it's so important to be a thorough investigator, correct the record when necessary, and not give someone, anyone, an unchecked platform to say whatever they want.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's always counterproductive to tease or call out people after they've been fooled. Once they've figured out they've been fooled, they feel humiliated, they feel stupid, and pointing that out makes them angry. Being empathetic, because we've all been fooled from time to time, and not blaming them for being fooled leaves people more trusting of you and, by extension, your group. That's what we need, a coalition of people who won't vote for Trump or his agenda, even if many of them are conservative. The enemy of my enemy, at least for now, is my friend.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Talking about women's brains being less capable of math, one would first need to determine IF women on average have less mathematical capacity than men. Should that be the case, then one would need to examine the possible reasons why. Off the top of my head, neurology, culture, teaching styles, subject preference, psychology, and operant conditioning all could influence any person's individual capacities for math skills. That's 7 separate variables that need to be examined, tested, and potentially eliminated all before any conclusion could be reached or policies prescribed. Minor tweaks to any of these variables could vastly alter the potential outcomes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unless or until we develop polymers or ceramics that are capable of a certain amount of homeostasis within the human body, cybernetic implants with an eye toward elective electronics is wholly laughable. They can't even implant a pacemaker that won't wear out over time. As to a universally healthy human diet, you are WAY off. Human breeds, aka Ethnicity, are extremely varied and often specialized, especially concerning diet. Evolution favors adaptations to environment, including what plants and animals individuals have access to. You take an American Indian from the plains region and compare his\her diet to an Asian from the middle of China, their diets were VASTLY different. A nomadic culture over countless generations never developed agriculture, never could build large stockpiles of starchy foods for energy, adapted to burn animal fats for energy far more than starch. A high rice diet for someone like this would NOT be good for them. There can be no universal diet until humanity intermixes to a level that obliterates ethnicity altogether. That's going to take millions of years, not fifty. Hell, just saying a European diet is laughable considering how varied European climates and food availabilities are. Same with any continent. You talk about tailored medicine? Hopefully, in fifty years, we'll have tailored diets.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm going to take a nuanced position here. Life, as the conservatives say, begins at conception. HOWEVER, it's not a PERSON until it's capable of living outside the womb. They're conflating life and personhood. Bacteria is alive, but it's not a person. <Insert lifeform here> is alive, but not a person. For one thing, not all fertilized eggs make it to personhood. Most of them get rinsed out of the woman's body during menstruation. Some number will implant and begin the process but not make it to the end. Some will make it to the end of the process but not survive outside the womb. Any point along the cycle up to viability, as was the law, is acceptable to interrupt or end that process. If conservatives want abortion to become more rare, they need to embrace contraception, but they don't. They are totally in the wrong here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@leannageyer943 Technically speaking, churches aren't allowed to use their pulpit for politics and doing so would lose them tax exempt status. I'm all for megachurches and televangelists paying taxes like any corporation. However, even though I'm an atheist, I'd be against taxing small churches. Most churches in the U.S. aren't mega churches, don't take in millions of dollars, and take that money from their congregation mostly to keep the church running and to run various charities. In short, Joel Osteen, tax him until it hurts, small neighborhood church, as long as they keep out of politics, leave them alone.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We have to be careful in labeling a pet exotic. I've had small lizards, tarantulas, a scorpion, a garden snake, a tree frog (local species, not endangered), several turtles, and a crow (wounded and rescued by me, nursed back to health but could be released) as pets. Most people would consider these exotic as they aren't a cat, dog, or fish. Perhaps a better adjective to use would be dangerous. Something potentially lethal if escaped, or something invasive like Pythons currently causing havoc in Florida. Exotic doesn't necessarily mean dangerous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Don't vote ideology in November, vote reality. You're never going to get a total progressive ticket that will win in big enough numbers to get all of what you want. Best you can hope for is to vote in the least objectionable alternative. Who would you rather want, a born again, money grubbing, vote suppressing, authoritarian republican, or a corporate sniffing democrat that still wants to uphold civil liberties, human rights, and is willing to compromise on health care, especially after this pandemic? You Bernie or Bust people forget the second half of that statemen, or bust, means collapse. Who do you think is going survive a collapse, you, or the gun toting conservatives?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
99% of people aren't right or left on all issues. Some they're on the left, some they're on the right. I'm a man who thinks we need some sort of universal health care, a more progressive tax structure, mobilization on green initiatives and renewable energy, a general disincentive toward greed and selfishness. I'm pro gay marriage and gay adoption. I'm not pro abortion, but I am pro choice (that would be the middle stance on abortion). I think we need stricter gun laws, requiring licensing the way one would to drive a car. I'm strongly in favor of prison reform, and the structural removal of for-profit prisons entirely. I'm pro death penalty, a cardinal sin for anyone on the left, but also think we need a stronger standard for applying it, and forget lethal injection, there is no "gentle" way to execute someone, and a firing squad is far more humane as it's far faster. I could probably list all my positions on give subjects and let someone figure out where I land on the spectrum, it doesn't matter. What matters is what I fight for, what I'm willing to vote for, how far I'm willing to go to see what I want enacted. I'm also a pragmatist, because we don't live in a nation where one side can really ever control things. The left isn't correct about everything, neither is the right. Both sides need the other to function lest we devolve into some authoritarian system where one idea becomes heresy and punishable by the majority. Remember, while we here typically don't like the right's positions on a majority of issues, we still have to live with these people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It used to be you didn't fly unless you were in a suit and tie or a fancy dress. People were polite, they had actual food on the plane, it was an experience. Yeah, there was smoking, but that stopped after a while. Now? People are dressed in sloppy clothes you should only wear at home, they're cranky and irritated, and there's more booze than food on the plane. If it wasn't for in-flight distractions, I'm sure there would be fist-fights on every other flight. We're getting less civil as a people, more belligerent\hostile, and less tolerant. Throw firearms into the mix and we've got the recipe for mayhem, maybe even mass murder.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I was raised to refer to people by their proper titles. If they have no degrees or positions in government, it's Mister, miss, or missus. When they have a doctorate and no higher position like senator or governor, it's doctor, regardless of what the doctorate is in. You also don't refer to a person by their given name unless invited to do so. Now, I'm not personally offended when someone I don't know calls me by my given name, but I hold myself to a standard of politeness. So, I would call this woman doctor, not Dr. Gina, because her name is Dr. Gina Loudon, so I'd call her Dr. Loudon, regardless of how I feel about how foolish and nonsense her doctorate may be.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@macrumpton No socialist nation has ever functioned as you say. It's the same have and have-not structure, but instead of large corporate heads as the haves, it's the government. Look at the Soviet Union, China, Cuba. They weren't looking out for the people, they were looking out for the party. Capitalism isn't perfect, and it's flaws can mutate into Corporatistic greed, but it's a far sight better than Marxist ideals. And, yeah, regulations are commands by the government, but enforced with fines and lawsuits not arrests and gulags like in every communist nation Earth has ever seen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
IQ is SUCH a bogus concept to begin with. There are several types of intelligence. Emotional (empathy), mathematical, problem solving, comprehension, memorization, incorporating new information, just to name a few. One number isn't going to tell you anything about which types of intelligence a person is high in. And no one is high in all. Someone might have very high mathematical and problem solving intelligence, but very low emotional and memorization. As for geniuses, they're all, practically speaking, left-handed monkey wrenches, as in, very capable in one task and borderline useless in others. People who are supremely wealthy, while not unintelligent, aren't geniuses, they're unscrupulous and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate wealth, often to the detriment of society.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We have to be careful in labeling a pet exotic. I've had small lizards, tarantulas, a scorpion, a garden snake, a tree frog (local species, not endangered), several turtles, and a crow as pets. Most people would consider these exotic as they aren't a cat, dog, or fish. If the caller meant dangerous\endangered animals being owned by a non-trained person in a suburban or urban setting and without proper safety in place, than yes, obviously, this should be banned. Also consider invasive species like pythons, which are damaging Florida currently.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Christian apologists LOVE bringing up odds. Like, "what are the odds that all these events would come together to create X?" Usually X is some point of evolution, but in this case, it's him meeting the president. Well, considering you're talking about it in the past tense, the odds are 1:1. If you asked him this 30 years ago, the odds a lunatic would become president, this guy would have quit crack cocaine, built a successful pillow company, and then get to meet this lunatic president during a pandemic, those would be astronomical odds. Even if it were billions to one, that wouldn't require divine intervention.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's an apples to oranges comparison. Not defending the criminal justice system or their treatment of non-violent drug offenders at all. Hinckley was quite literally insane. Not responsible because of a mental disease or defect. He didn't really appreciate the consequences of his actions. So, instead of prison, he went to a hospital for the insane until they deemed him to no longer be a threat. They're now, after decades in prison, deeming him no longer a threat.People in jail for non-violent drug charges aren't insane. They made choices knowing full well what the potential consequences would be. If Hinckley was just a deranged sociopath with a chip on his shoulders over Regan and just decided to pull a Lee Harvey Oswald on him, he'd have been executed for his crime or locked away for life. Oh, and by the way, that argument about "selling drugs because they don't have any other way" is total shit. There are TONS of ways out of poverty that don't involve breaking a law. Now, I don't care about weed being sold, it's not going to kill people. That said, it's STILL illegal, and if I decided to sell it, and then got caught, I'd have no one to blame but myself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People tend to over-read the "Cruel and Unusual" statute in that amendment. Isn't it cruel to put a person in a prison, to lock them behind a wall somewhere and confine them to a tiny cell? The idea behind "Cruel and Unusual" is to use intentional torture and bizarre punishments. No sentencing a rapist to have his genitals torn off by a rabid dog. No sentencing a thief to have their hands amputated. No sentencing a peeping tom to have his eyes gouged out. Those would be unnecessarily cruel and unusual. But, also, no sentencing people to unusual forms of punishment. Don't sentence a man to dress lingerie and parade down main street blowing kisses to the crowd. Don't punish a person to orally gratifying a bull. The "Cruel and Unusual" clause is to require a more or less set series of prescribed punishments. Prison time, community service, fines and fees. I'm also a more liberal person who's not morally opposed to the death penalty. We shouldn't enact it because of how flawed the system is. The idea is that it's better for a hundred guilty men go free than for one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit. My opposition to the death penalty is logical. Unless you can absolutely prove that the man (or woman, but it's rarer for a woman to be sentenced to death) committed the murder he's accused of, then we can't, in good conscience, put him to death. When we can absolutely determine a man is a cold-blooded murderer, then I have no objection to putting that man to death. That comes to my second objection to the death penalty, humane execution. The worst thing you can do in enacting justice is to commit a worse crime. If you become the monster you're hunting, then you're not doing the world any good. Hanging and firing squads were more humane (and faster) then the current methods of lethal injection, because we can't get the proper humane drugs that we started using in the first place. Shit, why not use carbon monoxide? That'd be faster and less painful than being injected and feeling like you're on fire for thirty minutes before your heart mercifully stops. Either way, we're not wise or intelligent enough for the death penalty to be a functioning part of our justice system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay, so let me get this straight. God is all powerful and all knowing, he has a divine plan, but every time we pray or have sex he has to stop what he's doing and take care of that. So, his divine plan is upended by answering prayers and creating new human life. He's all knowing, so he knows if a fertilized egg will NOT be implanting into the womb and be washed out during the menstruation cycle, but he's forced to make a human soul for that egg. He knows that a woman will miscarry, but he's forced to make a soul for that baby to be born dead. He knows that a mother will have an abortion, but he's forced to make a human soul for that never-to-be-born baby. Sounds like God's a seriously impotent being for someone who's supposed to be omnipotent. Or MAYBE, you have no real faith in your God, who would be aware of these things and deny that collection of cells, that will never live, a soul. Just spitballing here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Men like that prove the old idiom, "There's nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge." If the man had a more comprehensive understanding of MLK, he'd know that he's by no means a conservative. He took one small part of a MUCH longer speech, a brilliantly ad-libbed part of it, and tried to make that the entirety if MLK's ideology. It's by design, of course, that "Wild Bill" Finley does this, and it's disgusting. If there was a God in heaven, this clown would have the ghost of MLK come down and kick him in the balls. But, of course, MLK was non-violent, so he might just get a stern talking-to instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How many generations are we going to apply reparations for slavery? Five? Ten? Fifty? A thousand? There has to be a cut off. If you don't have memories of one of your ancestors who was a slave, you can't get reparations. The whole idea of reparations was to give something to living former slaves. Now, true, they rarely, if at all, got their reparations. But, why should I pay for crimes committed by my great-great-great grandfather? I don't subscribe to white guilt. I feel no guilt for what my ancient ancestors to my recent ancestors committed. I bear none of their guilt myself. Do black men, women, and children deserve equal opportunities, education, rights and responsibilities, a quality living, and basic human dignity? Yes. Does that mean you need to take from people who have done nothing to you to make that happen? NO!
