Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If she opposes corruption, she shouldn't take money from PACs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
This is an argument from incredulity as you gave no objective reason for us not to trust the source.
Because they state that they are Alt right in their YouTube video which implies that they are biased. It is pretty much only people with a strong right bias that call their channel "Alt censored".
I've also demonstrated that African Americans don't pay for themselves, so at this stage you're objectively wrong.
Most African Americans pay for themselves as only a minority consume welfare benefits. Those that do should get jobs. Corporations take more welfare than individuals do.
The only time I would support automation is if there is a better alternative for the worker being automated.You haven't given us a reason to agree with you.
So the unemployment rate doesn't skyrocket.
Again, Hispanics are a net negative on the US economy.
Only the Hispanic adults that are on welfare are a negative to the US economy. Kicking them off at the federal and state level (and kicking corporations off of welfare) causes this group to not be on welfare anymore.
For example, African Americans are a minority in America and yet BLM is globally known.
BLM is known, but not everyone supports BLM.
You haven't provided a source for your second paragraph. Let's fix that before we start making arguments that extend from it.
Because the kids of muslims get exposed to huge numbers of christains and this causes them to respect western values more than their parents.
Your source states:
In addition, homeland security and related costs figure at around $589 billion. The cumulative costs of business interruption and reduced airline travel and tourism is estimated to be around $123 billion. Add to that $1.649 trillion in war funding and $867 billion in future war and veteran care, and the entire cost to the U.S. government adds up to a staggering $3.3 trillion.
These costs were just government waste and these costs should have never been paid. Terrorist attacks don't have to result in this spending. The buildings being destroyed was only about $55 billion and we should have gotten Saudi Arabia to pay for it.
Your middle argument isn't sourced. If you're not going to source anything you say, I have better things to read. I'm tempted to agree with it but I won't without a source.
If your referring to this claim:
America has spent more killing middle easterners than it has spent on Middle Easterners attacking the US.
Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths | Brown University states that the war on terror cost $8 trillion, enough money to pay every American over $24,000.
3000 people dying in an attack is obviously horrific for the people involved, though.
It's horrible for the people involved, but there are 300 million people in America. if the odds of dying in a terrorist attack is 1/100,000, I don't think those are big odds to justify SJW policies of judging the Muslim group by the individual terrorists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
What would the point of having Jews place a star of david on their profile? I think they should be allowed to post any profile pic they want.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Eminem - Till I Collapse [HD] - YouTube at 1:23. It sounds like he's saying the N word. To be fair, he said, "millions" here. But some of the millions of people who listened to this song (including myself) thought he said the N word here and there was NO OUTRAGE against it because people give Eminem a pass for being an urban liberal.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
I'm glad you don't support reperations as this would bankrupt the economy if paid to their logical conclusion. This stance however, would get you cancelled by radical BLM activists.
I cannot understand the opposition to BLM as a movement.
What does the movement of BLM support in terms of policies? Half the country doesn't support BLM (USA Today: Support for BLM has fallen and support for police has risen – HotAir). Their reperations stance plays a part in this, but they also advocate policies that help very few black people (cops killing blacks) and they don't advocate for policies that help significant portions of black people (ending single motherhood). They are also cause black people to worry about extremely rare incidents, which is bad for their mental health. It is because of this that I don't support the BLM movement, and although almost everyone supports the slogan, slogans should not determine support for a group.
This would be like a pro lifer saying, "I'm pro life. Your not? You must be anti life. You must be pro genocide of the unborn (the cultural norm in Africa)". Even pro choicers support certain life, but they merely don't believe in mandatory pregnency. Similarly, just because you oppose BLM doesn't make you a hater of the blacks. It merely means you oppose enough of the policies supported by BLM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
until you endanger the health and safety of others and/or the general public.
