Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because melanin levels are as arbitrary as foot size. Tell me why this matters again for a functioning society to divide people like this?
Ask our ancestors who enslaved a portion of the population for 400 years, followed by another 50 or so years of segregation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hence Social Construct. The methodology allows for infinite races and infinite racism.
Which is why we don’t count melanin levels, but rather rely on the differences between us that are so obvious that children barely able to speak can tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Melanin levels.
Which are genetic...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Why have free will if you're going to just sit on the fence, anyway? There are three kinds of people:1. Make things happen2. Watch what happens3. Wonder what happened.The first kind have free will, and choose to make things happen.The second & third sit on the fence, willingly abdicating both free will and choice, and accomplish nothing. The second kind may actually benefit from wha the first kind do, but do not contribute to making. The third kind are a lost cause altogether.You clearly support 2 & 3. Congratulations.
You got all of this from “Choice and free will are not the same thing”? Do you understand what this conversation is about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you know what it makes when one insists he has no choices?
Choice and free will are not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Since race isn't genetic and is a social construct,
So a black person’s skin and a white person’s skin is a result of what exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
You can't seriously claim that you don't care about the skin color and be the only person in the room talking about skin color. The statement above is false.
“I don’t care about skin color” doesn’t mean “I don’t see color”. It means that their race/ethnicity doesn’t matter to me. So if for example, they are infected with COVID, I look at them no differently than I would anyone else who is infected with COVID.
Just because someone isn’t talking about skin color doesn’t mean it isn’t largely driving their position. Politicians and right wing TV hosts literally make a living appealing to racists in a way that can be denied because they don’t use the magic words that give it away.
Whether they say so or not, the people you interact with are going to understand that you do care on some level, and I can't say I'd blame you for not wanting to discuss that in public.
Not wanting to discuss what in public? And why would I not want to discuss my views exactly?
Obviously illegal immigrants must have started changing colors around the time Joe Biden took office. There's no other possible explanation.
Or, the people spouting off about this are just bigots who don’t like Mexicans. Any others?
Created:
Posted in:
In a recent thread I took the side of a known woke culture critic being labeled a racist to say that there was no reason to believe he is in fact a racist. In doing so I was myself labeled a 'probable implicit racist'.
The right loves to complain that this is what the left does - when they can't win the argument they just label the opposition a racist, but the right seems to be no different.
In another thread I criticized an obvious example of bigotry. Joe Biden's recent release of migrants included some who had tested positive for COVID19, this has lead to numerous complaints suggesting that this is dangerous and goes to show how little Biden cares about real Americans. These complaints of course come from the same flock who have spent months railing against mask mandates, social distancing measures, and drawing comparisons to the flu implying that COVID is no different. But suddenly, now that brown people from Mexico are carrying it, we're all of a sudden worried about COVID?
When pointing this out did anyone challenge my presumptions? Did anyone ask me to provide evidence that any of the same people took these same two positions? Did anyone make any real effort to defend holding these two positions simultaneously? No. Instead I was, you guessed it... Labeled a racist.
Is this really all we got? Is there a reason why we cannot have a reasonable conversation about what a racist is and what it takes to qualify as one? Is there a reason both sides of this debate seem to think that calling the other side a racist "wins the argument"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So did the mirror at the sink in my kindergarten classroom
And I'm sure it still does. You have a point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Those who use a racial argument are pointing toward their mirror.
"I'm rubber and you're glue" worked in third grade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So a once in a generation event is climate change? Wow. We can’t tell the weather for tomorrow and you’re telling me people should’ve predicted this 10 years ago? Gimme a break.
If you actually understood anything about climate change you'd know that it's effects are that once in a generation events continue to increase in frequency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The regulatory climate that allowed 111 people to win the Darwin Award for not making smart life choices like the vast majority of Texans did is the exact same reason why Texas is a refuge from the California Dystopia.
And you claim you’re not a republican?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You come here down to Texas this summer and see if you think it was necessary to do so. As someone who’s lived in Texas for literally 95% of my life, this was literally a once in a century event. Could it have been prevented? Sure. Could anyone who’s living in Texas have predicted this? Hell fuckin no lol.
This is literally what the term “climate change” means
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The price California and New York pay for saving 111 unseen lost lives with their mountains of cumbersome regulations are millions of people unable to make a single life choice that might carry some unforeseen risk without getting approval from the government.