1
-
I'm rarely offended by the chronically stupid spouting their religious insanity as though it was the most beautiful and perfect pearls of wisdom. That clip offended me. These people and their "God did it all, we're just chess pieces" mentality pisses me off to no end. We, as a people, have a real history with actual people who did hard work to get us where we are. Our country wasn't built by God, it was built by real men and real women (and real slaves), all of whom did real work to get us to were we are today. Yes, it wasn't perfect, the works of mankind rarely (If ever) are. Mistakes were made, horrible crimes committed, but we got here. God didn't so much as lift a finger to make this country the beacon of hope it became. How much of the rest of the world began to emulate the American system? How many countries adopted our ideals as their own? How many people, world wide, are freer and better off than ever in history, all because our forefathers rolled up their sleeves and worked so very hard to pull us to where we are today? And these freaks of human garbage want to wad it all up and lay it at the feet of a murdering, hate-filled, extremely bigoted, and truly evil God as his work? NO! You're deeply and horribly wrong, and I am truly offended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love the idea of equality and fair treatment under the law regardless of race, gender, class, etc. But THIS isn't equality. It's holding your thumb on the scales of justice. No one, NO ONE, has a right to rape, steal, murder, or generally break the law. Just because someone has dark skin doesn't mean they're being persecuted when someone points out the crime(s) that has been committed. I don't CARE if someone accuses me of racism, if I'm being attacked by a member of a minority, I'm going to defend myself, and I'll report the crimes I've witnessed. It's not singling out a group to call a black perpetrator black, or a Hispanic perpetrator Hispanic. I'm being descriptive. If I say "it was just a person," then I've narrowed the potential criminals to seven and a half billion. If I say, "he was black, bald, had a scar over his right eye, and was very tall," then I've narrowed the field to maybe 20 worldwide, and likely 1 locally. Social Justice isn't justice when you ignore crimes to serve a group mentality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Progressive and Liberal are used interchangeably in the media (especially in Conservative media), but while the two may have some of the same goals, they couldn't be more different. Like Kyle was saying, it's liberal to defend free speech, regardless of what they speech is. The only speech that is not protected is speech that is designed to incite violence and, in the case of the courts, perjury. Hate speech is nasty, vile, disgusted, and shouldn't be accepted in polite society, but it should be allowed. The thing about progressives is, they aren't liberal. Universities have been infested with these bad ideas and bad policies from Social Justice Warriors who want to make us all the same, not by raising us up, but by crushing us down into the smallest of us. Don't elevate the minority's rights, destroy the majority's rights. The progressive argument is, find speech you don't like? It's not your responsibility to listen to it and reject it as bad or wrong, it's the group's responsibility to stop it. That's no way to run a society, because it leads to a society deprived of liberty. Stand up for liberalism, stand against progressivism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The man isn't running for president. He's running for attention. Didn't anyone here watch that announcement speech? He might as well have stood there and said, "ME! Me, me, me, me, me, me, ME!!!!!!!" Honest politicians (I know, oxymoron, heavy on the moron) run because they want to help OTHERS. Donald "is that a tribble on his head?" Trump runs because no one has paid him a compliment in 57 seconds. When he inevitably loses his "empire," he'll take a swan dive from Trump Tower, and that'll be a shame. All that money spent to clean up his blood and to repair the concrete he breaks with his tremendously thick skull, and even thicker hairpiece.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is it that police nowadays have such a severe case of CYA (Cover Your Ass)? You've got a bad cop in your force, some bad shit happens, and now CYA. Don't these people realize that when you confront the citizenry that you're sworn to protect, it makes people trust you LESS? I get that totally honest police get accused of things they didn't do. Being accused of manhandling or unnecessary force is bad, but not career ending if the accusation is disproven, and being accused of assault, murder, or rape as a police, even if disproven, can be career ending. Comprehensive investigations need to be done. Real misdeeds need to be punished, false accusations need to be exposed. This circle-the-wagons-automatically thing needs to end. POLICE need to start demanding outside investigation so that they have the benefits of CYA without the horrid stink of it hanging over every honest police officer.
By the way, does anyone else believe that a prisoner, in full view of other officers, managed to A) smoke or swallow marijuana and then B) hang herself in her cell? Or, for that matter, either A or B alone? Seriously, they have those cells observed 24/7 so that they don't do shit like cut their wrists or hang themselves with their belts\shoelaces\underwear\garbage sacks. I call BS on the garbage sack idea, those cells DON'T HAVE GARBAGE SACKS IN THEM. They don't even have toilets with SEATS on them in those cells. Either this police force is lying or incompetent. So, I guess I answered my own question on why they have a chronic and bewilderingly obvious case of CYA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You might as well throw out that argument about ripping the fetus out of the wombs by God's hand. The one golden rule in the Bible is, there are no rules God has to follow. He can tell US what to do, and then do the exact thing he told us not to do himself, because he's God. Any Catholic is going to make that point, so ignore it. The bitter water is likely going to be claimed the same way, that it was God ordering someone to do something he otherwise told people not to do. Like, Thou Shall Not Kill is ignored ALL over the Bible because God tells people to kill. And as for the death penalty, they used to have execution swords with the inscription "Cast in the name of God, ye not guilty" or some variation thereof, to absolve the executioner of the sin of murder. Now, I'm not agreeing with the conservative dipshit, but those are the types of arguments you'll hear, so you might want to research ways to counter such arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I wasn't suggesting, in any way, that the government should be the crucible that we subject ideas to. No one entity can be entrusted to maintain such a responsibility. If an idea is presented, it needs to be challenged. Individuals, private organizations, scientists, and even governments (not some ministry of truth or whatnot), chip away at the lies, misinformation, and irrelevancies until what's left is the truth. It's not meant to be something that's regulated or owned, but something that is washed and worn smooth. Not something packaged and sold, but that anyone can use and share.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's bad in China, no doubt, but don't get this matter too confused. America isn't really that great on reporting. We don't have The State handing down what is and isn't reportable, forcing a state controlled narrative, but... We do tend to have these false narratives spun by business leaders to get more eyes on screens and papers. Now, the problem is, this has always been the case to one degree or another, sometimes less, sometimes more. We need as objective reporting as we can get with less editorializing and less spin, less driving specific narratives. We are undoubtedly better than China in the realm freedom of the press, but we still have a LONG way to go until we can really throw stones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I forgot where I heard this originally, and I'll probably butcher it a bit, but here goes. "The only unnatural form of sexuality is to not have any." The main idea was, people have a myriad of different forms of sexuality, and feeding those desires is natural. To actively suppress your sexual instincts is totally unnatural, and leads to real sexual oppression. From homosexuality and bisexuality, to gender swapping and desires to be dominated, they are all normal. Some of the more extreme forms of sexuality are usually the product of sexual repression. So, if you don't like violent sexuality, the worst thing you can do is force people into active sexual repression, because that tends to feed those interests.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with Pat Robertson and his ilk is the fact that, TO THEM, morality comes FROM GOD. Morality is an absolute, and it all flows from God's grace and wisdom. Now, that's NOT morality, that's dogma. ALL morality is subjective. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor does it exist in nature. The moral teachings in the Bible are all derived from the same place that secular morality is derived from... IE, we made it up. Secular morality is honest in that conceit. We created these rules to protect ourselves, and by extension, everyone else. If we all have to follow the same guidelines and rules, then we are all protected equally. If God's law is true, then only those who follow that law is protected, and everyone else can be dehumanized and vilified. Pat Robertson isn't as much a bigot as he is a victim of his own blindness. Yes, he's wrong and deserves criticism and ridicule, just understand that he's very much not alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nuance is always lost on the simple-minded. You can be in favor of gun control without resorting to banning all guns. The gun is a tool, like a hammer or a knife. Both of those a potentially lethal as well, but we reasonably understand that not all potentially lethal tools are going to be used to wound, injure, maim, or kill. Guns aren't the problem, a culture that worships the gun as a holy icon, treats any differing opinion as a hostile assault, and is increasingly distancing people (all people) from personal responsibility. A culture of honest debate, understanding dissenting opinion and not holding malice towards the person holding that opinion, and one of holding themselves and others responsible for their actions probably wouldn't have THIS much gun violence even if everyone were packing. So, point fingers every which way, seek solutions to problems we don't have, and castigate anyone who doesn't agree with you all you want, we will be no closer to ending this epidemic of violence. The gun is innocent in this equation. Each individual is to blame for his or her own actions, and we need to look within to see where the biggest problems really are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jim Gaffigan is a funny guy. Not particularly edgy. But I think he's wrong about PC culture. Intolerance isn't a good thing, and pointing out racism isn't a bad thing, but then PC culture comes along, and EVERY group who isn't in the majority is automatically oppressed. You can't call someone fat (looking at you Jim Gaffigan with your book titled Dad is Fat), because it's fat shaming. You can't ask a black person where there from because it's a "micro-aggression." With PC culture, it's not enough to treat people as individuals and just not call people racial epithets. No, now you have to walk on eggshells everywhere you go just in case someone is "triggered" or some minor thing you say is a micro-aggression. PC culture will openly attack white, heterosexual men, but baby anyone else. Isn't attacking someone because of their race racism? Isn't attacking someone based on their sex sexism? Why isn't PC culture considered just as toxic and racist as the Jim Crow South? There are no limits to free speech, no just society with censorship. There is no "but." You take away one person's right to free speech, then we all suffer for it, even if it's a bigot losing their free speech.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is no one in the entire history of humankind who has ever been wealthy legitimately. Wealth isn't earned, it's stolen. There are jobs that take a lot of resources to achieve. Doctors, for example, and engineers. Even if these jobs are more valuable, does that make people who bag groceries or flip burgers not worth keeping alive and well?
There are basic needs for all humanity. Shelter, food, water, clothes, healthcare, time to recuperate. Those aren't negotiable, these are things the poorest to the richest men and women absolutely need. If you're paying a person wages that they'd starve to death trying to live on, you're implicitly saying that their lives are worthless and they should die.
Let's put it this way. If every millionaire and billionaire died tomorrow, we'd probably have a few problems, for a while, and other people would take over those "jobs." If every poor, working class man and woman earning minimum wage died tomorrow, we'd have a complete collapse. A major domino effect would hit us, and hit us hard. Sure, we might not collapse instantaneously, but when it would happen, It'd be cataclysmic. No one to stock the groceries we need to eat, no one to cook the meals that, quite frankly, a lot of middle-class people depend on for survival. Disease would run rampant without the people to keep public spaces clean. Eventually, the missing poor would drive a lot of middle-class people into poverty to keep up the status quo. Suicides would rise sharply. Crime would multiply at an exponential rate. If we're smart enough, we might take down the wealthy and try to dispense the capital more evenly (not perfectly evenly, but less weighted toward a tiny group of do-nothings). But, more than likely, we'd devolve into chaos.