Refusing a vacciene or a mask doesn't make vaccinated people significently less safe. You can make this argument to implement a muslim ban. "We need to ban muslims for the health and safety of others and/or the general public from terrorist attacks since terrorist attacks make us unsafe". You can argue that it is morally justified to ban gay sex out of a desire to make people safe from HIV. Anyone who advocates for this is somehow committing "hate speech" to gay people. Anyone who advocates for a muslim ban (even if it saves lives) is somehow spewing hate speech towards muslims. If these examples are hate speech, then wanting to mandate vaccienes is hate speech towards those who are unvaccinated. If this is your definition of hate speech, then it ought to be legal(along with hating anybody you want for any reason you want). People should be free to decide their own risk tolerance, whether that is having sex with someone with HIV, or being unvaccinated.
Libetarians want freedom to do (controversial things) to make people free and to keep the government small. Authoritarians want freedom from (controversial things) to make people safe and they prefer a big government to keep people safe. This is true for abortion, healthcare options, gun rights, vaccine mandates, war, foreign aid, weed, homosexuality, and others.
Liberals want to implement authoritarian stances on vaccienes out of a desire to make everyone safe.
Conservatives want to implement authoritarian stances on immigration out of a desire to make everyone safe.
One who is principled advocates for freedom from vaccienes to immigration and any other freedom that is either victimless or an activity where the ratio of (the quantity of people that benefit to the amount of harm generated) is extremely high.
This is why it is acceptable to speed even though some people die as a result. The freedom of 250 million drivers to speed for over an hour every day for 350 days a year is a legitimate trade off to the 30,000 people that die from car accidents. If you disagree, then don't speed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Healthcare is an economic issue. A social issue would be abortion, or immigration. Anything primarily involving money is an economic issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
Looking at my DATA, I found out that she took $5000 from a PAC. So I no longer support her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
If they told me that, I’d believe them. But I think they are independents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I don’t vote in people based on party. It just so happens that conservatives will agree with those me the most. I would vote in Kyle Kulinski for DART president over MisterChris. Despite Kyle supporting left wing policies on economics, he doesn’t ban people for political opinions or edgy statements since that is to the best of my knowledge, the only substantive policy of DART presidents. I think most mods are left of center. Most are “other”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
left most definitely doesn't love eminem lol
I thought huff post wrote a positive article about him.
I’m unsure if Trump is a racist or not. The only way his racism would be something I would vote against was if he made policy that was unjustifiably bad for a certain race. If he just stereotypes, I don’t really care. My whole track team stereotyped and my track team was probably the most racially diverse track team in the state. It’s okay to make funny stereotypes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I think ramshutu would ban people for edgy statements, jokes, and for stating opinions. I don’t think I trust him.
A DART president’s opinions only matter on the issues they have control over. If a DART president is pro life or pro choice, it won’t effect how DART is ran, so to me it doesn’t matter your abortion position. If a DART president wants to hypothetically kill all Jews, I hate their position on that issue, but it won’t effect how DART is ran, so I wouldn’t use it against you.
The only issues that matter in a DART presidency are issues that effect DART. Free speech is one of those issues because presidents have a say on who gets banned. I am very libertarian on free speech so I want to support the most pro free speech candidate. There may be more issues that effect DART, and I don’t know if any. If you can think of any issues about DART that you or ramshutu agree with me on, I might support you. Until that happens, I’m supporting the most pro free speech candidate, Wylted. I’m open to changing my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Unless Eminem was a real estate billionaire involved in pretty explicit housing discrimination in the 1970s that I am not aware of; and unless Trump is a leading figure in the predominantly black rap scene, I significantly doubt the contexts are the same.
Racism was pretty common when Trump refused to house black people. That was the culture then. Biden also advocated for segregation in the 1970s. But since it was a long time ago, the left didn’t care.
I don’t think Eminem being a rapper matters. If I rapped the N word, I’d get cancelled by most people.
Eminem wasn’t ever cancelled by the left. He votes blue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
so many people on this site would willingly vote for a neo-nazi
I don’t think his anti simetic views will make life worse for Jews. If they did in a meaningful way, I’d want to vote for someone besides you or wylted. I’m voting for him because I know he is going to get less people banned and I’m a free speech absolutist for all opinions, edgy statements, name calls, and jokes.
But I think he’s an anti semite and I disagree with him on this. I don’t think that will impact his job as president, unless he bans Jewish people, which I don’t see him doing.