111 lives lost was the result of not weatherizing their power grid. There is nothing about enforcing that which causes people to not be able to make a single life decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Ah yes, the ole if you accuse someone else of being a racist then you must be a racist argument.
I don’t care that they are brown, that’s the point. So because I don’t care that they are brown, my concerns about them carrying COVID don’t change, unlike the many (that you seem to be defending) that never expressed any concerns about COVID until finding out that some illegals were carrying it.
If you don’t believe they should be set free, then argue that they shouldn’t be set free. But don’t pretend that because some portion of them (that is no higher in percentage than the general US population) are testing positive that all of sudden this is a public health issue.
If you take issue with me bringing race into the equation, then instead of “I’m rubber and your glue” enlighten me as to what the concern is here and why it’s a concern now when it hasn’t been one for the past year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Need a Vaccine Passport to travel within the nation but not an ID to vote. Got it
Well we certainly wouldn’t want to let people in with COVID now would we?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the government were in charge of the power grid in Texas, they would be paying the same rates as California for electricity with regulations mandating all power plants be winterized for the next event coming in a hundred years.
And 111 Texans would still be alive.
By the way, crazy how these once in 100 years whether events seem to be happening every few years. I wonder why that is...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Are you really justifying that people diagnosed with Covid should be roaming around the nation?
No. Read the thread.
The days we have come to. Liberals defending Covid just because an illegal has them.
Strawmanning your position is a sure fire way to make them sound stupid.
No one is saying it’s fine to let illegals wander around with COVID. I was commenting on the hypocrisy and absurdity of the same crowd that has been denying COVID is serious suddenly outraged about illegals carrying COVID. If you didn’t care before (which is the majority of the right wing) then you can save your faux outrage.
So we’re gonna let 100 illegals with Covid out in the nation so they can spread it and kill people
So... if we let them into our nation with COVID they’re going to kill people. Ok. Im curious to know your position on mask mandates and social distancing guidelines, and states that aren’t following any of it. Better yet, I’m curious to know what you had to say back when Trump was holding one packed rally after another without any distancing or masks required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Anyone who won't change their mind is a bigot.
No, anyone who, for example, doesn’t give a rat’s ass about COVID until it’s being carried in by brown people, is probably a bigot.
Bigots tend to refer to bigots as bigots, and vice versa.
They also tend to accuse anyone calling out their bigotry; a bigot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The opposite is true too lol. Y’all are crazy about Covid, but have no problem letting illegals with Covid into the nation. Talk about a super spreader.
There are millions of Americans right now carrying COVID. We let out what, 100 illegals with COVID?
If you care more about the hundred than the few million, it’s clearly not COVID that you give a shit about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Here is a video to clear up bigotry against people afflicted with white skin.
Talking issue with bigotry against brown people is not an endorsement of bigotry against white people. Not sure what your point is, not watching a 30 min video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Anyone who uses the word "migrants" like you did to describe illegal migrants as you clearly did in post #11 is obviously a radical.
It helps to pay attention to conversations before coming in.
I was referencing the right wing talking point that the Biden administration is allowing COVID infected migrants into “our” communities. Yet the people complaining about this are the same people who think lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing guidelines are government tyranny. So the same people who will pack themselves into indoor spaces without masks are the same people who are all of a sudden worried about COVID once it’s carried in by brown people. It’s absurdly transparent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They don't live in your backyard though.
My grandmother didn’t speak a word of English, I sure never had a problem with her spending weeks in my house growing up. Sorry bro, that’s just not going to work here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry, but promoting illegal immigration is radical.
Sure is, now point me to someone who is doing that and I’ll call them a radical too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trust me, you wouldn't think for a second about sharing your living space with a person who doesn't speak a language you can understand.
I live in the Bronx, I’m surrounded by people who speak all kinds of languages so you’ll have to excuse me if I have a difficult time understanding white bigotry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, can you just drop the “radical leftist” talking point? It just sounds stupid when one calls everyone who disagrees with them radical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
NIMBY refers to types of construction, not types of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Just move to the South. We sure as hell aren’t going to enforce the passports. Feds can come and guard every state border if they want.
Funny, those are the same states complaining about migrants coming in with COVID.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Essentially there’s not enough evidence to prove Trump did anything wrong.
You tell me my claim is false, then go on to describe the exact point I just made.
The claim was that Mueller said there was no collusion. He did not. Saying that there is not enough evidence to charge a crime, is an entirely different thing than saying they were able to conclude no crime was committed.