If I had multiple millions of dollars and was put in charge of a large corporation, I'd want my workers to be happy, healthy, and well off. After my personal needs are taken care of, then any millions after wouldn't be doing anything for me except feeding my ego. It's FAR better used keeping both my employees and my customers satisfied. I could reach an equilibrium, which is far better than short-term growth at the expense of long-term stability. No bubbles to grow and pop. No need for a golden parachute. Greed kills, pure and simple, and we'd be well rid of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The best supplement you can take is called FOOD! Not fast food, not pre-packaged food, not preserved food. FOOD. Even IF you're getting a quality controlled, legitimate multi-vitamin, 99% of the vitamin isn't absorbing into your body. So, basically, you're making highly expensive urine. Now, that being said, some people with specific conditions, who can't absorb some vitamins from natural food often need the supplements, but that's a small minority. Then there's the OPPOSITE effect, vitamin toxicity. If you take TOO MANY vitamins, you can poison yourself. It can destroy organs at the worst, and at the least can make your hair fall out. And, as mentioned above, most of it comes out in your urine, making humans who take excessive supplements and medicines the number one source of medical waste, not pharmaceutical companies (at least, not from direct dumping). So, take real food, and tell these scam artists where they can put their vitamin pills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There aren't a lot of constitutional purists out there. Everyone has some ideology, for good or ill, that gets in the way of interpretation. Even the so-called constitutional scholars have some bent toward the left or right. So, they have some conclusion that they prefer, and interpret the constitution in a way that favors that conclusion. The constitutional conservatives aren't seeing what he's doing as obstruction. They see it as pushback against frivolous and harmful investigations. It's wrong-headed, but its obvious they don't see what we are seeing. And it's really hard to find a genuine objective view because we're so polarized now. So, yes, it's hypocritical, and certainly disturbing. "It's okay when our side does it," doesn't work. We need a single standard, not a double standard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm generally on board with legalizing cannabis. However, this racial aspect is WAY overblown. The whole, "blacks get arrested for marijuana possession more than whites" is misleading. Very few people are arrested SOLELY for marijuana possession, including black people. People get arrested for one crime, like assault or theft, they find marijuana on them, and they add that charge to a list. When looking up arrests by charge, you find a large number of people with marijuana, but it's only half the story, because you're not seeing what other charges are being levied. Plus, reasons a law was passed decades ago isn't nearly as relevant as how it's enforced today. Just because the law was created to attack Mexican people decades ago doesn't mean it's being used to do the same today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think people with opinions that claim one thing or another will or even must happen aren't thinking straight. Will AI destroy us? Maybe, maybe not. It's literally a binary question, they will or they won't. Will this baby grow up to be a genocidal maniac? Again, it either will or won't. If it won't, that doesn't mean the baby will be a saint. It could be a monster, an average joe, gifted, slow, a poet, an engineer. AI is 100% pure potential, and it's how we treat it, what programming we use to cultivate it, it's limitations given it both intentionally and unintentionally by us and a myriad number of other things none of us can even imagine that will determine its potential outcomes. I hope we do right by it, but when I see how we treat each other, flesh and blood, knowing each person is an emotional being with empathy, pain and joy, and we cause so much pain both intentionally an unintentionally, that I would be worried by what AI we could create.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think, had we as a nation managed to actually hold Nixon accountable for his crimes, had he not resigned rather than face impeachment, had his successor not pardoned him, we wouldn't be in this situation now. Integrity in the White House is all but gone. Accountability in our political system has evaporated into nothingness. People get into office, maybe for good reasons, get into trouble, and then pass the buck, hire spin doctors to make their crime or mistake look like something noble, then they get reelected and the whole thing just starts all over. If we didn't have such BLATANT corruption today, we would have had better choices than President game-show-host and too long in politics corrupt Hillary Clinton. Impeachment might not fix the whole mess, but it MIGHT make corrupt actors think twice in the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If every right wing extremist with a miniature arsenal decided to fight against the US military, it'd be a bloodbath... for the radicals not for the military. Our military has more than small arms. Tanks, air-power, long range missiles, artillery, armed unmanned drones, troop transports of land, sea, and air. Honestly, if the US military decides you're a threat, best you can accomplish is to irritate them, not defeat them. This is an extremist fantasy that our founding fathers included the second amendment in case the US government gets uppity. Bullshit, they included it because they didn't want a permanently standing army. The militia was meant to be the homeland protector, minute-men ready to fight off invasion. We long since abandoned that in favor of the standing military. Our second amendment needs further amending to bring it to the 21st century among other amendments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While I don't support materialism and predatory marketing tactics\manipulation, this guy is just full of hot air. He kept saying, "junk values." Is that a scientific term? I highly doubt it. Or is it he's judging people based on a trait he either doesn't share or has and doesn't like? Money doesn't buy happiness, but a lack of it can breed tons of anxiety, self-loathing, fear, regret, anger, and all the same problems having too much of a dependence on things and monetary accumulation. Try using the scientific method, oh wait, you're not a scientist, you're a "journalist." Well then, try actually doing some fucking research, hack.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lots of villains are, in some measure, relatable, even likable, and become twisted by events. Take Mr. Freeze. A scientist who's beloved wife is dying of a congenital disease, and he uses his cryogenic knowledge to freeze her until he can find a cure, only to have his cruel and greedy boss try to take his research and make bank on it, knocking him into his cryo chemicals and turn him into a man who can't be above sub-freezing characters. It's tragic, and drives him into madness and to crime out of desperation. You can START Cruella as a sympathetic and relatable character, but if you want her to be a villain, you need her to become corrupted and fall into evil because it helps her get ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I get flak for referring to the dictionary when I want to define a word. "The dictionary isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive!" Yeah, yeah, yeah. I hear you. Now, let me explain. If we aren't using language the same way, we aren't communicating. I refer to the dictionary when there's confusion to set a standard and move from there, so we both have common ground in which to understand one another. Grift: a group of methods for obtaining money falsely through the use of swindles, frauds, dishonest gambling, etc. They are using it correctly, but their foundation is false. They believe David to be a fraud or dishonest. So, that, in their minds, is a grift.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nobody sane or rational believes this nonsense, not even strident anti-abortion activists. But they pretend it's true so they can pretend they have the moral high ground. George Carlin put it best, and I'll paraphrase, that they want the baby to be born, then they don't give a shit about the welfare of that baby. No head-start, no preschool, no Medicaid. "If you're pre-born, your fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked." Also, "they want live babies to make dead soldiers." The so-called personal freedom, getting the government, "off your back," but they want to hold the power of life and death itself? Bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How crazy, narcissistic, stupid, and blind are people who think their deity is so backwards that they would appear in a closet, on the back of a highway sign, or on a grilled cheese sandwich? All powerful, capable of building a universe, but the best miracles they can produce is making something that kind of, sort of looks like Jesus on a sandwich? Also, if you're this obsessed with Jesus, you're probably seeing him in your dreams all the time. Jesus isn't doing crap, you're just crazy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm absolutely not against boycotts. Corporations need to understand where their power comes from. It's from people, buying their products, then using the money they obtain and using it to do what they want. Sometimes, it's benign. Sometimes, it's horrifyingly malignant. Boycotts illustrate that, if you keep doing bad things, people are going to stop giving you money. It's giving the wealthy elite an understanding that, while they think us to be ants, no creature on Earth can survive the sting of millions of ants. If you don't like the way a corporation is behaving, don't give them your money. If enough people do the same, the market principles they publicly proselytize will do them in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The average newspaper was written at a third-grade level when I was growing up. When we did a grade-wide reading comprehension test when I was in the sixth grade, I found I didn't read at a sixth-grade level, I read at a college level. Most of my classmates either met or fell behind the sixth-grade level. I'm not even particularly that smart, I just read a lot. It's like a muscle, if you don't exercise it, it atrophies. When I was young, most people read the newspaper. By the time I reached high school, most people didn't read the newspaper, they had the news read to them. Now, they get news from echo chambers and memes and think they're informed. Maybe if we were all still reading the newspaper, we wouldn't be so easily fooled as a nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My grandfather, listening to me talk about the state of the world always asks me, "well, why don't you run for office?" Well, for one thing, I still have my soul and I'm not willing to sell it for a popularity contest. You see any politician today get into trouble and what do you get? Cover up, distraction, a whole bunch of me, me, me! I could never be capable of being THIS selfish, so I could never make it into politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are racists on the left, and it is troubling, all racism is troubling, but it's also not nearly as substantial as it is on the right, especially today. There are people who want to blame all white people, including people who weren't alive during the periods in question, for slavery and Jim Crow, but what real level of power do these people have? Compare that to people on the right who have been signal boosting white nationalist talking points. Which is really the bigger threat? If all the racism on the right evaporated this very second, yeah, I'd be talking about the racism on the left more, but since that's not going to happen and there have been real world consequences due to racism on the right, we should be focusing on that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm more on the political left, but I do have to agree with Dr. Mike about willpower and hard work building things. I don't believe in politicians. Not Barack Obama, not Donald Trump, not anyone on the spectrum between them. They're about building power, not solving problems. The best politician might build power and then use it to fix SOME things, but not everything. It's not in their toolkits. But US? You, me, your friends, family, neighbors, perfect strangers pulling together to fix even one problem will work faster and better than any government program. We need the government, but we need each other more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This divide between people receiving higher education and academic achievement is simple. There's a lot of trash being taught in university. If you're getting a degree in, say, Engineering, that's a useful skill with high academic qualities. If you're getting a degree in, for example, gender studies, that doesn't really translate into any real career field. Philosophy majors pretty much have the career of teaching philosophy. We need to refocus education back into more useful and productive skills and less on navel-gazing. Engineering, medicine, computer sciences, agriculture, general science, journalism, law all need to be more focused upon. Technical schools need to be made more accessible and less stigmatized as well.
1
-
To be fair, had he warned the press, the military, anyone outside the bubble he was in, his life would have been in much more danger than it already was. Trump might have ordered the secret service to arrest him for treason, illegally obviously, but they likely would have done it. Of course, most of us would say we'd choose integrity over a megalomaniacal dictator, but it'd hard to know what we'd do with that gun pointed at our heads. We know what Pence did, the safest thing. Doing the right thing at the end matters, but much less if you dragged your feet and tried everything else first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The argument isn't about saving babies, because they would be doing their absolute best to ensure that, once the baby is born, that it is cared for and protected. The anti-abortion side is against all sorts of child welfare, across the board. No WIC, no neonatal care, no head start, no child care. This is about souls, period. They believe that they're saving souls for their god. They use language like "murdering babies" as an emotional cudgel, to attack pro-choice people. Fertilization, typically referred to by the religious right as conception, isn't always going to result in a human being. There are a multitude of reasons a fertilized egg doesn't implant in the womb and ends up being washed out, despite the fact that sperm met egg, cell division and multiplication is occurring. This isn't a rational discussion, it's an emotional and religious one. If you're trying to argue against someone extremely emotional and\or religious with cold-hard facts and scientific understanding, you've already lost. They won't hear you. Or, at best, they'll take a part of your rational\scientific argument and then recraft it to support their religious ideals. And that's the problem. They've won this fight already. The want to bring this to the supreme court, overturn Roe V Wade, and because of how extremely conservative AND religious this supreme court is, they will vote to uphold these bans, and that'll be a return to the dark ages once again. It'll be generations before we get this backwards ruling struck down and a stronger version of Roe V Wade implemented.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A fetus is not a person, it's a collection of cells that may, if things go right, become a person. Until then, it's a parasite. It sounds grotesque for a person to describe what they believe to be a fully-fledged human being as a parasite, but from a purely clinical, purely scientific standpoint, that's what it is. Thing is, they don't all survive to birth. Miscarriages happen all the time. Even BEFORE things get that far, a fertilized egg can be flushed out because it didn't make it in time to implant. Yet, they would call that a person. A person is what survives outside the womb. Full stop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You mean Ben Shapiro didn't say something brain-dead stupid? Well, I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Honestly, when I first heard about this bombing campaign, my first thought was, "the right-wing media is going to call this a false flag." I got online about ten minutes after hearing about the attack, and, sure enough, there were some half dozen vids in my feed calling this a false flag or blaming the "Justice Democrats." Seriously, if you hear a man goes into a synagogue and starts shooting, would you start investigating it as a Jewish extremist attack, or an anti-Semitic attack? Same thing here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Peasham You've never heard of soft eugenics? I'm going by that example myself, I have a genetic disease, I'm not breeding by choice. Eugenics has a bad name because of the evil done. I don't know if you know this, but we've been using eugenics for centuries. Ever eat beef, poultry, mutton, or pork? Eaten any fruits or vegetables grown on a farm? How about having a dog or a cat for a pet? Eugenics took wild plants and animals and domesticated them. It's not ALL evil, it was just glommed onto by people with VERY evil intents.
If one were inclined, one could potentially utilize the same knowledge and techniques to breed people better suited to certain tasks. For example, taking athletes of specific skills, running for example, and have them breed to produce children much more likely to excel at running. Obviously, there are ethical quandaries that make such a task problematic, such as taking into consideration the wishes of the parents involved and the desires of the child, but one wouldn't need to kill everyone bad at running to produce such a child.
Like I said, with gentle care it could have been used as a tool to guide people with genetic diseases or specific risk to pass on debilitating diseases. What if you knew you could pass on schizophrenia or Alzheimer's? Wouldn't you want to know and to choose not to bring a child into the world suffering from a terrible disease its entire life? How about the future where we can screen for these diseases and use something like a retrovirus to correct such diseases before the activate? It's the same thing. Eugenics doesn't have to mean killing or sterilizing anyone or anything with a disease, undesirable traits, or anyone of a specific race. Those were choice made by ideologues with horrific bents, not inherent to eugenics itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No ideology is true. Not on the right and not on the left. Ideological purity tends to destroy us on the left, while, because of our broken systems, it benefits the right. If we can find a more common sense approach, that is to appeal to the average voter, and push aside our ideological extremists, the "social justice warrior" as they're typically labelled, we will win much more. Start pushing for system reforms, science based policies, building the new infrastructure that will boost our economy while fixing the old and broken infrastructure that is hampering it. Also, abandon these strange and frankly ridiculous ideas like forcing quotas, demanding recognition for a hundred different gender identities, trying to dismantle the police and the like. We have a bad habit of trying to fix the roof and the top floors while the foundation is crumbling and the whole building is starting to topple. Work on the foundations first, make sure the building is sound, then work your way up from there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is a reason we don't allow children to vote. They don't have the mental acuity nor the emotional maturity\stability to vote responsibly, so allowing them to vote would ensure unserious candidates and irresponsible governance. These two "interviewers," what I like to refer to as hacktivists, behave and think like children, and the are by no means alone. Yes the system is broken, yes it's corrupt, but being a responsible voter means making an adult decision on who you like more or hate less. I never liked Hilary Clinton, but I voted for her, not because she was perfect on any or all issues, but that I could trust her to bow to public pressure and that we could, with some effort, steer her to the right conclusion. I already voted for Biden for exactly the same reason. Be an adult, please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People buy stuff. By and large, they don't know and don't care where any product comes from. Oh, they pay lip service, claim to want to buy American or not buy something from a place with policies they disagree with. But, when they need something and have cash in hand, they aren't reading labels, doing research, making political calculations, they're just plunking down their cash and walking off with their products. Any boycott is going to fail without having some teeth in it to enforce it nationally, and then you'd have to explain to people why a product they were enjoying previously is suddenly gone, and their anger will turn, not to the place being boycotted, but to the government enforcing it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ugh. Honestly, while I didn't like all his politics when he was president, and it's at least plausible there's a hidden subtext here, not everything a politician says is attempting to polish their image. I'm going to take this statement at it's most direct interpretation, the one you say is correct, and forget the rest. So many people keep trying to read between the lines, they forget the lines themselves, and end up taking the wrong thing away. He's not president, he doesn't need further ridicule, since he's not in charge of anything, so can't we just let this statement stand as said?
1
-
1
-
While I am certainly not in favor of executions, if I were to be executed, I'd rather it be by firing squad over hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, or lethal injection. Yes, it's more violent, but it's also far closer to instantaneous, and thus, more humane than being poisoned to death via gas or injection, hanged which can go wrong in many ways, and certainly electrocuted. Hell, guillotine is more humane, less than a second and it's over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, they DO know their history. You think because they're advocating against higher tax rates for the wealthy that they don't know how successful it was for the country? They do, they just don't give a dead rat's last shit about the country, the people, or the world in general. They'd sell the souls, the blood, and the organs of every human being on planet Earth for a modicum of extra comfort. They're immoral and, quite frankly, evil. The golden age of economic expansion isn't the history they need to be focused on, it's the French Revolution they need to worry about. The "unwashed masses" are getting ready to sharpen their pickaxes and the guillotine. So, round about way, those higher marginal tax rates WOULD be good for them, if only to placate the hoi polloi and keep their blades from their throats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm suddenly reminded of the king of Brobdingnag and his speech to Lemuel Gulliver.
"...You have clearly proved, that ignorance, idleness, and vice, are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislator; that laws are best explained, interpreted, and applied, by those whose interest and abilities lie in perverting, confounding, and eluding them. I observe among you some lines of an institution, which, in its original, might have been tolerable, but these half erased, and the rest wholly blurred and blotted by corruptions."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The interviewer asked about draconian "dark ages" anti-abortion laws and Shapiro's response was "because science." Point of fact, science does not proclaim that conception is the beginning of life. Another point of fact, not all conceptions end in pregnancy. Conception, when the sperm enters the egg, is only the beginning of the process. Sometimes the egg is fertilized and doesn't implant for a multitude of reasons. Too late in the cycle, and a fertilized egg is simply rinsed out. Ectopic pregnancies happen and can be fatal to both mother and child. Science doesn't concern itself with when "life begins," a codded term to mean "it now has a soul and must be protected for the sake of God." If your God is genuinely omniscient, wouldn't he know that the fetus was going to be aborted, or that a fertilized egg wasn't going to implant and therefor grow into a human being? If so, why would he give a soul to something that's going to die before it's even born? Then again, logic has never been the strong suit of the religious thinker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've long bee accustomed to dealing with garbage math, mostly in retail sales. You see a product advertised at 50% off, you think you're getting it for half the cost when, often is the case, they either never sold it at the advertised price ($30, on sale for $15!) and you're essentially getting a product that costs the sale price and are being tricked OR they jack the price up BEFORE the sale price. It might be cheaper than what it's typically sold at, but it's not, say, 50% off, but more like 20% off and, again, they're tricking you. They rely on people not doing research and not understanding basic math.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They didn't tell them to cancel these services, they asked them to give them moral or ethical reasons they are carrying these channels. I mean, if they really want to, they could collectively say, "because we don't want to censor speech," and be fully on your side here. They're doing it because it makes them money, pure and simple, but the dodge is built in. I honestly believe that this is either, A) Dems being foolish, not authoritarian, or B) Dems fishing for examples they can use to beat down fake conservative BS on the airwaves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, he DID mention nature receding at our population advancement. That is true. Yet, he is also a climate science denier and a fool. We should be slowing our population growth to as close to zero as we can, meaning births and deaths are roughly even. Best way is through education, worst way is through government intervention. Either way, if we don't, mother nature will and she will not be the slightest bit gentle in how she does. Famine, water scarcity, viruses that make Covid-19 look like a mild case of the flu, climate change resulting in environmental destruction. When she puts her foot down, it'll be right on our throat and push down, hard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rubeniscool That is pretty disturbing. But as for corporations, I didn't say A corporation, I said all of them you've ever interacted with. Don't forget, most of our government is beholden to large corporate interests. Just imagine every corporation plotting the best way to control you, not through laws and punishment, but by subtly controlling what information you have access to, figuring out which forms of advertising you're most susceptible to Discovering how to make you do what they want, not to go to war, not to make you afraid, but to make you their willing and enthusiastic slave. Maybe you never wanted to buy a certain product, but now, suddenly, it seems like the thing to get. Oh, it's unsafe? Not according to the media they own and control.
Governments, in the end, are still answerable to their people. Enough people realize they're being tracked or that things aren't going the way they want, they can band together. Who are corporations answerable to? They are machines devised to consume all resources they can. If a CEO grows a conscience, he\she is replaced. Next quarter's profits not high enough? Round of firings to make it appear that it's up. You want to quit your job and work somewhere else? Well, they have your information and can make it impossible for anyone else to hire you, and just out of spite, they're going to cut your pay, tighten those screws so you know they own you, now and forever. Tell me again the government is more disturbing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darlene5588 George Carlin again. "Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm no war hawk, nor am I actually advocating this, but would it really be the worst thing for Mexico to be invaded by the US and conquered? It's nearly a failed state as it is, and the cartels might be powerful, but not nearly as much as the US military machine once it gets rolling. It'd be bloody, nasty, and sow a lot of hate and resentment, but it would certainly stabilize it. As it's going now, it's going to collapse into a cartel-run state in total. Which do you think would be less bloody and have a worse outcome for Mexico? Hell, we might even turn it into Japan, south of the border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would call this a CLEVER strategy, not a GOOD strategy. In order to get two justices appointed, they actively hamstrung a president in enacting his duty, not his privilege, his duty in appointing a supreme court justice. That set a precedent that can now 1) be used against them in the future, and 2) undermined the federal government. This is a pyric victor if ever there was one. Add on top of it this anti-choice fervor, and the end results may well be the repeal of abortion rights, but adding a slew of unintended consequences that will end lives, potentially disrupt the function of government when the next cult-like pet project comes down the pipeline, and eventually lose power for all politicians, not just the progressive ones. Enjoy the win now, republicans, the rot you've cultivated will eventually eat you too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandon9172 I think I see where I went wrong in my explanation. I'm not using the current left and the current right as the examples, but the overall concept. Yes, we have people lying about provably true things, like climate change, and the halfway point between a lie and the truth is a half-truth which I always considered worse than a lie, as it has the fig leaf of truth to hide behind. Also, one can't exactly have a properly considered policy when one side is arguing in bad faith. What I'm afraid of is that the right could easily self-destruct and leave only the left in charge. Right now, that wouldn't be a bad thing. But consider a year from now, five, ten, a generation or more of single party rule. Eventually, you end up with the People's Republic of China or the Soviet Union. Good people can become corrupt when too much power is handed to them. Maybe it'd splinter into multiple groups. Maybe a new more rational right-wing party will take its place. Are you willing to cross your fingers and hope for that outcome? We need breaks on the car to drive safely, especially when one becomes too used to holding down the accelerator. I don't like the current right, but I don't think I'd like what the left would do if given unlimited power either.
1
-
@brandon9172 I'm not saying our 2 party system is good by any stretch. We have a duopoly. What's odd in your argument here is in one part you claim both parties are the same, then in another part you claim it's great that the Democrats are running your states specifically because the Republicans aren't gumming things up or trying to enact bizarre policies. I think deep down you realize how different the parties are even if they are both primarily authoritarian and primarily capitalist entities. Our nation was both it's whole existence. But would you say the nation was the exact same in 1790 and 1890?
Would I prefer people who represent my ideals in congress? Yes. Would I prefer a more parliamentary system requiring coalition governance? Sure. Do I think either is going to happen in THIS nation? Not any time soon. We suffer from the absolute delusion that we are an exceptional nation. Maybe at one time we were, but so many other nations adopted the ideals we brought with us to help rebuild the world after the world wars that we long since stopped being exceptional. We rested on our laurels and too many people think we're perfect and don't want to change, or think we lost our greatness and want to drag us backward to the era they perceive we were our greatest, usually the Jim Crow era.
The number of things that would need to change to make us a functioning democracy again would be the total collapse of the MAGA movement, a total purge of same from any positions of power, the actual conviction and punishment of Trump for his coup attempt resulting in real consequences, the teaching of critical history as opposed to American mythology, teaching critical thinking skills, a complete overhaul of the corporate news industrial complex to divest us of propaganda and spin, all resulting in a populace willing to elect forthright representatives and the will to hold them to account. If any of that, much less all of that, happens in MY lifetime, I'd be a very old man and there would have been an ungodly horrible war in between.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even a digital economy is bound to physical resources. You can't tap into the digital economy without some sort of digital device. A computer, a phone, a console, there is going to be resources used for the connection onto it, plus the economy itself needs servers and internet connections via physical connections like cable, DLS, or fiberoptic or requires a wireless connection, like wi-fi or cellular service. Eventually, infinite growth will require an infinite amount of computer components let alone infinite electricity to power it all. If nothing else, we do need better recycling of already used resources to stem the exhaustion of our natural resources. Also, we need to curtail population growth or even reverse it (allowing death rate to overtake the birth rate) to limit the amount of resources being expended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every time I hear someone say, "let's scrap the whole thing and start over," I want to punch them hard in the mouth so that they taste blood, and tell them they need to get used to that taste, because they'll be tasting blood A LOT. We CAN'T scrap the whole thing. Even OUR system of government was built on another, and that was built on another, and so on. Take the system away and there will be chaos. We need to fix the system, dismantle the broken and nonfunctioning parts, replace those parts, put some shine on it, because without the systems we have in place, people will do whatever they think they can get away with, and we'll be at each other's throats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
IQ is not in any way standardized. Two people can score a 120 on the same test and be totally different in intelligence. Besides, when I ask people, "what does IQ measure?," and all they can say is, "intelligence," that's a VERY nebulous answer. What kind of intelligence? Reasoning, logic, ability to absorb new information, ability to utilize information, mathematic, the list goes on. Focusing on information, a person that can absorb new information but can't utilize it, is that really a high intelligence person? Compare that to someone who has difficulty absorbing new information, but can utilize it easily, is that person more or less intelligent that the previous person? How would you quantify that and assign a numerical value? Don't tell me what your IQ is, tell me what you have or can do. Our president is functionally incompetent and incapable of learning regardless of what some standardized IQ test might say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find Trump voters fall into two major categories. The MAGA zealots and the good-faith voters. The zealots need to introduction. The good-faith voters do. These are people who aren't checking into politics, who aren't fully up on what the candidates are saying, or the reporting that's going into what the candidates are for or against. They aren't stupid, per se, just living their lives and are usually too busy to really do the research one should do to be an informed citizen. It's not good, but that's life. Usually, a good-faith voter, when shown culpatory evidence of horrible things a candidate has said or done, they will abandon that candidate, which is what we saw here. If this were a zealot, it'd be all excuses and hand waving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gsussman8617 That depends. Unless it's very well regulated and disincentivized greed, then it's inherently destructive. It's motivated by one of the worst of human impulses, greed. Greed destroys everything. It's self-interest to the Nth degree. It's a yawning chasm that can never be filled. You look at the happiest people, are they wealthy? No. You look at the wealthiest people, are they happy? Not in the least.
My arguments against capitalism aren't about money. Even communistic societies have money. It's not about trying to force everyone to have exactly the same stuff, that never works. My complaints are how capitalism inevitably becomes corrupted. Like I said, greed is the problem. Even if a large corporation's CEO decides tomorrow to remove greed from the company, make it an equitable company that sells its products or services at a fair rate with only enough profit to cover costs, not enough to pay shareholders and an indolent board, that CEO would be fired and replaced with one that would continue to abuse customers and employees. You think McDonald's couldn't function if they paid their employees a living wage? If you do, you should NEVER eat there again, otherwise you are tacitly saying those people deserve to suffer and starve. If you don't, you should NEVER eat there again because the company is actively abusing their employees for profit.
The philosophy of enlightened self-interest isn't about denying yourself at all, it's simply putting others first so that you can live in a functioning society. Paying taxes so that everyone benefits from what they provide, like education, infrastructure, health care, etc. I get frustrated by people on both sides of the political spectrum that seem to believe one can only have capitalism or communism. These are tiny dots of black and white in an ocean, not only of grays, but a full spectrum of color. I think we could find a better system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm not going to assume this is a false allegation, but I do need to ask the question, why on Earth did she wait SO long to come forward? A rape is an emergency situation, requiring immediate attention. Yeah, there's investigation, and it's painful, but so is murder, even more so, but no one waits for that to be investigated. We've got these victims advocates trying to mollycoddle victims, when we need people to strengthen victims enough to put these rapists behind bars. When a woman is raped, and decides not to involve the police, she is tacitly allowing that rapist rape another woman. My aunt was raped in college, and the man who raped her had raped before. We only found out years later, more than 30 years when he was finally arrested, that his previous victim didn't report. If she had, they would have found the guy, and my aunt wouldn't have been raped. Women, if you're raped, it's your obligate moral duty to report this to the police, or else the next woman raped by the same man is partially your fault.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This isn't the fault of capitalism, because we aren't a capitalist nation. This is the fault of corporatism, capitalism's psychotic brother on steroids. Capitalism does have a profit motive, but it's never the only motive. In fact, in most instances, a hyperactive profit drive will curtail business because people are turned off by that. Corporatism sees unlimited growth and the need for ever more profit as it's only goals. People are disgusted by it, but in a corporate system, there are few if any other options. So, that poor boy who needed a walker but whos insurance provider won't spend any money, because they can't let money go or it's bad for them, and another company sees an opportunity to gain some attention and possibly business decides to help. I don't see inspiration in that story whatsoever. One leech doesn't do it's job while another leech takes attention spending pennies to build something knowing they'll get hundreds in traffic after.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The difficulty with debate is, 1) it is never a means of arriving at the truth. Research, investigation, observation, examination gets you to the truth. A fool with correct information can lose a debate and an intelligent person with faulty information can win a debate. 2) Debate rarely, if ever, changes people's minds. They go into a debate with their set beliefs, and no matter how well you represent the truth, how many facts and statistics you present, they leave with their set beliefs fully intact. Debate a conspiracy theorist who believes something like 9/11 being an inside job, you will never remove them from that perch.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If this president wins a second term, losing the popular vote but win the electoral college, we need to revolt. If nothing else, we need to remove the goddamned electoral college. THEN, every office seeker will actually need to run for the president of the United States, not the president of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, I get why a lot of people were pissed off at Dark Fate, killing off John Connor, but as far as plot elements go, it was necessary if you were really going to be able to make a cohesive story. Skynet being pushed further and further into the future, despite the creative forces behind it being destroyed, makes no sense. Creating a new A.I. villain with a totally different future was the way to go. You can argue it shouldn't have been made, but looking at Genisys, you can see why having it always be John Connor and Skynet being the central locus falls apart after a while. It worked great for 2 movies, okay for a further 2, and crashed hard on the 5th. I haven't hated any of the movies in the franchise, just liked some less.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Joe Biden were going to have Donald Trump assassinated, he'd be smart enough to hire or appoint someone with no connection to himself, someone who can be burned (spy craft term), and in a manner that would either seem accidental or some Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth type deranged lone gunman. In other words, something that no sane person would be considering Biden as the mastermind. That being said, we all know, should Trump die, for any reason, especially natural causes, before the election, MAGA is automatically blame Biden, evidence be damned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We live in a society where the average person can't differentiate between opinion and fact. When presented with a fact that contradicts their opinion, they write it off as a different opinion, and when expressing their opinion, they present it as fact. This is true of both sides. On the right, you see climate change denial, economic progressivism seen as communism, and gun control as attempts to take guns. On the left, you see anything right of the extreme left as centrism, capitalism as a beast needing to be slain by socialism, and anything less than 100% government run health care as a gift to private insurance. There are so many shades of gray that we need to be able to perceive and all we want to see is black and white. It's hurting all of us, left and right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of COURSE he's not going to be convicted. We have a massively partisan system. The last time we had an impeachment, it was drawn up over a lousy sexual indiscretion and a single lie about it under oath. Illegal? Technically, but I contend they didn't have the right to ask him that. But the entire right wing wanted to kick him out and picked the flimsiest of excuses to pounce, which massively backfired. Today, with this president, it's about genuine cause for alarm. Yes, the left wing wanted him out since the beginning, but they passed on other very strong possible causes because they knew the right wing here wouldn't even consider impeachment or see it as a witch hunt. The right wing knows Trump is guilty as sin, they just don't care, because they have the power and they won't give it up. They'll have to have their fingers broken before they let go, so we're going to have to make Trump far too toxic to hold onto.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's say Christianity should be in charge, for the sake of argument. Which version? Catholicism? Okay, protestants, you're now beholden to Catholic dogma. No? Okay then, how about Baptists? Guess all you Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and so on, and so forth just have to get used to it. No? Well, I have an idea. How about no religion gets to make governmental decisions based on their dogma and government will stay out of your religious affairs? That sounds like a plan, right? Oh, hey, look at this, we already HAVE that! Maybe stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's obvious what George Santos did that was wrong and why he should be immediately expelled from congress. The right keeps trying to say, "well, the people voted for him, so he should be seated." No, no they did not. They voted for someone who isn't real, a figment of this man's imagination, whoever he really is. To some degree, all candidates misrepresent themselves, but they don't just totally lie about who they are, what they do, where they came from, and literally everything about themselves. They voted for an imaginary person and shouldn't be forced to be represented by a complete con.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's always amusing watching a fool that believes they're smart try and act clever. Cotton really thinks saying that Joe Biden is president the opposition, in their minds, will automatically fill in the answer, "yes, Donald Trump lost," while MAGA will answer the same question, "no, the commies stole the election!" Now, if he'd stopped at saying Joe Biden won, that'd be clever. Then he goes on to make all the MAGA arguments as to why Biden is president without admitting Trump lost, so he lost the potential of getting both answers without saying it. It's too clever by half.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People do not understand numerology. The number 666 in the Bible wasn't written in Arabic numerology, that is not the base-10 number system we use. It was written in Hebrew numerology which letters are used to represent numbers and are sometimes used as code. In the Bible, in Hebrew numerology, the number spells a name, which is Caesar Nero. It was contemporary political commentary, not predictions of the future. As to Arabic numerology, it's not three sixes, it's 600, 60, and 6. The position of a digit determines its number. If I pointed to the 7 in 276, it's not a 7, it's a 70.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aslapofreality1444 So, what you're saying is, why don't we fight for the wealthiest people? Yeah, why don't we? Think about it. Do I fight for the people who have everything, or the people who have nothing? Flat taxes disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes, because the money they get taken leaves less for the necessities; food, clothing, shelter, utilities. It we take 10% of $30,000, that's $3,000 leaving them with $27,000. Spend that on basics only, you MIGHT have $2,000 left over, assuming no emergencies. Take 10% from $300,000,000, that's $30,000,000, leaving them with $270,000,000. Most of that goes into bank accounts and investments leaving a paltry $3,000,000 a year to live on. Add on top of that the fact that it's earnings that's taxed, and millionaires don't have earnings the way salaried people do, not to mention overseas tax havens and tying up their income in investments, and a millionaire pays much less of that so-called 10% than a poor or middle class person, yet they have over 50% of the wealth. If things were equal, people with 50% of the wealth would shoulder 50% of the tax burden, but the poor and middle class shoulder more than 80% of the tax burden.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree, the medical situation in this country is abysmal and wholly corrupt. That being said, how the fuck much was this wedding going to be? Honestly, weddings, specifically the pomp and circumstance involved with precessions, booking a church or other venue, paying for catering, etc. is a MASSIVE fucking scam. They could have gone to a justice of the peace for next to nothing, and he wouldn't have had to stop using the good insulin. Hell, he could have gone to Vegas and paid very little, and that's including airfare. There isn't only one cause of this man's death here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are splitting WAY too many hairs here. A life has ended, one person (or multiple depending on the situation) is responsible, punishment is necessary. Functionally, what is different between killing a person after meticulous planning and losing one's temper and, in a fit of rage, killing a person? The end result is the same. You intentionally killed a person, whether that intent was "spur of the moment" or if it was planned in advance. Now, if we're talking about accidents, that's homicide, not murder. Someone through some mishap of fortune causes another's death is in no way the same as someone who, with intent of any variety, takes another's life. So, yes, the sentences should be different, and the ability to be reformed is more likely with the homicide than with the murder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find that these "but sometimes" arguments are being floated by people who benefit from the older system and don't want them going away. Remember, every step of progress we make tends to push something else out of the way, and whatever that is, someone wants to keep it.
BTW, the whole stopping at a light and then looking at your phone thing... STOP IT, IDIOT! You're driving a car, a 2 ton death machine, and you need to be in control of it at every moment, and that includes while stopped at a stop sign or traffic light. The phone should be put away, out of reach while driving, and, ideally, turned off or in Do Not Disturb mode. If you can turn your phone off for two hours at the movie theater, you can turn your phone off for half an hour while driving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's get one thing straight. The right isn't protecting Trump, they're protecting themselves. They've tied themselves to Trump. If he goes down, he's going to take them with. So, yes, they want to keep him out of trouble, but not because they love him or what he stands for, but to keep from being burned down with him. If they were truly smart, they'd push him off, distance themselves from him, and let him go down. Some of them are going down regardless, but to take the whole party down, maybe even the whole nation, that's just stupid and evil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm not a Christian, nor am I a Jew. I'm an atheist. If someone wishes me a merry Christmas, I'll say, "merry Christmas," back. If someone wishes me happy holidays, I'll return the sentiment. I saw a woman freak out because the clerk said, "happy holidays," to her and she was berating her for not saying, "merry Christmas." A minimum wage clerk who was likely ordered to specifically say, "happy holidays," and she nearly brought that poor clerk to tears. I just told that woman to piss off, mostly to take the heat off the clerk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I think if college starts being paid for by taxes and everyone has access, there will have to be curtailments. Not necessarily people though. We'd have to, as a society, to pay for things that are more necessary for society. More science, technology, engineering, math, medicine, stuff like that. We'd have to eliminate some programs, or refuse to fund tuition for some programs, the so-called "underwater basket weaving" type classes. No African American studies, no gender studies, no philosophy, no art history, no fluff. If these classes are available at all, they should only be available for people who are directly paying for those classes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't trust a marketplace for ideas. People are easily sold on things that are horrible for them, that can actively harm them, by slick salespeople. If the world wasn't populated by so many suckers (P.T. Barnum quote here), I might be more inclined to trust "the marketplace of ideas." Problem is, in this so-called marketplace, people buy anti-vax nonsense, cult-like religions, pseudoscience, get-rich-quick schemes FAR more than they do provable science, functional policy, or wholesome ideology. When Caveat Emptor becomes the defining philosophy for exchanging ideas, you're in a sorry place indeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't doubt Trump is a billionaire. Thing is, if you've got that much wealth, you rarely have much cash. Wealthy people know that if they just hold onto money, it loses value, so they invest it in things that appreciate in value. Trump, like most billionaires, have his wealth tied up in real estate. He doesn't want to sell his properties, mostly because with the judgement against him, he'll have to sell them at a loss. Well, if he didn't want to have this problem, he just had to not commit crimes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Extremism is the problem. Specifically right-wing extremism. Let's call it what it is, fascism. Conservativism has been supplanted by outright fascism. I can have a reasonable discussion or argument with a conservative. I can't have either with a fascist. Right-wing echo chambers, mostly Fox, OAN, News Max, and all the little propaganda media groups on the internet have taken over, pushed hate and intolerance, and think they're going to win this fight. When you burn the world down, you destroy your enemy, but you destroy yourself in the process, and these guys are playing with matches in a dry forest soaked in jet fuel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markdemaegd4058 You're misconstruing my statement as anti-union, I'm not. Nor am I saying any unions out there are bad. But, you're going to tell me ALL unions, no matter the rules, the dues fees, the political affiliations are going just ALWAYS going to be good? There was a time that unions got in bed with the mafia. You're going to tell me if we went back to that we'd be better off? Nothing is good in and of itself, they have to be doing the right things for the right reasons to be good. We need strong productive unions to protect rights of workers, improve productivity, reduce abuse, help drive the engine of commerce. If a union protect worker's rights, but destroys the business those workers are employed at, is it a good union?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To the people who think space exploration is a waste of resources. During the moon-race, the US invested tons of money into research and development for the moon shot. Now, it's true not ALL of the resulting products made it into the public sector, but a lot did. Not only that, but it inspired a generation to go into engineering and the sciences, all in hopes to become the next rocket engineer or astronaut. Not all of those men and women were going to go into NASA, so they ended up elsewhere, building better cars, better computers, developing synthetic fuels and lubricants, developing products that improved our general lives plus producing jobs. We haven't had a positive view of NASA, and our economy is stagnant. A new moon shot could be just what we need to jumpstart our flagging economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What a dumbass argument. "If we allow Nazis to march in the street, it prevents us asking why Nazis are marching in the street!" The answer to one man's speech, even "hate speech" isn't a suppression of their speech, it's using your own speech to push back. You want to stop Nazis and KKK members marching in your street? Gather as many people as you can, line the street, and laugh hysterically at them. If everywhere they try to intimidate people into accepting them is met with raucous laughter and teasing, they'll figure out their message isn't working. And you want a chilling effect to freedom to speak your mind, invent "hate speech" laws, and then apply them to whatever you want. People in Canada and the UK have been arrested for hate speech and weren't being hateful, but because they were speaking about a protected minority, something itself that is anathema to genuine freedom, they were put on trial or fined.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@camerongunn7906 The major problem is there are excess people, full stop. We've bred farther than we can sustain and mother nature is going to snap back at us eventually. War, famine, disease, something is going to destroy a LOT of people, and it's our fault. I long ago decided to do the one thing I can control in this issue and that's not have children. Seriously, we need to bring the population down by half. Problem is, any solution we come up with, maybe more humane than nature sticking its foot on our neck and pushing down, is going to be wildly inhumane. Random forced sterilization, age limits, lotteries, all bad. We only have to look at China to see what a one child policy does. Even education won't work with ideologies like quiverfull being out there demanding its adherents breed as many as they can cancelling out any good education could manage to accomplish. Add on top of that global climate change adding further pressure on top of that and it's less and less likely our current society will survive much past a few generations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One guy, ONE GUY, understood that the appropriate means of retiring a U.S. flag is by burning. Oh, and it's a crime to burn a flag, but beat an police officer to death with a flagpole bearing the U.S. flag, totally patriotic. A lot of these insurrectionist idiots deserve to be executed for treason, you know, the ones that stormed the Capitol Building. Death by firing squad, let them die by the guns they love more than our rights, freedoms, and democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If we go back to the Puritans, a group that left England because of religious persecution and yearned for religious liberty, what did they do when they came to North America? They established a colony, immediately put down religious laws, and then persecuted anyone who didn't follow their dogma. Maybe our founding fathers were Christians, but they also were smart enough to see what religion dictated by the state did to society, and wanted to do something better. The wall of separation, by the way, doesn't JUST protect the state from religion, it also protects religion from the state. All these Christian Nationalists don't seem to know or willfully ignore what running our nation by church law would do to the state AND their religion. Eventually, one sect or group of sects will take over, and anyone not in those particular sects will be denounced as not Christian, then be shunned at best and persecuted at worst.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coolblue1812 That seems like a spectacularly poor way to run a business that means to sell mass transport. For one, taking deaths of passengers as a monetary inconvenience is morally repugnant. Bad enough car companies do so with a loss of life for each accident being in the teens at worst and one at best, but with hundreds on a plane? I understand greed as a motivator, don't agree with it, but I understand it. To anyone like that, I have one thing to say. Long term stability is far better for profits than short term growth, plus has the benefit of keeping a company lasting longer, providing goods\services, keeping customers happy, and keeping employees working and productive, having an overall stimulating and positive effect on the economy as a whole. If you're going to be greedy, be greedy in the direction of helping as many as possible and harming as few as possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If being shot makes you worthy of being president, we have plenty of prisons full of people who've been shot. Fifty Cent could run. Hell, if you want to limit it to civilly minded people who weren't in gangs or entertainment, you could always run police or soldiers. Or hear me out, we pick someone whose policies are good for the nation. I'm voting whomever they put at the top of the Democratic ticket, be it Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, or a sentient bowl of macaroni and cheese. Hell, I'd vote for Mitt Romney over Donald Trump!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I get what you're saying... However, if every piece of entertainment needed people to reach into their pockets and drag out a few coins (which a $5 a month subscription essentially does), it won't make the entertainment better or more immune to the next adpocaplypse. No, it'd make people far more hesitant to watch different shows or channels. Sure, they'd support a few they like. Maybe many in your audience will be willing to dish out. But, if everybody else does the same, eventually people start making those financial calculations, and then limit their choices. They'd split off from this show or that, eventually narrowing it to a few, maybe a dozen. That's really bad for "the marketplace of ideas" everyone seems so keen on having. While the YouTube situation isn't ideal, it DOES give people a much more open forum and exposes people to new ideas. I started watching one video, which brought me to people attacking that one. I thought they made sense, started watching them. Some of them went over the top, dropped them, but found others, eventually found this channel. That wouldn't happen if I had to spend my money for each channel I viewed. I think YouTube being funded 90% through ad revenue and not subscription fees has made this platform extremely subject to the whims of corporate interests, which is bad, but more open for people to just post whatever they're thinking, which is good. There isn't a single solution to be found here, no panacea for what is ailing this platform. There's a lot of small tweaks here and there, but most of us don't want to do. It is what it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christians are very, VERY un-Christlike. Most don't even read the Bible, where you sit down, read the text, interpret its meaning, and come away with your own viewpoint. Most read the Bible by going to church, having the preacher tell them what it means, then they go home, read that section out of context, and then confirm that's what the preacher said it meant. So, in a way, this is Christian behavior, it's just not Christlike.
1
-
Joe, if you're right wing, I'm the Dalai Lama. You're center left, to near left. The extreme leftists, who most people identify as "the left" nowadays are off the reservation to the left. Hell, if you hold positions today that 40 years ago were considered center right, you're a leftist by today's standards. I can see the benefit of the extremists trying to drag that Overton Window back to where it's supposed to be, but they do take themselves WAY too seriously. People who want what they want on a lot of issues, but not everything to the letter, are the enemy, and that's a political position with zero ground to stand on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I doubt I'll be having children, but in the event that I do, I'll be applying an adaptive strategy. Boy, girl, doesn't matter which, I'll raise them with certain values, teach them certain skills (the same in either event), and adapt if something changes. I won't be teaching them that they need to be heterosexual, but explain the basic mechanics of sex and impress upon them the generally private nature of it. If they turn out to be gay, no big deal, and they won't have had a stigma attached concerning it. I'll assume my child is cisgendered unless or until he\she reveals being transgender, and then adapt as necessary. There have to be SOME basic standards and assumptions made, or else, instead of alleviating potential confusion, you'll just be raising a child to be perpetually confused and that's not good for any child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Videogames are travelling down this road now. Aggressive monetization, microtransactions, predatory practices baked into the product. Games that you can spend a dollar here, two dollars there, spending real world money on in game upgrades, many of them temporary, advertised as "time savers," neglecting to mention that they're the ones wasting your time so you feel compelled to buy them. And, to cap it all off, they made sometimes thousands of dollars off of one player, and they refer to these habitual mass spenders as "whales." All of this on games you ALREADY had to spend $60 to get in the first place. Makes a man feel raped at the end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tisjester It's not conservative anymore. Hell, conservatives are reasonable, they just want to, at best, slow progress down so we can adapt to it better and, at worst, hold us still. This is fascism, a desire to rule and control, to take us backwards. It won't last either. The gears of history grind in one direction, trying to stop them gets one chewed up in the gears. The thing I'm most afraid of isn't them getting chewed up, it's them getting chewed up and dragging a lot of innocent people with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry, in what universe is a military attack on civilians including hostage taking, beheadings, and infanticide NOT terrorism? That's not just terrorism, that's profoundly evil terrorism. If their attacks were exclusively aimed at military targets and the government, it'd still be terrorism, but at least it'd be somewhat understandable. Not good, not condonable, but understandable. They're murdering people who might have been on their side, created new enemies, and guaranteed the deaths of more Palestinians. It was ideologically motivated and strategically self-destructive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He kind of, round about way, explained why the Ark story is untenable. He didn't see that his reason the T-Rex died off would apply to ALL other carnivores. Lions, tigers, wolves, etc. He also talked about the flora dying off in the flood, so what did the sheep, cows, chickens, etc. eat? The more he tries to explain how the Ark story is possible, the more he proves it was impossible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One, items that are made to be collected are never really collectable. They never retain their value. Two, assuming it's solid silver, it's not worth $100, it's worth melt value, and I doubt it's solid, I bet it's clad in silver. Three, a proof coin isn't made by some novelty mint that make tchotchkes. Silver proof coins are minted by the U.S. government at one of the 4 national mints. Plus, they're typically struck multiple times with specialized dies to ensure a high mirror relief and strong detail. I guarantee these Trump coins are struck once. Finally, he's sitting there with the coin in a display, giving the impression your purchase comes with such a display. It comes in a little sack. If you want a display, you'll have to buy one from somewhere else or make it yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My rule of thumb is that government should run anything where a profit motive would cause abuse and harm. Making a car shouldn't be the government, but making sure the cars are safe and up to emission standards should be the government. When it comes to regulation of commerce and manufacturing, the government needs a more adversarial relationship, especially when it comes to punishing bad actors. Large fines tend to be to little, when rules are flouted and lives are harmed or destroyed, responsibility needs to be taken, and when it's not, assigned and really punished. A fine for killing someone is not good for society, it sets a monetary value for human life. Also, more than anything, large corporations that get too big need to be broken up. Amazon needs to be about 12 different companies, and disallowed from recombining.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The man who said, "kill them all," I will suggest maybe the interviewer did have a hard time hearing him. I certainly did, because the way the man spoke, is clearly missing teeth, and his words weren't well enunciated. That being said, he fully understood him when the man said, "he's a disgrace," something I could barely make out with his poor speech. Either way, that apology was mealy mouthed and, ten years ago, his agreement with the, "kill them all," statement would have gotten him fired even at the most extreme right-wing outlet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you want to be pedantic, and I suppose I do, when considering the entire world, the norm is being Asian, primarily oriental. Sure, in the U.S. the norm is white, straight, and Christian, but as a president your job isn't to represent ONLY the majority but ALL citizens. Black, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, gay, bisexual, asexual, atheist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, and on, and so forth. EVERYONE! By saying you're going to fixate on only one group, I'd say that disqualifies you as president.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@africanrhino8508 I was lucky not to live in a time when cell phones were just phones (and then, only owned by wealthy people), the internet required a dial-up modem with speeds that would make video transfer a stupid prospect at best, and then only in my teens, and the closest thing to social media was a hobby club newsletter.
If my mom was on a camera in front of a school meeting that was being broadcast in the news, yeah, I would have seen it. Couple that with acting like an ignorant ass yelling at people about a non-issue, and knowing some kids would certainly end up seeing it, recognizing her as my mom, and spreading clips of it around, it would have been humiliating. I already had enough embarrassment being chewed out by her in public one time, and I kept myself scarce. This, this would have been social homicide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It should NEVER be the case that we should ever feel that we shouldn't vote. It's not just a right, it's our civic duty. Get out and vote, people! Now, this audience isn't the one I need to say this to, but for those of us sick of politics and begin tuning out, you're the problem! That's what they WANT us to do. Ignore them so that they can get away with massive corruption. Or, even worse, become accustomed to the corruption and believe we can't change it. We outnumber politicians about ten thousand to one, so if we really get together, they don't stand a chance, and we can cut this corruption like the cancer that it is. The first step is to vote, vote for people who aren't supporting corrupt policies and who will fight this filth clogging the arteries of power in this nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We are a species that likes order, constancy, simplicity. In many ways, we retain a child's view of the world, demanding simple answers to questions with monumentally complex implications. To explain a spherical Earth, you have to explain why no one on the other side falls off. If we're spinning, why aren't people flung into space? If we're orbiting the sun, how does it not fly off into space? Honestly, every answer is seriously complex with many multifaceted ideas woven into an intricate tapestry that could take the better part of a century to fully grasp if you want to seriously understand it... Or it looks flat where I am, so it must be flat. Oh, and 6000 years old.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yeevita You kind of refuted your own point. It's not the emotions that are good or bad, it's how you act on them. We have these emotions for a reason. They are evolutionary traits that have served us for millennia. Yes, they can be negative at times and can be made to harm us, as the way conservatives have been doing. Seriously though, do you not hate and fear Trump, his movement, and its adherents? One could accurately portray the progressive movement as an appeal to hate and fear. Hell, it's exactly what the conservatives ARE doing! They call progressives hateful of white people, Christianity, Trump, MAGA, etc. and afraid of losing their power. We're all motivated by emotions, we are emotional beings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is my major worry with the 2020 election. We're not going to get a universally loved candidate by the Democratic party, it's just not going to happen. Most democratic voters aren't like me, pragmatic to the point I'd vote for a ham sandwich to get a Democrat into office over Trump. There are too many that'll get hurt feelings if their preferred candidate doesn't win the primary. We saw it in 2016 with Bernie voters jumping ship. I'm sure some of them voted for Clinton, but a majority either didn't vote (helps Republicans) or voted for Trump (REALLY helps Republicans). I doubt that we'll have many voting Trump this year if Bernie doesn't make the cut again, but I think many, possibly most will just stay home, and we need EVERY vote we can muster. The problem is that too many voters are still children in spite of being of voting age. I didn't like Clinton at all. I thought she was corrupt. But, I held my nose and voted for her anyway because I knew Trump would be a disaster. Clinton would have been merely bad, and that's the lesser of two evils. Our side is going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and if that happens yet again, Trump will win again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the idea is, what good is it to attempt some noble ideal of not taking corporate donations if it results in losing power overall? I believe it's a pyrrhic victory. You win the ideological battle but lose the political war. Right now, there really aren't good solutions. We largely have the conservative base duking it out with the liberal base with the moderates and undecided voters being used in a tug-of-war. The left rightly wants to remove corporate influence in elections, and the right wants power at any means so happily takes corporate money. There are many running on the left trying to put their money where their mouths are so they don't end up in a, "do as I say, not as I do," situation and lose left-wing voters, but end up losing everyone else. First rule of politics, your ideology doesn't matter if you can't get into office to implement it. We aren't going to find a perfectly uncorrupted politician and get him or her into office. It's how much corruption can you tolerate. We need people with the right ideas and the strength to fight, so we should be willing to take the marginally corrupt, but electable over the pure candidates that don't stand a snow-ball's chance in Hell of getting in. Basically, how much rot can you stand? No one is clean in the game of politics, and even if by some miracle we get one who is in, he or she won't stay that way long.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm not pro abortion, but I am pro choice. I'd rather women not have an abortion as a form of retroactive birth control, but I'd rather see a woman receive an abortion rather than be forced by the state to raise a child she does not want or to entrust that child to the tender mercies of the US child welfare system. As for the death penalty, I'm going to catch a lot of flak here, but I'm one of the few liberals in favor of it, provisionally speaking. Our systems are broken, so the wisdom of applying it is sketchy at best. But there are criminals who are both unrepentant and unable to be rehabilitated. Locking such a dangerous person in a cell sounds safe, but you're putting both other prisoners, many of which aren't guilty of that level of crime and are able to be rehabilitated, as well as their guards in danger. There's a point where keeping someone alive to prove ourselves more civilized and noble is having the opposite effect. If you're going to tell me we should keep them alive as punishment, so that they have a long time to think about what they did, I refer you to Charles Manson. Unrepentant and wholly unsalvageable until the very day he died. All the time and attention, all the resources that went to this man would have been better off with other people, even if it all went directly into the prison system. Still, as I said, the system is at some level broken and there are often cases of people being freed after decades in prison for murders they did not commit. So, killing prisoners needs to be a case of last resort. And make it a firing squad. There is no gentle means of executing a man, and putting them to sleep before poisoning them to death only makes US feel better. I live in Oklahoma, where we royally fucked up an execution of a truly vile man where it took him hours to die. It would have been far more humane to face him toward a wall and put two rounds into his skull. Even if a criminal is the most evil person in the world, we shouldn't torture that person to death. Be merciful and do it quick.
1
-
@jebkfan9146 Is it not revenge to take a hard criminal and put him or her in prison? Locking them in a tiny area with other violent inmates, forced to work against their will, losing the dignity that only privacy would rectify but could never be granted. Revenge isn't necessarily an evil, though it certainly can be. Every criminal sentence carries with it some amount of revenge. We like to think it's more noble and is entirely for the purposes of justice, but that's one of those little lies we tell ourselves. And as to the advancement of science, I wholeheartedly agree. One day we'll be able to ascertain the physiological causes of such horrible abilities as murder or rape and eliminate them, possibly even before the person commits such actions. It'll be centuries before such scientific advancements become available, I suspect, but still brings up two concerns. 1) If someone has such a mental defect and doesn't seek treatment, is that not in and of itself a type of crime? At what line would we decide a person has crossed from someone with an illness to someone who is an intolerable detriment to society? 2) Supposing a person has not committed a crime, or committed an unrelated crime to such an identifiable defect as rapist or murderer, can we as a society force said person to undergo neuro-physiological reconstruction (as that is what would be needed to repair such defects) against his or her will? We already have massive controversies over forcing medication on schizophrenics and people with correctable or treatable psychological conditions. As such, wouldn't such reconstruction be a sort of death in and of itself? We'd be intentionally destroying one personality in favor of another. The physical body is the same, but the person who we have at the end of the surgery, despite being a better and more functional member of society, would be wholly different from the one we needed to correct. Always remember, one solution invented also brings new problems not considered. There will always be people for whom some portion of society will want to protect from the sorts of punishments or treatments governments will enact or apply must never be allowed. Even now, there are people who don't want violent criminals in prison because of a perception that there are too many of one specific skin color incarcerated, in spite of the fact that they did, in fact, commit some horribly violent crimes. There are never easy solutions. And again, while I'm not opposed to the death penalty, I still question its wisdom concerning our ability to get things spectacularly wrong, and I'd sooner see one thousand guilty men go free than see even one innocent man be executed for a crime he didn't commit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The flag is a symbol of America. At its best, it's a symbol of freedom, bravery, integrity, honesty, fellowship, and unity. With MAGA out there, it's fast becoming a symbol of hatred, tyranny, misinformation, propaganda, division, and ignorance. We need to take it back or throw it at them and build a new flag that stands for the good things while they celebrate evil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm all for diversity. Make characters that are as diverse as you want. But, when you take someone else's character(s) and fuck around with them to suit your tastes, then I'm fully against it. White washing black characters is bad, but so is blackening a white character. Erasing gay characters is wrong, but so is erasing heterosexual characters. There are exceedingly rare examples where changing a character to something more diverse was really good. Red in The Shawshank Redemption novella was a red-haired white guy, but in the movie, he's amazingly portrayed by Morgan Freeman, and I cannot picture anyone playing him better. I was a fan of CBS's Elementary where they made Sherlock Holmes a British recovering drug addict living in New York and Watson an Asian former doctor hired originally to be his sober companion. It was quite well done. We keep trying to wright the wrongs of the past by cutting up the present, but it will never work. The wrongs of the past are there and are immutable, best we can do going forward is to learn from them and move on. Make new diverse characters, hell, add them into fan favorite properties if you wish, but leave existing characters the fuck alone!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Claiming that it's somehow a false argument to ask for people today to pay for the crimes of people who are long since dead. The people who were owed reparations are dead, so are their children, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren. There MIGHT be people 4 generations removed still alive today, but it's not many. Here's what I propose as an alternative. We build a program to help the poorest communities with works programs, repairing bad\underperforming schools to improve education access, fixing their infrastructure. It will have the benefit of affecting the majority of black neighborhoods that are in need, but also not be a racist or racially focused policy being that it'll help Hispanic, white, Asian, etc. neighborhoods. No one will be able to say it's a bad thing, and the poor black people will be getting something far more long lasting than a one-time check that will be spent quickly and not move them out of poverty. Opportunities for improvement and long term stability is what their community needs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People who want Trump out but then put very specific conditions on it, like, "I'll ONLY vote for Bernie," aren't very serious people. There's a phrase I heard a lot as a kid that applies here. Cutting your nose off to spite your face. Basically, a reference to taking extreme action in retaliation to a minor problem. Bernie isn't the second coming, he's not the only candidate, he's one man. There are things I like about him and things I don't like. If he IS the candidate running against Trump, I'll certainly be casting my ballot in his favor. If it's a ham sandwich running against Trump, I'd vote for the ham sandwich. If you screech and rend your garments because Bernie doesn't make the primary run and someone else is the candidate running against Trump, and you refuse to vote for that person out of spite, I'll hand you a very sharp knife so that you can make quick work of that nose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm hard pressed to say Donald Trump has a personality disorder. Disorder suggests something went wrong. Trump's personality is entirely by design, and not his own. He was trained by another malignant narcissist, his father. Taught to never compromise, dominate every situation, always be the man with the plan, make everything about himself. If you get a pit-bull, train it from a puppy to be aggressive and violent toward other dogs, it's a problem for sure, but it's not like its behavior won't be entirely predictable. We'd have to totally deprogram Trump, and he doesn't have the years it would take to do that, neither do we.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think he's coming from the idea that quite a few nations do. Nations you don't like, but some you do, that have a mandatory service period. Sweden, can't stop singing their praises, has a compulsory period of military service. This guy is suggesting something far more benign with a public service that doesn't necessarily include military service. I don't know if it's really a good idea, but to suggest it's nefarious is a touch too far. We need something to really give citizens and true sense of investment in the system of this nation and forcing them to think about how to best spend some time building up their society isn't exactly the worst idea ever. "Just do what the people want." Yeah, that doesn't work well. Too many people with wholly conflicting desires. Plus, this is a nation of laws, not of opinions, and it certainly isn't a democracy, it's a republic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, it's alive, yes, it's a human being, but NO, it's not a person. A fetus is, at best, a potential person. A fertilized egg even less so. Most fertilized eggs don't implant and get washed out during those lovely few days a month a woman has. Even if it implants and grows to be a fetus, that is no guarantee that it will be born viable or be born at all. Miscarriages happen all the time. These backwards arguments are starting from the conclusion they desire and working backwards. Religion is wrong here, as it usually is, and it's also against the Constitution to use it for governance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Star Wars pioneered the "lived in" sci-fi aesthetic.
Disney doesn't like to take risks. No challenging audiences, just crank out the same old same old and sell it to people. Not exclusively a Disney issue, but they are tremendously guilty of it, and probably did a lot to foster it in Hollywood. The major problem is that Hollywood is disappearing up its own asshole and think that these SJW ideologies are the future, when they aren't. There's a major difference between, "don't be a dick, live and let live," and, "WE DEMAND YOU TALK TO US ON OUR TERMS EXCLUSIVELY!" I didn't hate The Last Jedi, and I think the, "it's all feminism all the time" argument is WAY overblown on this movie. My major gripe is that it's SOOOO generic now, entirely too cookie-cutter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'd like to bring up what someone else told me. This is BOILERPLATE stuff here. The reason the FBI is vetting these troops and not who normally would, army investigation, is that the FBI moves much faster, and, given the nature and the expediency of this troop assemblage due to an attempted coup, speed is of the essence. To my awareness, only 12 have been removed from the detail, ten for criminal infractions not related to any pro-Trump mentality, and two for being on a message board that is pro-Trump. In fact, this group will be no where NEAR President Biden during the inauguration. They are outer ring protection, inner ring will be secret service. Any potential (not likely) attack on the president from an insurgent would have to happen from that detail, not national guard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All systems work, the question is to what scale. An ant is an amazing piece of evolution, but try to scale it to the size of a dog, and it's going to collapse. Every household is a communism, the family sharing income and resources, but it's tiny, a few people. Scale it up and it just becomes too many moving parts to make work functionally. Capitalism works fairly well as a system even when it's large, but there IS such a thing as too large. Capitalism came about when there was no automation, where a man using his skills and his hands made a living. Now, very little is made by hand by skilled labor. So, eventually everything will be automated, but we're still dependent on a system created for skilled labor. We'll need to build a new system before too much longer, or the whole clockwork will grind to a spectacular halt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the popular vote favors the Democrat and the Electoral College give it to Trump again, I say we revolt. At the very least, we need to push for the abolishment of the Electoral College, make every candidate seek to be president of all the United States, not just Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why do people tiptoe around the physical differences between men and women? Musculature, bone structure, neurochemistry, biochemistry, hormones, average body fat, I could go on. Women have different brain structure to men. For example, women have a denser corpus callosum with more connections between left and right hemisphere. They have a different balance of neurochemicals. These are facts, and yet, people somehow believe women won't think differently than men? That they don't favor certain skillsets than men? We're still 99.99% cavemen for crying out loud. Men hunted and did the heavy physical labor, women gathered and cared for children. That DNA is still within us. None of that is a prescriptive definition. Women who have the physical ability and mentality to do heavy work jobs, like a firefighter or a construction worker, more power to you, just as men who are more nurturing and want to pursue more care associate work like nursing or daycare, go for it. We keep looking at the end results and seeing intent. Women are just not going into the more dangerous or high-skill/high-pay jobs at the same rates as men. That's not the system, that's not culture, that's the nature half of our nature\nurture dichotomy. If someone is discriminating against someone because she's a woman, that person is a despicable piece of crap. But turning the tables and discriminating against men isn't the answer. You don't balance the scales of justice by rewarding one injustice with another. I want to see more women in STEM, science, technology, engineering, and math. But they keep selecting gender studies degrees which is only useful if you want a job teaching gender studies or being a professional whiner on the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I live in an older house with a full bathroom and a "half bath," which is smaller than a walk-in closet with one toilet and one smaller sink. The only outlet is attached to the one light in the room and only has power if the light is on. It's also dreadfully cold in the winter and hot in the summer, so we keep the door closed unless we're in it. Meaning, in the winter, it's cold AF in there. My mom would rather almost pee her pants waiting for me to get out of the full bathroom rather than use the half in the winter. So, we got one of these cheap heaters. The cord wasn't long enough to reach the only outlet in the room, but that wouldn't work unless we kept the light on, and the nearest outlet just outside the room is on a power strip. Now, again, very small room, you'd have a hard time getting dressed in it with the door closed, so I put it on medium and low fan. Wish I'd seen this video first, but I doubt it's a problem because it won't ever need full blast and full fan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thewaywardwind548 Lucky you. As an 80s and 90s kid, we had garbage for our lunchroom. I don't fault the lunch ladies, they just cooked what they were given. Usually canned fruit cocktail, greasy manufactured meatloaf with the texture of a doormat, microwaved mac & cheese, and, if we were really lucky, an actual orange or apple. Once a week was frozen pizza I wouldn't feed my worst enemy. I mostly brough my lunch from home so I'd have something that was more nutritious. A sandwich on wheat, soup in a thermos (usually still hot), fresh fruit, and a juice box or milk carton.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps. Producing goods for sale with robots is all well and good, but replacing the poor and middle class workers does hold one difficulty, robots don't earn money and thus don't SPEND money. I remember a story about Milton Hershey, the founder of Hershey's Chocolate. It was deep in the depression, he was cutting costs by shrinking the size of his penny chocolates, and a engineer offered him a machine that could replace twenty workers. His response, mind you during the great depression when the economy was in the crapper was, "Damn your machine, hire me twenty men." He understood something our current crop of corporate swine just don't. If you don't have workers, you're a leech on the economy. His twenty workers that he hired in place of a labor saving machine earned a salary and spent it on goods and services which kept other companies in business, and those companies also had workers that might spend money on his chocolates. It's a symbiotic relationship and it's being destroyed by money leeches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This man's point is primarily that the left, mostly the extreme far left, is rapidly disappearing up its own ass. There are theories, and I use the term VERY loosely, that are in direct conflict with biology, human nature, and reality in general. Constant attempts to cut up any positions of power or privilege to directly reflect current population demographics (x amount of women, x amount of gays, blacks, Latinos, etc) and happily displacing people who worked very hard to get where they are solely because they are white men. I want anyone to be able to seek the jobs and opportunities they want, but that doesn't mean everyone will get there. Trying to force things from the top down just hurts everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@attentatdefecitdisorder4348 Tactics and attitudes. BLM has been recorded many times actively calling for the death of police with phrases like, "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon," and "what do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? NOW!" That is 100% wholly unacceptable. Any other group pulled that shit would be IMMEDIATELY labeled a hate group. That IS what BLM is, a white hate group, not a black empowerment group.
Antifa puts on masks and sucker punches people, vandalized property, and is generally another hate-filled group. They claim to be against Fascism, yet employ fascist tactics to get what they want. While both groups tend to go after people I personally don't like and think should be exposed, ultra-right wing idiots, religious fundamentalists, general bigots and cruel people, the key is not to become a worse asshole than the people you are fighting.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were fighting some extremely nasty people. People who physically attacked them, who threatened death, who actually killed members of their groups. Did they call for violence, retaliation, open and active hatred for the people who abused them? No, they used peaceful resistance and called for others to repay violence with forgiveness. They practiced what they preached and got what they wanted (for the most part). Do the same today and you make the people who hate you look like monsters, and the rest of society will be on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, we need less college. Hear me out. I don't mean that college is bad, that it's indoctrination, that it's useless, far from it. I mean, there are a lot of necessary, society stabilizing, functional jobs that do not require college. They WAY outnumber the college requirement jobs. We need more technical training, more apprenticeships, more infrastructure type jobs to rebuild our nation. We need these jobs, and yet pay the people working them crap wages, so people look to college as a way to make enough money, yet then get dragged into this quagmire of loans and debt. Make college affordable, limit the people who can go (we don't need any more underwater basket-weaving type courses), improve access to technical schools, and pay people better and\or tax the wealthy high enough to pay for a society that runs more smoothly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, basically, that man's position is, let them both die without intervention. The likelihood of a 12-year-old girl impregnated by rape of surviving birth is significantly lower than someone even two years older (which is still a child). Not only that, a baby conceived in incest, especially a father-daughter impregnation, is likely to create severe genetic and birth defects which will both lower the survivability of said child. Said child, assuming survival, will have lifelong complications and stigmas. Imagine being called incest baby your whole life. I, personally, given the choice would choose oblivion over life in that situation.
1
-
1
-
Would it be the worst idea to have a body (obviously not government controlled) that oversees journalism to prevent misrepresentations of the fact, withholding of information to promote narrative, or outright falsehoods being presented as fact? Obviously, such a body would be ripe for abuse, like any regulatory institution. The reason people don't trust the media isn't ONLY because Republicans are screeching "fake news!" at the top of their lungs. It's because they constantly and consistently get caught pulling some shady shit. Too much opinion pushing and sensationalism have crept in, not to mention ideology and profit motives. We NEED a free press, not beholden to anything except the absolute facts, and we don't have that now. The left thinks of the Free Press the way Republicans think of the Free Market, something that should be allowed to function without oversight or regulation, lest we fall into tyranny, but a corrupt press beholden to ideology or profiteering corporations can be just as dangerous as a business looking only at its bottom line, willing to do anything for a profit, even if it means destroying the environment. Maybe it's an overcorrection to propose some sort of regulatory body. At the very least, it should be a hard slap in the face of journalists to wake up and start acting the way they're supposed to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
God, I hate economics! While I'm not blaming you for your explanation, I'm sure that's current economic theory, it's only describing a tiny fraction of the people involved, all at the top. People in the middle and at the bottom don't hoard their money this way. They can't, the economy isn't built that way. Only the wealthy offset purchases the way your describing. The way one should encourage people to "participate in the economy" (God, if that isn't a loaded phrase), you have stability so that people have confidence they aren't going to be raped by the market every damned day. When you're spending 3/4 of your income every month on transportation, rent, and food and can't do much of anything else, your participation in the economy is purely as a slave. We shouldn't have inflation, the basic goods we all need don't change that much. Prices can change due to shortages or gluts, but the overall value of the currency should remain static.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This "pastor" lied when he said he doesn't have a problem with trans people being trans if they do so in their own home. He knows how psychotic it sounds to be so hateful while pretending to be spreading love, so he tries, unsuccessfully, to soften his rhetoric with this lie, make it sound like his problem isn't with the people but "forcing" others to have to deal with them. Let me tell you, everyone is who and what they are. White, black, straight, gay, cis, trans, whatever else. We all have to deal with people we might not be entirely comfortable with, but we do it anyway if we're decent people. This white Christofascist nonsense is extremely very indecent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feminism and Egalitarianism may have some overlap, but the women's march is absolutely NOT egalitarian, it's feminist. We need more egalitarians, not more feminists, ESPECIALLY not "intersectional" feminists. Making decisions based on group identity is not what this nation was founded on, it was founded on personal liberty. If there aren't enough women in power, then maybe the women who complain about this should run for office and seek that power. Remember, women run for office and they vote (in higher numbers than men, BTW), so if there aren't as many women in office, it's because women are voting for men more than they are for women.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yo, Texas Paul! If Texas secedes, you moving? I mean, I'd tell Texas Republicans, "don't let the door hit you on the way out, because I don't want your greasy ass prints on my clean door." After a good third of the state empties out because they're Americans first and Texans second and all of the U.S. property like military bases\equipment and NASA are taken away, they'll only have agriculture and oil to sustain themselves. They think that'd be good, but it'd be like a North American Saudia Arabia. A tiny wealthy elite and TONS of 3rd world poverty. Plus, the power of the Republican party of the U.S. would get cut right in half with Texas gone. We'd let them come back, of course, but it's getting spit into 4 states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While I truly believe this happened, corroboration is not evidence. Even so, the corroboration is that someone claimed to another to have been assaulted\raped. It's literally a he-said-she-said situation here. One woman claims to have been assaulted, two women confirm that she made the claim at the time that is supposedly happened, he denies it happened. From a purely legal standpoint, this is unprotectable even ignoring statute of limitations. Women, PLEASE, if you're sexually assaulted or raped, don't just tell your friends, go to the hospital, go to the police, do both. I want every rapist off the streets, but we need the people assaulted to file claims so investigations can happen, evidence collected, trials begun in order for rapists to be convicted and put in prison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My voting experience was quite chill. My mom and I drove over to the church our polling place is set up in, I stood in line while she sat (bad arthritis, can't stand or walk long), everyone in line agreed I was holding her spot for her. Got my ballot, no fuss, filled it out, put it in the scanner, got my sticker then mom and I headed home. Maybe a half hour total. There WAS a line, but it moved fast enough. Then again, I am in one of the safest red states, Oklahoma. Don't think anyone I voted for won, except maybe my specific state district representative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing that really frightens me of late is how quickly and easily people are becoming radicalized. There's a well-known alt-right pipeline in social media. Starting with a very baseline understanding, allowing the algorithm's recommendations make all the decisions, you end up in crazy land with Elon Mush-for-brains, Steve Bannon, and Tucker Carlson. For me, on YouTube, I do occasionally look at the recommended feed, but most of what I watch is on my subscription feed. I start the day, add what I want to watch into a feed, then let it autoplay. News, science, entertainment, I choose what I watch. I don't let computers think for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Theory verses practice is what people need to understand the most here. A lot of things sound great on paper. They're logical, they sound self evident, even reasonable. But, once things get put into practice, the negative consequences start rearing their heads. Our current system of healthcare was never meant to be a permanent solution. It was the result of WWII laws that forbade wage competition during war time, so companies started offering incentives instead of monetary increases to attract scarce labor. Part of that was the offer of health insurance. It worked for a time, but instead of improving the system or scrapping it in favor or something new, they just expanded it, and many systems don't scale well. Then band-aid solutions to fix issues created perverse incentives, and bam, here we are with one of the worst health-care systems of the industrialized world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One of the things that constantly pisses me off whenever I hear people talk about real world space travel, from the Apollo missions, landing on the moon, to the space shuttle era, all the way to today's ISS missions, and ask me, "what did we really accomplish?" They ask that like there is no tangible results, which there are a ton of ancillary technologies that we enjoy today that began life in the space missions, but also there are a TON of intangible results. It inspired a generation of people to enter the sciences, many wanting to become astronauts or work on space missions but were unable to and went on to build SO many other things. In short, never underestimate the power of imagination or inspiration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All these calls for removing appointees because of their corruption is a bit cart before the horse. They're symptoms of a larger issue. If you walk into a room and the candles are melted, the wallpaper is peeling, and the curtains are gone, which problem do you deal with first? NONE, the goddamned room is on fire! Kicking out Barr, Huckabee-Sanders, and DeVos won't solve one single problem, because Trump will simply appoint someone else who'll do what he wants, and probably will compound the problem because 1) we'll focus on the replacement(s), forgetting (temporarily) about the bigger issue, and 2) he'll get someone just as corrupt but more sophisticated in dodging pushback.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, the rabid "woke" crowd that everyone associates with the left isn't much. They're like cicadas. Tiny, annoying, and loud as all get out. Most of us don't want to erase men, erase white people, make everyone gay, pretend there are 57 genders, etc., we just aren't racists, sexists, or homophobes. I live in Oklahoma and I get sick of being associated with the Tumblr crowd. I tend to tell people here, "I'm a liberal... but not THAT kind of liberal."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't doubt that Trump could rape, I don't even doubt he raped this woman. My question is, why do women wait THIS long to report? Let's take Cosby for a current example. The man had been drugging and raping women for decades. The first one waited for how long to report? It's disturbing. Yeah, I get it, it's hard. I had an aunt who was raped in college. It took her decades to get justice, not because she didn't report in a timely manner, she reported immediately, but because the man got away. We didn't find out until he was finally found on a totally different and much more recent rape charge that he'd raped before he raped my aunt, and that that woman knew him and didn't report. He got away for a LONG time, and raped many more women because the first woman didn't report. Worst case scenario, women, you report a rape and the crime doesn't hold up in a court of law. You've painted that man with a rape accusation and that'll make women in the future MUCH more wary of being alone with the man. In other words, your personal pain and embarrassment can save many other women. You would want to have had that protection for yourself, why on Earth would you not provide that for other women?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Diversity of identity isn't nearly as important as diversity of ideas. If I have 12 black people, 8 Asians, 4 Hispanics, and 3 whites, but they all come at a situation exactly the same way, I have high diversity of identity and none in problem solving. If I had, instead, 27 white people, and they all approached situations differently, I'd be accused of racist hiring, but I'd have high diversity in problem solving and would likely find solutions faster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two of my all-time favorite commercials were specific Grey Poupon commercials. One had the back and forth being the other aghast at the other's choice of meal to put the mustard on (a wiener, his word, and baloney sandwich). Each defend their choice by fancifying the particular meal saying it's a frankfurter and the other a bologna (pronounced fancy) and then one pulls away, saying under his breath, "baloney!" The other quips, equally under his breath, "wiener!" The second was the typical, "do you have any Grey Poupon?" with the other saying the typical response, "but, of course." Except he doesn't hand the jar out the window to the other man, he just waves his driver on to which the first looks shocked, and I may be misremembering, his monocle falls off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A game is like a sweater. It's a product, something you buy once and own ever after. Trying to make a game a service is like charging you every time you put the sweater on, take it off, clean it, pick lint balls off it, hang it up, or take it off the hanger. A service is ancillary to a product, like a phone service is to a telephone. Paying a fee to play games online is a service, but paying regularly for a game you already bought is ludicrous. And, yeah, we've seen over the years companies cutting content and releasing it as DLC JUST to make money. We kept falling for it, so this scourge is our fault. But, it is also solvable by us. Just stop supporting this practice. 90% of the games I own are single player, and I don't typically buy games that are meant to be played online exclusively, but when I do, I NEVER spend my cash on microtransactions, we all should do the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christ. I could see this sort of raid for a person suspected of raping children and has kidnapped a child, a violent drug cartel, someone where extreme action is obvious and necessary. What did this woman supposedly do? Type a message on a computer message board she didn't have access to. OMG, call in the wrecking crew, time to bust heads!!
I once had the police called on my grandfather for shooting a squirrel with a pellet gun, claiming he was shooting a firearm in city limits, and one of the officers, when I put my hands in my pockets, grabbed his sidearm (didn't pull it out, thankfully) and ordered me to take my hands out of my pockets. Far as I know, that officer is still on the force and likely hasn't calmed down since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Part of me wants them to succeed, to try and make this nation a theocracy. Why? Because, there is no such thing as Christian Philosophy. I say that because there isn't Christianity, there's some ten thousand varieties of religion with a more or less common lore with often radically opposed philosophies and ideals that all call themselves Christianity. Which one will be the ruler here? If it's Protestant, the Catholics will revolt and the same with Protestants if Catholicism is in charge. Then there are Baptists, Christian Scientists, Evangelicals, Nazarene, Lutheran, and the list goes on and on. Trying to make a generic Christian philosophy is going to be for nothing and push out every group that doesn't agree. Remember, the Puritans left England because they didn't like the official religion, eventually made it to The New World, set up their own society governed by their own rules, and then punished anyone who didn't agree. Have we learned nothing? A secular society makes religion genuinely free by staying out of it. You want to destroy religion here faster, let them be in charge and watch them eat each other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I make my own bean paste, Frijoles, with canned pinto beans usually, though I will use leftover soup beans if I have any. Chuck them in a cast iron skillet with some bacon drippings (I save mine), spices, and use a masher to get the creamy texture I want, leaving some of the beans chunkier for bursts of beanie goodness. For a bean burrito, I mix in cheese, my own fermented jalapeno hot sauce, maybe some shredded beef from a leftover pot roast or fajita meat, warm up, wrap in a tortilla, and put through the microwave for half a minute.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Politics are filthy, disgusting, corrupting, toxic, and it destroys people. We ALL see that. From the most partisan hack to the most enlightened, from the totally informed to the willfully ignorant. I don't blame people for not getting involved. It's like showing people a massive lake full of human waste, vomit, and toxic sludge and then telling them they can get what they want if they swim to the other side. Sure, we can all get involved and fix the system, but we'll have to swim through an ocean of the most negative and soul destroying muck to get there, and most of us can't really handle that. We'll only get there once the options make swimming through the muck preferable to what we have, and aren't quite there yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be fair, some pedophiles were molested, raped, and\or sexually abused. BUT, and this is the crucial thing, even if all CURENT pedophiles were abused, who was the first one? No, there is a messed up part of the brain, maybe a genetic cause, perhaps even psychological conditioning (of which the abuse factors into) that causes this. So, no, not all were abused, and I sincerely doubt that even a majority were.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Business acumen is not really a beneficial attribute for a public servant. Governmental goals might seem to the layperson to be similar or the same as a business, but nothing could be further from the truth. The goal of business is to accumulate money, and any means to do so is considered good for business, even if it harms employees or customers. The goal of government is to secure the welfare of its citizens, protecting them from threats both foreign and domestic. Yes, a government accumulates money, similar to a business, but unlike a business, it's not going to (or isn't supposed to anyway) making a few individuals wealthy and investing in means to earn even more money. It's for infrastructure, basic services for the benefit of citizens, protecting citizens from abuses of power. Claiming someone who is good at business would be good at government does not follow. An individual CAN be good at both, but that person is not good at one because of the other. This president has shown a complete ignorance on the function and systems of government he's been put in charge of. I don't care if he made trillions of dollars, that doesn't make him a good public servant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One of the surest ways to collapse the left side here in the US is to attempt to get slave reparations. 1, it's not happening, the right will filibuster any attempt. 2, it will divide the left into black people\sufferers of white guilt and everyone else. We need a united front to take on Trump specifically and conservatism generally. 3, the politicians proposing reparations don't really believe in them, they believe in black votes and they think this is a way to fluff up black voters to come on board with them. 4, cutting a check to families of slaves will be more damaging than you realize. Even with adjustments for inflation, you'd have only so much cash which will be spent quickly, plus the fact that said reparations will have to be divided evenly to all the descendants of slaves, leaving uneven distribution as some can directly trace their lineage to many multiple slaves while others can't. It'll cause division in the black community. We need to stop discussing paid reparations and talk about things that will do more in the long run, like improving black community neighborhoods, infrastructure, bring in good paying jobs to black communities, fix schools in these neighborhoods, increase access to education. These things will work far longer term than a one time pay off that will likely be spent fast enough to catch the check on fire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Snowflake: A derogatory term for Liberals coined by people who've become offended by M&Ms, Bert & Ernie, Big Bird, Mickey & Minnie, Mr. Potato Head, Pizza Hut, Yeti, Dr. Seuss, Aunt Jemima, Disneyland, Starbucks, plant-based sausage (looking at you Alison Steinberg), Coke, Oreos, Uncle Ben's, Keurig, Kohl's, Nordstrom, Macy's, Walmart, Target, the NFL, NBA, MLB, SNL, NASCAR, Univision, Netflix, HBO, CNN, CBS, UPS; and <checks notes> a melinated mythical fish woman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cheepchipsable Didn't read that all the way through, did you? "Wouldn't a large systemic solution be to collect the organic matter in one place, allow it to biodegrade, and collect both the compost and the methane?"
Large systemic solution, collect the waste in one place (we do that anyway, but mixed in with a ton of recyclables and toxic materials), neither of which suggests having a methane collector in one's home. Hell, some of the waste collection companies are doing that NOW, covering the garbage in an airtight seal and collecting the methane to burn as fuel. It's not ideal, their rotting garbage is mostly organic waste, but mixed in with recyclables and toxic materials, plus they aren't using the organic materials as compost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oddly enough, the first amendment is not an absolute. There are forms of speech that not only are not protected, they are criminal. These include threats, even if one doesn't intend to carry out said threat; incitement to violence, like say, calling for genocide; defamation, essentially lying about someone to turn public opinion against them; and obscenity, which is a bit nebulous and is often wholly ignored. So, no, nobody has the right to call for the genocide of ANY group. The fact that a university president was tap dancing around this issue is indictive of a mental and moral failure. Caller should also know there's a difference between calling for the genocide of a group and calling abortion a sin, which isn't calling for anyone to be killed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1