If he ran for president of the United States and he wanted to kill all Jews, I’d vote against him. But if he’s president of DART, he can’t kill all Jews even by executive order. It’s because of that that I don’t mind voting for an anti semite. His views on that issue won’t harm any Jews and he supports policies that I support, such as free speech absolutism.
I’d like to run, but I don’t have time for that. I might run against Wylted in the future, but I don’t have time now. I also don’t want to split the right wing vote so I’m dropping out (Wylted is more popular than I am) and am supporting Wylted since I know he won’t ban people for views and jokes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
The cost of having African Americans in America costs around $1 trillion a year
African Americans pay for themselves through the tax dollars they pay. I don’t trust your source.
A good policy would be to stop African immigration into the U.S. (or at least vet for the top Africans)
A better way to get out of debt is to allow as many workers in the US as we can get to increase the taxpayer count as much as we can to make paying off the debt easier.
We can also (and we are) look into automation and robotics to replace the low-skilled jobs that a lot of African Americans typically do, thus relieve the U.S. of some of the burden of importing the 3rd world to complete these jobs.
The only time I would support automation is if there is a better alternative for the worker being automated.
A solution for Hispanics would be to deport illegals back to South America (this deportation is cost effective because you only need to transport them over the border).
If we deport people, we lose the sales tax they pay. I made a complex plan to get us out of debt. Want to check it out?
I’m with you on not funding Israel any more. I don’t like America picking sides in foreign conflicts.
Muslims don't assimilate into populations. Muslims tend to want Sharia and a caliphate wherever they go Muslim Beliefs About Sharia | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org). When you bring Muslims into your country, you're bringing in a population that will contest your systems -- that's a real reason to oppose Muslim immigration.
There are 1 billion Muslims and 1.7 billion westerners. If every single Muslim moved to a western country, they would still be the minority in the west. Since this will never happen, Muslims will always be a minority in the west in our lifetimes unless enough westerners get converted.
Moreover, the children of Muslims are much more secular than the parents. Not allowing Muslims to enter your country because they are theocrats is like not letting Bible Belt conservatives into your country because they are theocrats.
Two Muslim terrorist attacks have cost the U.S. significant amounts, around $3 trillion for 9/11, and $800 million in the other WTC attack The 10 Most Expensive Terrorist Attacks In History | TheRichest
I think your statistics are over blown. The US annual budget for the entire government is $3 trillion. No way does a terrorist attack cost that much. America has spent more killing middle easterners than it has spent on Middle Easterners attacking the US. But when your odds of dying from a terror attack is very small, your being petty if your worried about it.
Created:
Posted in:
Donald Trump: Never publicly says the N word.
The media: He is such a racist.
Eminem: Says the N word regularly in a context that if Trump said it, the left would be energized enough to vote him out. Also says, “Orange man bad”.
The media: What a hero!!! Oh my gwad.
Me: I don’t care if a liberal or a conservative says the N word. Nobody should lose their job or get beat up for hurting someone’s feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
if you don't vote for me you clearly are an actual peanut brain that defies all logic you god damn moron.
Should I report you for hate speech? After all, this is hate speech much more than making a joke about African Americans.
Created:
Posted in:
I think way too much stuff is classified as racist. Somehow opposing BLM makes you as bad as Dylan Roof in the eyes of the far left.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I thought conservatives, especially Trump conservatives w3ere taking ivermectum.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Joe Rogan said he used ivermectum to try and treat covid.
Created:
I think the vacciene is better for preventing covid and given that conservatives tend to be the tried and true party, they ought to support vaccienes more than Ivermectum.
Created:
2) Yes. I think it should be harder to ban someone and all opinions that want to change any law should be allowed to say on DART, even if it's for something extreme and highly illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
But what the difference between censoring a pro lifer and censoring a white supremist? Is it the popularity of their views (being pro life is backed by many people whereas white supremacy is backed by few)? Because I don't think popularity of views should matter.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't like you either, but I can relate.
Created:
Posted in:
Life just gets in the way man, you know. I get tired, I get stressed, I am busy with schoolwork. I just need a break from DART.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I don't know the difference between censoring Richard Spencer and censoring Lila Rose, or censoring Colin Kaepernick. The only difference is how popular their ideas are. White nationalism isn't that popular, but being pro life is much more popular than that.
In reality, it shouldn't matter how popular an idea is; all ideas should be allowed to be said without fear of being cancelled by everyday Americans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Have you not watched zeitgeist
I have not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I've seen people advocate for banning pro lifers, for banning people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I've met plenty of people that are fine with someone getting beat up for misgendering. An entire family personally hates me for being open about my disapproval of BLM.
The left (and the right) is polarizing this country and we are heading towards a civil war.
I notice you are characterizing people who advocate for social justice as extremists. Why would any good citizen be against social justice?
Social justice is very vague and people shouldn't back vague causes. SJWs believe in hating anybody who is even the slightest bit right of center.
.jpg){kind=link}
It's also why I don't agree with the MAGA crowd. Everyone wants America to be better. But if your definition of making America better is by building a wall to keep taxpayers out, there will be decent people that oppose that.
Similarly, if your definition of, "social justice" is vehemently hating anybody who disagrees with even one tenant of left leaning theory, then normal people are going to disapprove of SJW theory.
Here are some examples of SJWs:
If your left of center, that's fine. I may disagree with some of your takes but in a free society people can disagree. The links I mentioned weren't moderate lefties. They were SJWs.
Created:
Posted in:
I just want to see how far SJWs are willing to go.
Would you ban a pro lifer for hate speech? What about someone that opposes BLM? Is that now hate speech towards black people? Is misgendering based on the belief that there are more than 2 genders now hate speech towards transgenders? Is believing that marriage is between a man and a woman now hate speech towards gays?
All of the positions I stated are backed by significant portions of the US population. If you make it illegal to say these things and punish them for it, it would lead to mass incarceration. Given how much the left wants to reduce our prison population and they blame the war on drugs (even though drugs only account for 15% of why people are in jail), it would be surprising that they want to ban and jail ANYONE for speech given how much they want to reduce the prisoner population.
But don't expect extreme people (from either side) to be principled with what they want done. Both sides just want to appeal to their base by getting more extreme.
If your like normal America, I recommend watching the video below:
Created:
-->
@Athias
Poorly stated. No form of authoritarianism is acceptable.
In order to have laws, you need authoritarianism. If murder is banned and legally punished, that's the government getting involved, but it's getting involved in a way that I support, so it's fine.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't want the government taking income tax from people. Replace the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax. Even prominent left wingers like Jessie Ventura advocate for repealing the income tax and replacing it with a 15% sales tax.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't want undocumented immigrants consuming welfare as this makes them a burden to society. If your willing to have immigrants be a burden to society, do the government a favor and take care of an undocumented immigrant yourself instead of forcing the taxpayer to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Most immigrants are fiscally liberal, socially conservative (except on immigration). People tend to vote on social issues, but the immigration issue is a big enough issue for immigrants and this explains why they tend to vote left.
If the GOP wants immigrant votes, they need to appeal to undocumented immigrants because most immigrants know a few open undocumented people that they sympathize with. Otherwise, they will lose elections by bigger and bigger margins as America has more 1st generation immigrants that tend to vote on the immigration issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then get rid of all welfare in the United States. I don't want undocumented immigrants or anybody else mooching off of taxpayers. I still don't care if they merely exist in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
A $28 trillion debt is a bigger problem than 1 death from terrorists a week and I think most people can agree here as human life is not priceless as nothing that lasts a temporary amount of time has infinite value. Otherwise, it would be morally justifiable to make the speed limits on highways 10 mph (if it saves JUST ONE LIFE).
In reality, people see past this and realize that the economic security of not being $28 trillion in debt, the economic freedom of not having to pay for others, and social freedom of getting to go fast are all legitimate tradeoffs to saving as many lives as you can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Both parties suck and their members are partisan hacks who will believe anything their party tells them without thinking for themselves.
Democrats are the party of tolerance (until you decide to open carry an AK 47, be mask less, or be without a vaccine. Then they will not be tolerant. They will justify this using some weird logic, but in the end they aren't being tolerant of your life choices.)