Mueller didn’t even recommend impeachment to Congress like Ken Starr did with Bill Clinton.
So what? Mueller wasn’t interested in that. Unlike Ken Starr, Mueller was interested in doing his job and not playing politics. Ken Starr was brought in to investigate a real estate deal and ended up writing a whole report on Clinton’s jizz being found on a dress. If Mueller was playing that game God knows where we would have ended up.
This nation runs on the concept of innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. If there isn’t sufficient evidence, the person is innocent.
This isn’t a criminal trial. The prospect of impeaching Trump over the findings of the Mueller report was not about whether he should maintain his freedom, it was about whether he should maintain the nuclear codes.
Trump is innocent in the eyes of the law, not the mind of any reasonable person.
And not for nothing, but I can’t get over the hypocrisy of a Trump supporter preaching innocent until proven guilty after years of “lock her up” chants over Clintons emails and Benghazi.
Created:
why doesn't the GOP realise that Trump 2024 or a Trump endorsed candidate is a almost certainly a losing ticket?
Because in their minds they won, so why change?
The only problem are all those pesky minority counties where all the cheating was going on, and by cheating I of course mean voting, so let’s pass over 250 bills to stop that.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Education.
If people were better educated they would know why it’s both stupid and dangerous to elect a president who calls the media “the enemy of the people”, who values personal loyalty over competence, and who actually believes the justice department is there to protect him.
If people were better educated they would know why it’s both stupid and dangerous to elect a president who calls the media “the enemy of the people”, who values personal loyalty over competence, and who actually believes the justice department is there to protect him.
Created:
i dont buy it that policeman should be found guilty just for making the death come sooner if he was gonna die anyway...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this claim that he would have died anyway is not yet clear, so it sounds like we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
It is a very interesting question though, should one be convicted of murder for causing one to die earlier than they would have? Obviously the amount of time we’re talking about matters, we’re all going to die so on some level this is the case with every murder. But if we’re talking minutes? Hours?
I think to answer that question we need to look at the officers actions. If an officer struggling to get a perp into a police vehicle accidentally hits the perps head I wouldn’t hold him responsible for that. But putting his knee on the guys neck for almost 9 minutes while he’s telling you he can’t breathe? Also take into account that the officer was well aware by his own admission that Floyd was on drugs, so he was well aware that the risk of death was higher giving him far less excuse. I say lock him up
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mueller never said there was no collusion. He said they were unable to substantiate a conspiracy charge. The fact that Trump refused to speak to Mueller in part because Trump’s own attorneys told him he couldn’t do so without perjuring himself, probably had a bit to do with that.
That is of course irrelevant anyway, because the obstruction of justice charges came out in the same report so the lack of conspiracy evidence has absolutely nothing to do with why the democrats did not impeach Trump over the latter.
It also shouldn’t need to be said but does, that the democrats didn’t conduct this investigation and in fact had nothing to do at all with it. It was initiated and conducted by Trump’s own justice department and lead by two lifelong republicans.
What never ceases to amaze me is how right wingers act like the democrats impeaching Trump twice says more about the democrats than it does about Trump. Even as republicans explain their acquittal votes not on Trump’s innocence but on lame process arguments that no reasonable neutral observer would ever care about. Like I have been saying, future generations will not be blinded by this BS.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I can understand from a leftist's viewpoint that sacrificing millions of kids with school lockdowns was worth it to ensure Trump was removed from power, but Trump is now gone for at least 4 years. Why are we continuing the insane lockdowns now?
It’s like you are pretending to be a conspiracy theorist for satire.
Crazy thought, if the left weren’t actually pushing for these lockdowns, how could that be proven to you?
If this were before the election we would have easily said “it’ll be proven if Trump is gone and the lockdowns remain” but Trump is gone and the lockdowns remain, yet here you are... still holding onto the same conclusion but searching for a new answer to fit your contorted picture.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ending a tyrannical lockdown.
In other words, nothing. Exactly my point.
People like you that swear Fauci is an unbiased scientist
People like me are not the ones who are obsessed with Dr. Fauci. That would be the people who have no grasp of how this virus works and seem to think the entire world is in on the conspiracy, so you need a figure head to attack and also paint as a deity to the other side.
People like me put our trust in the scientific community, as do you I’m sure when it comes to anything else that hasn’t been politicized.
The wonky Lockdown of non at-risk people was absolutely a radical policy.
You do know that people who are not at risk spread the virus to those who are right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact that Congress spent time from Day one working to remove Trump instead of helping the country to move forward set a new purpose for the Congress: To use majority power to eliminate political opposition.
The democrats declined to impeach Trump despite the Mueller investigation finding him to have committed 11 counts of instruction of justice. It’s not their fault Trump was such an incompetent buffoon who didn’t give a rats ass about upholding the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I CARE!
Good for you. Now if you’ll excuse the rest of us, we’ll be over here talking about what Trump actually did with the facts that we actually have. Enjoy pouting over the house rules not being properly followed. Most of us care more about the reality of the situation than the technicalities of the process.
the Senate concluded there was no crime committed
This is such an absurd excuse. Senate republicans refused to convict because they cared more about their own political careers than doing the right thing. That’s not evidence of Trump’s innocence, it’s proof of just how self serving republican politicians are. And that’s before we consider the 10 republican house members and the 7 republican senators who voted to impeach/convict.
But again, future generations and historians will see right through this.
How is it that you conclude the Senate was wrong? See the mirror? It reflects back on you. the burden of proof, my friend, is yours, not mine.
The burden has been satisfied with the facts, you know, the ones you are still complaining about how we got even though most of what we know didn’t even come from the investigations. In the first impeachment we have the transcript/call notes because Trump himself released them. The offenses that lead to the second impeachment occurred before our eyes.
The fact that people like yourself will so desperately avoid confronting any of the facts by complaining about process does not mean the evidence is not clear. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, another buzzphrase coined by the radical left.
No, it’s a response to an ideology that divorces public policy from the findings of science by claiming it takes values into account when it’s really just an assertion of values alone.
If you want an example of a partisan buzzword try “radical”.
We can and should embrace science, but we cannot follow it. It is up to us to make the hard choices. Not scientists.
What hard choices is the political right in this country making regarding COVID?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is nothing cult like about following science, and this idea that we’re just sheep believing whatever our leaders tell us is just plain stupid. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well yes, that's the point. You have to live in North Korea for a lockdown policy to make any sort of sense logistically.
No, you just need a citizenry that believes in science over conspiracy theories, and is not so childish as to care more about not letting the government tell them what to do than to follow basic health and safety guidelines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
All it takes is a little research instead of listening to your biased news sources who know squat about the proper functions of Congress, or the law. Apparently, neither do you. RESEARCH. It's what you do. Well, it's what I do. Double R: Read and Research. Apparently, that's not what your moniker is.
Why is this so difficult?
No one cares about researching house impeachment rules. What people care about, what historians and future generations will care about, is the fact that we had a President of the United States who attempted to extort a foreign nation into investigating his political opponent, and also incited an insurrection attempt on our US Capitol. 50 years from now no one will be talking about whether Nancy Pelosi was within the rules to call a vote.
But like I said, when the facts are against you this is all you have to work with.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Or we could've done what Sweden did and never shut down. They pretty much have nothing to worry about over there and the herd immunity strategy seems to be working.
Lockdowns are completely useless when the people living in these places think being asked to put on a mask is an affront on their liberty. Public policy can’t make people care about their health and safety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"if" is useless word when it acknowledges only that which is not currently true.
You’re the one who set the bar, I was merely responding to it. How is it pointless to explain to you what your own argument leads to?
Regardless what most people agree when the Supreme Court precedent, as I said, has already mandated how and when, and by what action either house of Congress may "investigate" anything. The word, by the way, does not exist constitutionally. The function of Congress is clearly laid out in Article I. Show me "investigate."
It really is quite telling when the response to Trump’s actions is to point out that the house didn’t properly follow its rules. Like the famous legal saying goes; “If the facts are not on your side, argue the law”.
Fortunately, future generations will not be so caught up in the passions of the moment and will see right through this BS red herring.
Correct, you cannot have it both ways, which is why Biden admitted he was wrong to criticize the ban.
Great. So which is worse; being wrong on the travel ban and then later adapting your views to the science, or being right on the travel ban and then being wrong on everything you did afterward despite the science being clearer and clearer as the months went on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What crisis?
If the bar for what counts as a presidential crisis is the House invoking an impeachment that properly follows all House’s rules and a Senate conviction then you are proving my point.
Most people would agree however that getting caught trying to extort a foreign nation into investigating your political opponent and inciting an insurrection attempt on the US Capitol are pretty damn serious. Today’s Trumpers might hand waive all of this away while complaining about the treatment of Dr. Seuss, but future generations most certainly will not.
Horrendous handling of Covid by President Trump?
I give Trump credit for initiating Operation Warp Speed and dispatching hospital ships the same way I give my waiter credit for bringing me my steak the way I ordered it. Sure it’s a good thing no one can deny that, but there is nothing impressive about it and is most certainly not deserving of praise. Any president would have done this. I mean seriously, do you really think Trump is the one who thought of directing funds towards the faster development of a vaccine? Everyone in the country was asking what we were doing about that.
But the travel ban argument is so much worse. To argue that the travel ban was even warranted let alone important you have to accept that COVID19 is in fact a deadly virus that needed to be taken seriously. Yet Trump would spend the next few months telling us repeatedly that it would magically disappear, refusing to put on a mask or tell anyone else to, and holding rallies in packed crowds one after the other breaking every single guidance issued by his own CDC.
You can’t have it both ways. Either his travel ban (the only thing he proactively did to try and mitigate the virus) was a meaningless action or he completely neglected his oath of office.
And who, conversely, complained, criticized, and generally discounted those efforts? Your current occupant of the White House, in purely political overtones, having naught to do with the crisis, itself, but with his political whip.
Biden never criticized OWS or sending the hospital ship, he criticized the travel ban and for good reason; if Trump actually cared about the virus and actually thought it was a threat he would not have ignored every other health measure he could have taken. Funny how banning Chinese people was the only precaution he thought we needed. However, it is possible he really did think this was a deadly disease so maybe he had good intentions here, but that prospect is no better. If he really believed this was a danger to the country as he told Bob Woodward then everything else he did becomes that much worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@fauxlaw
If this is a crisis I wonder what you guys would call the situations that lead to Trump’s two impeachment trials and his horrendous handling of COVID...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You know there were no airports in 1775 right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I voted for Obama and didn't vote last Election.
Interesting. Have you not been on this site praising Trump or am I making things up?
But one exception isn't going to make a difference. We already saw the past 4 years that one man can't take on the entire establishment without consequences.
I assume you are talking about Trump here, I don’t see who else you would be talking about. Trump wasn’t taking on the establishment, not in any sense of what that phrase typically means. Trump was about Trump, and this whole anti establishment image was about branding. All he did was pass a tax cut making the rich richer.
Most of the Democrat party are heavily purchased by the rich, especially in high GDP states like New York and California where most of the ultra-rich live.
Is there a reason you are singling out democrats? Are you really suggesting that republicans are not purchased by the rich?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So, democrats are willing to have big government in order to as you put it "mitigate the damage". What is your definition of damage? If your definition of damage is lost of life, then wouldn't the democrats be pro life as well?
Damage is whatever the opposite of a solution is. Again, democrats believe that government’s job is to solve problems. It’s that simple. No one values big government, that’s just where you end up when you have a lot of problems to solve.
Pretty much all the humane restrictions are already in existence. Democrats tend to want less restrictions on immigration.
Less is a relative term. Republicans wanted to spend billions of dollars on a wall to stop people from coming in via plane and smuggling drugs in via tunnels. Wanting less then that isn’t saying much.
So your saying the democrats are pro safety? If so, then with few exceptions, being pro choice and pro safety are contradictions.
They have nothing to do with each other. The abortion debate is about who has the greater right to a woman’s body, the child or the mother? No one wants the baby to die, but if you believe the woman has a greater right to her own body then you are forced to support her choice because the baby can’t live outside of it. Pro gun safety is about recognizing that your right to a firearm increases the danger to those around you. These are different things.
If your an anti pain democrat, you ought to be against cancel culture because it produces more pain than it eliminates.
This is like arguing that criminals shouldn’t go to jail because the victim is already dead, so all it does is increase the pain. Again, setting aside instances where it goes too far, this is about accountability. Should Rosanne Barr have lost her entire show over one joke? No probably not, but it does set a tone that this kind of disrespect towards black people is unacceptable, that is a clear attempt to reduce pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'd say repeal the income tax and replace it with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax. Rich people barely pay anything in income tax since Jeff Bezos's annual cash salary is only around $80K a year(How Much Does Jeff Bezos Make a Second? (marketrealist.com)), so his income isn't that high. He is only rich because of his stock.
As soon as I wrote my response I realized I forgot to add “close tax loopholes”. But regarding a sales tax instead of income tax... that has been looked at and would be one of the most regressive tax bills we could ever pass.
Created: