TheRealNihilist

Not knowing the motives of the hammer for example was already addressed in the portion of the report where it  also talks about how BSH1 does not know the motives but acted on the assumption he was not actually helping the investigation.  

Bsh1 whether knowingly or intentionally actually obstructed my investigation into collusion by banning the hammer and the community burdened me with the responsibility of investigating this matter

i am now burdened with impeachment proceedings by the highest authority of the DART elite

since we do bot have elected officials which I plan to remedy by December than I am the closest thing to the voice of the community, which I reluctantly accept 

The rule of law is why I ended up in an abusive foster home

why the nazis were allowed to kill 6 million Jews

why a kid smoking a joint one time with some friends can have his future destroyed 

Anybody who is pro rule of law, and even lawyers not actively fighting against the system and other participants who do participate in the system as opposed to it, are all pieces of shits who I would have exterminated if I were in power. 

As a conservative, I can tell you I could give a shit less about the rule of law. My ideology comes first

but I think you should consider the evidence

swallow your pride and be mature enough to change your mind 

In fact, I already think you are those things, otherwise I would not have even bothered writing this report on his particular situation.

You need to read my post again. I am aware of more than you think. Also everything I based this on is publicly known information.

I believe bsh1 is innocent of any conspiracy but he is guilty of being human and having bias

Read the post, it explains why that we can't know whether he was cooperating or not. BSH1 would have to be a mind reader. It also shows similar threads by other users that were ignored. It also provides evidence that a moderator was involved in a scheme to manipulate the results of the election and a whole host of other facts. Did you even read it?

I know what I say is true. I just don't have the motivation to prove everything to you and look up all of the articles and graphs again.

You don't strike me as someone who is looking to have their mind changed.

How about you make affirmative claims for a change?

It was an analogy that is surprisingly realistic, sir. The poor people get free gum through SNAP. The rich people paid for this through taxes, yet got nothing. So, when they buy the goods themselves, they will have had to pay the actual price and the tax price.

I know what I say is true. I just don't have the motivation to prove everything to you and look up all of the articles and graphs again.

You don't strike me as someone who is looking to have their mind changed.

How about you make affirmative claims for a change?

It was an analogy that is surprisingly realistic, sir. The poor people get free gum through SNAP. The rich people paid for this through taxes, yet got nothing. So, when they buy the goods themselves, they will have had to pay the actual price and the tax price.

Well, you seem to make it your goal to waste my time.

I might get to some of the others when I am motivated enough.

I provided a link showing that poor people are buying gum at the expense of rich people.

Rich people pay most of taxes, and a lot of poor people pay none. So, I am not wrong. 

$13.2 million spent on chewing gum. Not emotions, facts. 

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf

It is really hard to have a dictatorship with an armed populace. Check out Syria vs Venezuela. In Syria, they got guns and could revolt. In Venezuela, they are screwed. I was referring to the Cato Institute source that you provided as my source for us having more freedom of expression.

You said we were fifth in a couple of things, including healthiness. You compared our system to single-payer systems. You said how great their systems were. I said that there are other factors, including diets. Ours is terrible, so that will obviously create more strain on our system and make us unhealthy. Sorry for adding a little nuance instead of pointing out a singular difference between the two and pretending that correlation is always causation.

I will cite my book when I get home from my test.

This was about them having no respect for our country. I have no clue why you are trying to make some incoherent semantic argument about how taking money from us means they accept our country. There is no argument to be made there. Yes, they take money. They "accept" the money.

That was an appeal to justice and fairness, not emotion, but okay.

Yes, the gum example was an analogy. It is a hypothetical to describe a reality in new terms. And technically, through SNAP, many poor people do get free gum....the rich pay for that gum.

Chewing gum with food stamps https://www.tripsavvy.com/arizona-nutrition-assistance-program-2681991

Well, I Ctrl+F "guns" and "speech". So, guns wasn't added to the calculation as far as I can tell. We do, however, have more freedom of expression, which speech would be included in. 

We have the second highest rate of fast food consumption. We also have the highest sugar intake. These lead to obesity, which makes us unhealthy. That is a rebuttal to your claim that universal healthcare makes us healthier. There are a lot of more facts involved.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-country-eats-the-most.html    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-sugar-consuming-nations-in-the-world.html

Well, my data comes from a book I am reading called "We Wanted Workers". I would have to look at their citations.

They can hate everything we stand for, but they will like the free food, money, and housing. If you love your parents, will you leech off them as much as possible, even though they are going into debt to provide for you? Hell no you wouldn't. Did you move in with them because you love them? Probably not considering the aforementioned debt.

I am not basing arguments from emotion. I am using this wonderful tool known as an analogy. 

Are you trolling me? lol

The dark shit of the web is awful, I saw someone chop his dick off,(no joke)

However, they have strict gun laws and "hate speech" laws.

I mean they begin to resemble native-born citizens in terms of their incomes.

We are unhealthy because we eat like s***. Everyone agrees that our current system sucks. Republicans want to increase competition, and you want universal healthcare. There isn't much common ground there, so nothing gets done and we get screwed. The facts are not "on the left". What is your definition of "the left"?

When leeching off the taxpayer, what happens? Well, to fund it, you take money from productive citizens and give it to unproductive ones. I don't know why you are pursuing an indefensible semantic argument. They are taking money because they want it, not for the good of our nation or its people. That is selfish. They are coming here to take things from current citizens. Apparently you think that means they care about our country.

Sure it is. But offering people things that they will never pay back is offering free stuff. It is like giving away a pack of gum to a poor person then charging a rich person double for the same thing. It is, for all intents and purposes, "free" to the poor person. 

Those values are shared in some other industrialized countries, but not to such a high degree.

As they live in the country, the gap starts to disappear. "Economic assimilation".

Non-biased means fact-based and not a politically motivated representation of the facts. Think of it like reading a study vs seeing what Fox and CNN have to say about the study.

If you want to go to a country for the sole purpose of leeching off of their tax payer, you obviously don't care about it at all.

It is hard to entice people without offering everything you can imagine for "free". 

Personal freedom is the the ability to express yourself peacefully without the government or another private individual harming you. It is the ability to make a living for yourself without the government or another individual taking your wealth.

Well, a lot comes down to speaking English. This makes you a lot more marketable in terms of jobs. Also, being willing to move out of ethnic enclaves gives a lot more income mobility. Immigrants as they come to the US usually make different amounts than natives, either more or less, and a few generations afterwards, they make nearly identical wages. The process takes more generations if you live in ethnic enclaves, which Mexican immigrants tend to do.

Yes, non-biased. I don't want this whole assimilation thing being politically-influenced if possible.

The largest reason that Latin American immigrants come to America is because they can make more money and we have a robust welfare system. They don't have to care about our country or like it. They have a huge economic incentive to work here.

Well, Democrats are trying to fundamentally change America. Conservatives aren't. So, if you are looking for big, fundamental changes to our country, you generally don't like it, and therefore wouldn't vote for a conservative. (I know you'll ask about 'fundamental'. It is calling to change the Constitution. Strict gun control, censoring speech, nationalizing industries, etc.)

I told you what I think American values are.

American values are those of personal freedom and the American dream. 

Assimilate is learning our language, economically assimilating (wages becoming the same as native-born workers), and respecting American values(liberty, etc.).

If they voted Democrat after a non-biased exposure to "American values", it would still be a positive impact.

It isn't good for anyone when immigrants can't speak English, live on welfare, and hate America so much that they refuse to leave their ethnic enclaves.

I don't know, perhaps a large panel of historians can discuss some defining features of America and its people. These things could then be taught in school in a government class or something. 

Yeah, I mean I want people to assimilate because it is good for everyone economically. It would also therefore give more influence to a group that (in my opinion) will let them to be more prosperous.

American values are those of personal freedom and the American dream. 

I do think that the end result of assimilation would be for them to vote Republican.

they are less incentivized to adopt our values

Assimilating would be to learn our language and adopt our culture. 

I am more concerned about losing Texas.

He was banned for (a) lying to moderation and refusing to cooperate in moderation's investigation, (b) excessive trolling, and (c) making knowingly false allegations designed to hurt another user on this site. That is very clearly a serious kind of personal attack.

I have a particular strong suspicion that this is just an attempt to make it seem like RM was the beneficiary of campaigning, after their preferred candidate(s) didn’t make it and/or lost out for the same reason.

That's fine I can cite thousands of dumb things he has said to appear dumb.

What has he done?

The case for a logical-necessity is the only case for DEISM.

You defined best as most able to win. I showed how being able to win doesn't mean you aren't a dumpster fire of a candidate. Best in this context would mean doing the most good with the office. Who will improve the country the most. Who will help the most people. 

The overton window of the democratic party has shifted massively. Most of the candidate's platforms are copying left wing ideas. That is proof the window has shifted. AOC has millions of followers. There are millions of people who want to hear what she has to say. She advocates for left leaning ideas that go along with this shifted overton window. Do I claim she is solely responsible, no. But if millions of people are listening to what you have to say and you are advocating for the newly popular position, than to argue she is not having an effect seems foolish. 

You said that being politically effective was passing legislation. There is very little positive legislation getting passed. By your definition then, all politicians are politically ineffective because none of them are succeeding at passing positive legislation. And yet you only want to apply that to AOC. 

I checked your link. that was a simple resolution. It does not have the force of law. It is for authorizing the use of an atrium. You really think that is evidence for being politically effective? School councils pass more useful motions than that. 

Best candidate means the one who would do the best job in that role, not who is most likely to be able to get the job. 

Because it is critically important to who would make the best president. Biden's plan is essentially to just carry forward with the flawed policies that brought about Trump in the 1st place. Even if he were electable, which i do not concede, he would still be a terrible choice because he does not want to make significant improvements if given the job.

Are you denying that the overton window has moved in the direction she advocates for? Are you denying that millions of americans aren't listening to what she is saying?

So you don't consider any politician at all to be politically effective? What is the point of categorizing people that way if it doesn't apply to anyone?

Again, virtually no one has. That is why people like AOC, Sanders, and warren need to change the democratic party 1st. 

Again, no one is passing policy at the moment. So saying she is ineffective because no one is able to do anything is a weird metric to use. Do you have evidence to support the idea that she does not have millions of american twitter followers? 

Again, if you want to ignore reality, you go right ahead. 

Best and most electable is also a false equivalence. Trump was quite electable. He was a terrible, terrible candidate and is now a terrible president. Most of the republicans who ran against him would have been better. 

Yes, because many people don't bother to learn what the candidates actually believe and will fight for. 

She has been in congress for less than a year. Her power has not been in passing bills, which couldn't get past the republican senate anyway.

Her power is in pushing the overton window back towards the rest of the modern world.

Her power is in inspiring over 100 primary challenges to democrats who don't properly represent their constituents. Her power is in inspiring working class people that there are members of congress who don't only care about fundraising and appealing to the right wing. 

Perhaps you are not familiar with what politics is. it is a popularity contest.

Having twitter followers is a reflection of someone's popularity. Getting that many people to follow you and listen to your ideas is political effectiveness.

The fact that no one wants to listen to most of the other democrats in congress shows that they are ineffective in appealing to voters. 

There are over 100 primary challengers for democrats so far. Normal is 2 or 3. No one can definitively prove why every one of them chose to run. But AOC is the prime example showing that centrist dems are weak in their own districts and can be beaten by progressives. If you want to pretend like there is no relation between the 2, you can continue to believe that. 

Are you aware of what modern politics has become? Virtually no one in congress has anything they can point to as legislative success lately. You want to be able to point to laws passed when virtually no significant positive laws get passed any more. She is successful in giving energy and drive to the democratic party which they have been completely lacking for years now. You want to restrict success to extremely limited metrics. 

That is a false equivalence. The best candidate in an election doesn't always win. Often stupid arguments, fear, etc can play a large role and shift support to a worse candidate. For example, Biden (much like the republicans) is trying to make poor people fear getting better healthcare. 

He has far more of a platform than Joe, remember me I worked for Barack, Biden.

Whether you like her or hate her, calling her politically ineffective is just an outright lie.

She toppled Joe Crowley, a long time incumbent.

She is easily one of the most high profile members of congress.

She is an effective communicator and she has motivated alot of the grass roots base of the democratic party. 

She has been in office for less than a year and has had more of an impact than most of members of congress.

You might believe that is a bad thing, but pretending it isn't happening would show your bias.

It's a case for the logical necessity (NOUMENON).

(IFF) you don't know everything (THEN) there are things you don't know.

(IFF) a human mind is incapable of knowing everything (THEN) there are things you will never know.

For the final one.... ladies sometimes don't like the mess.... lol

But typically "the pill" or depo shots are the most effective and most insurance companies cover a lot of their cost.

I'm glad we are coming to an understanding. :)

I was saying that anti-vaxxers must be somehow connected to a recognized mainstream religion. Personally, I think that if that is the route they want to take, they should live in separate communities like the Amish.

Yes, unfortunately these easily avoidable birth defects aren't taken seriously enough. It seems like a common sense bill to me. Sure the implementation might take a bit to work out, but preventing the ruination of someone's entire life is motivation enough for me.

Your first point was worded a little oddly. I think you are wondering why I make a distinction between "birth control" and abortion. Might just be a force of habit. When I refer to "birth control" I am talking about contraception- things that prevent you from becoming pregnant in the first place. So condoms, shots, and pills that prevent pregnancy are fine by me. Terminating a pregnancy is very rarely acceptable in my opinion.

I don't understand the surprise. Bernie is by far the best candidate from the perspective of a progressive.

I don't think there is any other candidate that would even have been an option except for warren. And she isn't as good as Bernie. 

But i'm not sure why you would be surprised that she chose to support the candidate she has the most in common with ideologically.