Republicans are the party of small government (until a republican president decides to wage a war in the name of, "stopping terrorism", or when they decide to bootlick law enforcement, or when someone tries to enter the country without papers. Then the GOP is all about maximizing the size of government).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
U.S. debt to GDP ratio was ~108% in 2020. While this is a problem, I don't see why we can't tax the 1% and use the money to overhaul our system of policing or anti-terrorism, since neither of those seem to be working.
To fix the debt, I propose replacing the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax, and increasing the number of taxpayers of the US as much as we can. Paying off the debt will be easy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I thought the source I provided was good enough.
IF spain's age of consent was 13 i dont give a damn because that's an entirely different country.
If it worked in Spain, it could work here. The left doesn't have this attitude with UHC. They are like, "It worked in Europe, so lets try it here."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
how do you know if its consensual btw?
If the animal resists, it's not consensual. If the animal stays put, it's consensual.
and are you trolling?
Nope; I'm just very libetarian on sex for others and I demand consistency. Either an animal has rights or it doesn't. Pick one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
your clearly 13 and uneducated on most everything you say.
I'm over 13. I'm just very libetarian on sex for others, and this includes sex with animals.
humans having sex with an animal is not giving an animal rights its rap e.
Only if the animal resists.
nyxified pointed out animals dont have the mental capacity to consent to sex with a human.
You'd be surprised. The video below shows a dog having sex with a member of an other species:
there's a difference between eating an animal and raping it this comparison is retarded
Eating the animal requires it's death. Consensual sex between animals can be enjoyed by both parties. Either you believe in animal rights or you don't. Pick one.
F U
Unjustified ad hommein attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
nor did you address that much of these sexual freedoms are already possible with a marriage approved by the parents and/or a court, as the case may be. (There are thousands of such marriages in the USA every year).
You sure the courts will let a 13 year old marry someone?
But marriage is too binding, regardless of age unless you want to start a family.
If Spain can let 13 year olds have consensual sex and not have it be classified as pedophilia, I fail to see why the US can't follow suit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I want to be vegan in the future (so I believe that an animal has the right to life and by extension, not getting raped). However, there have been some pretty horny animals that I have came across in videos and movies that would be fine with having consensual, non PTSD causing sex with humans. I think consensual bestiality should be legal, although I don't want to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
Humanity's existence as an omnivore in the food web is not at all equivalent to fucking an animal.
How so? Milk is only obtained through artificial insemination, which is rape. At least having sex with an animal with human sperm doesn't cause an unwanted pregnency.
If you think animals don't deserve rights, then you ought to think there is nothing wrong with having sex with an animal
If you think animals do deserve rights, then you ought to be willing to go vegan to be principled.
All I'm asking for is some consistency.
Created:
Posted in:
@drlebronski
Hey; I'm only asking for some consistency. If you think animals don't deserve rights, your free to advocate for legalizing beastiality. If you think they do deserve rights, your free to stop eating their products. But 90% of society is totally hypocritical on this.
Also unblock me if you want me to respond to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
Also milking a cow isn't rape. Artificial insemination is more along those lines but it has a clear purpose.
Artificial insemination is the only way milk is produced at a scale large enough to feed billions of omnivores. Either animals have rights or they don't. If they have rights, you can't kill or rape them via artificial insemination for food. If they don't, it ought to be legal to have sex with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I want it banned because it's an abomination and morally evil in and of itself.
Definition of abomination:
"a thing that causes disgust or hatred."
I fail to see how sex with animals can cause hatred. If you think it's disgusting; that's fine; you don't have to do it. But people ought to pursue their desire for victimless happiness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You’re really on fire today lol. For the same reason there are animal abuse laws. Killing an animal to eat is a just act so long as they are treated well during their lives (unfortunately a great many are not. But that’s a different topic)
Anyone healthy that is killed isn't "treated well" including most healthy animals. The consensus of scientific evidence confirms that one does not need to eat animal products to get any nutrients.
But more than that if someone wants to have sex with animals they are a disgusting reprobate.
If you think it's disgusting to have sex with animals; that's fine; you don't have to do it and you don't have to watch others do it. I think it's disgusting too, so I don't want to do it. I however do not want to jail somebody for something that is merely visually unappealing. Otherwise we would have to jail ugly people.
Created: