Total posts: 8,696
Posted in:
-->@<<<oromagi>>>I don't think any serious people really think Communism was ever or should ever be a thing.I take offense at that.
- Communism was just another 19th Utopian ideal. Do you really believe as Marx did that the State "will wither away?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->@<<<oromagi>>>Leftism believes that no public policy should prevent any citizen from the expression of their opinon.So anyone who says, "a person should not express their opinion because of x," is not leftist or expressing leftism.
Nope. No public policy should prevent expression of opinion.
So-
A Republican who says that drag queens should be banned from public performance because gender should be strictly enforced is only expressing his opinion and all good Leftist would support his right to say so.
A Republican lawmakers who passes laws banning drag queens from public performance because gender should be strictly enforced is violating the First Ammendment and no good Leftist would approve.
So examples of "not leftist" would include the following??NazismsCommunistsAntifa (anti-fascists)Totaltarianism groups
Communists and Antifa are more bogeymen than fact. Certainly, I have never heard of a law written by a bona fide Communist or Anti-facist. All NAZIs and Totalitarians are anti-Leftist by definition.
Actual Communism depends on the people controlling the means of production and that means real suffragism for all. Although some 20th Century states claimed to be Communist, none of those states came even slightly close to being democratic and so those were just labels. I don't think any serious people really think Communism was ever or should ever be a thing. If Antifa has ever had any political power anywhere, I am not aware of it.
Also, I hear rightism expresses the same desire, "no public policy should prevent any citizen from the expression of their opinon."
- The American Right WIng gave up on ideology when they decided to follow Trump who regularly calls for state violence in response to poltical dissent- "We could fix Portland in, I would say, 45 minutes," etc
- Right now, we have Right-wingers firing school principles for calling Michelangelo's David free expression
- RIght now, we have Right-wingers taking poltical autonomy away from Orlando because Disney dared to criticize a Republican Governor
- Perhaps you are correct that Rightists say as much, but wherever the Republican party has political power they are currently attacking free expression on all fronts.
So appropraite response to hearing men should not have a say is to question a person's political aligntment, right? To get the correct demographic on the issue that is .. if o.p. wants to of coarse.
- False. Worthy Leftists (including, by extension, all worthy Americans) respond by saying "Everybody gets to have their say"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
42% of Transgender identifying people commit suicide.
- First of all, you should probably just admit that you got the statistic (like most of your beliefs) from this tweet by Stephen Crowder:
Steven Crowder@scrowderTransgender people have a 42% attempted suicide rate. American slaves & Jews in concentration camps didn't commit suicide at 19x more than the general population.
- 23 hours later, you turned that into an actual suicide rate rather than a self-reported attempted suicide rate. SInce there are roughly 25 attempted suicides for every actual suicide, your number represents an extreme distortion of the facts. Please correct your error.
- The best study of the subject is a 45 year study of 8263 trans people in Amsterdam which documented 49 suicides (six-tenths of 1%) within that population over that time and concluded:
- Suicide death risk in trans people did not increase over time.
- Suicide deaths occurred during every stage of transitioning.
- Suicide death risk is higher in trans people than in the general population.
- Suicide rates in the concentration camps are hard to calculate. The NAZIs did take the trouble to note suicide as one cause of death but the two most common methods of suicide, electric fence and starvation, were never counted as suicide. A 2004 study suggested that 1 in 4 concentration camp deaths was actually suicide. A more recent study only gets as narrow as 10-30 times typical 20th Century European rates. Whatever the uncertainties, we can say with confidence that actual suicide rates in NAZI concentration camps exceeded actual suicide rates by American transpeople by several orders of magnitude.
Most of the mass shootings recently have been by LGBTQ identifying people. Anyone seeing the correlation?
- LIkewise- hysterical terrified Republican fearmongering without the least bit of respect for facts or reason.
The school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee - Transgender shooter.
- Aiden Hale only started changing pronouns a few months ago after seeking therapy in the wake of the death of his best friend. We don't know if Hale had started any kind of therapeutic regime, although there's a strong correlation between hormone therapies and suicide.
The LGBTQ nightclub shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado - Non-binary shooter
- Flat-out opposite of the truth. Aldrich identified as a straight, gay-hating Conservative Republican who was known for using rainbow flags for target practice. His friends and family state that he consistently used he/him pronouns and only claimed non-binary pronoun usage after the shooting. That is- this is just another Republican trolling the trans community and anybody buying Aldrich's bullshit is perpetuating that troll in the face of the dead.
The STEM school shooting in Denver, Colorado - Transgender shooter.
- Alec McKinney was 16 yrs old at the time of the shooting, was supposed to be taking medicine for schizophrenia but had not done so for months and reports that inner voices were compelling him and had snorted a considerable amount of cocaine prior to the shooting. Nevertheless, I think people should be at age of majority before having thier sex lives labeled by society.
The pharmaceuticals distribution center shooting in Aberdeen, Maryland - Transgender shooter.And more cases like this one.
- Snochia identified to friends as a trans man but still used she/her pronouns. She started hormone therapy a year before the shooting.
So let's toss out Aldrich as a troll and McKinney as a schizophrenic, drug addicted minor. That leaves two transman shooters since 2018, both likely taking a considerable amount of testosterone, a drug known to cause violent mood swings. Many studies have found a direct correlation between violence and testosterone levels.
If we define "mass shootings" as "at least four injuries by gun injuries" than of 3,561 and assume only one shooter per event (in fact, so many events have multiple shooters that the number should be closer to 5000 shooters) we come up with a rate of 2/3561 or .0005% of all mass shooters over the past 6 years are trans compared to 98% cisgender males. Both were partially self-identifying transmen and 0 shooters were transwomen.
Since Lxam cites mass shootings as evidence of mental illness and the majority of mass shooters are straight white males, it follows that straight white males are the most mentally ill demographic and transwomen are the least mentally ill with no mass shootings at all to their credit. If we are using Lxam's reasoning then should we start making straight white males more mentally healthy by by transitioning them all to women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
-->@<<<oromagi>>>But what do those parties inherently support? I’m trying to stay off of DART for a while to catch up on school so I might not respond, but feel free too if you want.
Inherently? Nothing. Inherent means permanent, essential but poltical party are label appied to complex coalitions of political interests that realign every 2 years. Once Democrat meant pro-Slavery and Republican meant anti-Slavery. Now Democrat means pro-Democracy and Republican means anti-Democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"So, this is a question to those leftists who claim this. Can you have an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus?"
- Leftists believe that everybody has an equal right to have an opinion on anything, irrespective of uterus status.
Created:
Posted in:
- That works just fine. So, obviously, no person who would argue that men should not have the same rights to opinion as women is "advocating for social equality" They are doing the exact opposite of Leftism: they are arguing that men should not have the same rights as women in at least one respect.
- I am sure you can find somebody who identifies as Left-wing and yet will make this Right-wing argument but that just makes the individual less Leftist, it does not, as you have proposed here, make all Leftists responsible for an anti-Leftist remark.
Your first proposition is fatally fucked: So, you guys say that you can't have an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus, right?
The only truthful response is "Wrong, such a remark is entirely inconsistent with Leftism."
Your second propostion is likewise fake: you guys also say that you don't need a uterus to be a woman, right?
The only truthful response is "Wrong, Leftists believe that everybody gets an equal and sovereign right to define and descibe themselves as they see fit without government interference. The Leftist position is that no government may with justice enforce a label of "man" or "woman" on any citizen against their will.
Therefore, when you conclude that the first proposition contradicts the second, you are comparing one fake straw man to another. Your argument that there is some kind of contradcition has zero truth value.
This is why I didn't say "All Leftists" in my title, I said Leftists, because that is where these ideas are coming from
- That is the opposite of true. Leftism advocates that all men and women are equal in rights. Any argument that women deserve a right that men do not deserve is by definition, anti-Leftist and unrepresentative of Leftism as a political ideal. All arguments supporting heirarchy, including the notion that women should have a unique right to hold an opinion on some particular subjec are Right-WIng arguments by any dictionary's definition.
Platform like Youtube have a habit of censoring, or age restricting videos without any reason for it.
- If you will provide a specific example of YouTube taking action, I'm pretty confident I can find YouTube's reasoning.
Now I wouldn't consider this a big deal, given that Youtube is it's own platform and has the right to take down whatever they please, but what I do find a big deal is that while those videos are getting age restricted, the kids videos on Youtube kids are teaching kids how to consent, showing kids videos promoting, suicidal themes, sexual themes, and LGBT indoctrination. Those videos are not only not taken down, but they aren't even age restricted, and what's worse is that it is on Youtube Kids.
- As you say, YouTube has a right publish as it sees fit without government intervention. Let's agree that nobody under the age of 18 belongs on the Internet and the responsiblity for enforcement belongs 100% to parents.
, give me one exact time that they have published fake news, and not apologized or corrected themselves on.
- Climate Scientists: Climate Models Have Overestimated Global Warming
- The article literally says "these Oxford scientists claim X"
- 3 days later, all of those Oxford scientists come back and say "False, you totally misrepresented our findings and conclusion"
- Scientists everywhere condemned the article as 100% FAKE NEWS
- Andrew MacDougall: The article selectively quotes from interviews and scientific papers to create the false perception that climate models significantly overestimate the rate of warming. The article also falsely implies that the cited paper is about the so called “hiatus” while the paper is actually about the carbon budget for the 1.5 ºC target.
- Pierre Friedlingstein: Bad coverage of the Nature Geoscience article. The title and first 3 paragraphs are misleading. It seems very clear that the author of this article did not read the scientific article he is reporting on.
- Nevertheless, the Daily Wire has never apologized, corrected, or expained why they reported the opposite of the truth.
. It's not a falsehood or misrepresentation of Leftism.
- Yes it is, quite obviously
Many leftist spokespersons, have said this in court, and to Congress.
- That should be easy for you to document. I don't know how one identifies as a leftists spokesperson but some prominent Left-winger stating before Congress that men should not have a right to an opinion on abortion should suffice.
Ok, what?
- I'm saying that its hard to know what is real, or idealogical, or American on the internet.
Literally search up leftist arguemnts for abortions, and many youtube videos you can find of self proclaimed liberals, saying that men shouldn't have an opinion on abortion. It's not that hard.
- That's your job. Many self-proclaimed Liberals are not leftist at all. You need to demonstrate that your uniquely anti-Leftist claim is actually presented as Leftism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->@<<<oromagi>>>Serious debaters use dictionaries so that everybody is talking about the same thing.Serious debators don't pretend vague definitions like "political left" have precise definitions for the very purpose of equivocating.
- Political leftism has a very precise defintion. We know the exact time and place and authorship of the Left vs. Right dichotomy because the French Assembly put it all on record.
- Yes, we understand that you can't justify your crazy conspiracy theories without being able to argue that Leftism means a whole range of anonymous boogey-men but that why you would lose any debate on this site that depends on your desperate need for vagueness.
- There's no such thing as intentionally vague definitions. The set of all people called Leftists is the set of all people who believe that human rights take priority over property rights. There is plenty of overlap with other sets of people like "Liberals" or "people who believe the US Government should not regulate a woman's choice to be pregnant" but every label is its own unique thing. Using the wrong label for the subject of your proposition, as Liam has done here, always breaks the truth value of your proposition and demands correction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
-->@<<<oromagi>>>I dont know an exact way to do that if its based on personal experience.What is non anonymous? I am anonymous because you dont know my name. Most people online use aliases.I will look or examples online.Easier to find more responses to the claim that men have no say then it is to find exact language on why men should not have a say.
- Yes, I think that illustrates my point. I'm sure it is true that some random people say a man is not entitled to his opinion on abortion but not by people who are representing a Leftist point of view. By definition, Leftism believes that no public policy should prevent any citizen from the expression of their opinon. While some random people might say they are Left-wing and then make this un-Leftist claim, that does not support Liam's claim that the point of view represent Leftism. This is what is called a Straw Man. It is not particularly true that Leftists say X and also that Leftists say Y. Therefore, asking Leftists to explain Liam's phony contradiction is not warranted.
Created:
-->@<<<oromagi>>>Of course, you reveal yourself as authoritarian by such statements. We Americans are dedicated to proposition that Freedom and Equality for everybody is the only truly sustainable form of government.Irrelevant to what I said. Also, instead of "freedom and equality", try promoting life and God's law. It lasted for thousands of years.
- But those aren't American values. You pretended to be interested in public policy from an American point of view (i.e. Americans still trapped) but the fact is that whatever your nationality, you are arguing from Putin's perspective. Certainly, we can say without fear of contradiction that you aren't interested in America's well-being. Putin doesn't care if there are Americans trapped in Afghanistan so neither do you. When you talk about the mistake of occupying Afghanistan for twenty years, it is not because you are hoping that America will learn from that mistake and grow stronger and more enduring. Your motives are revealed to be anti-American. You are an enemy of America.
- Why should any American care what you think when you clearly don't wish us well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
->@<<<oromagi>>>Potential conflating but it does happen. Many pro abortion individuals deny anothers ability to have an opinion on abortion in general. Even if that person is a woman.
- Let's have some specific , non-anonymous examples, please.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't have Tik Tok. I don't like being spied on by the Communists.
I also don't watch fox news and rarely watch Tucker Carlson.
- Fine, Ben Shapiro, then but what's the difference, really?
I get my definition from what I see.
- Yes, that's clear, and immediately raises the question about why aren't you getting your definitions from dictionaries? Serious debaters use dictionaries so that everybody is talking about the same thing. My definition of leftist comes from Wikipedia. Your definition of leftist comes from Ben Shapiro.
Unless it conflates with their own. Just look at the media
- Look up the word CONFLATE on wiktionary. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. I think you are looking for some word more like "contradicts". Likewise, Leftist doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Not all leftists are pro-abortion. Not all abortion rights advocates are leftists. Why not address the abortion rights advocates rather than swinging wide of target by addressing Leftists?
- Used correctly, most modern Westerners are fairly Leftist in conception. The French came up with the word in part as a reaction to the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers are Leftist by definition, because the politiicians who coined the term meant Left to describe that part of parliament who favored American style Republicanism as the ideal form of government for France. There no wiggle room for saying that America is not Leftist because Leftist actually means "American style democracy."
The cast of the Daily Wire gets content restricted and age restricted by YouTube where they are relaying their own opinions on political and personal topics, none of which are bad.
- I turned on age restrictions but I was still able to access everything on the Daily Wire. I can't confirm that such a restriction exists. I believe you are under the age of restriction yourself and yet you seem to have access to the site as well. Am I missing something?
- The Daily WIre has been caught printing a lot of fake news, especially regarding the election, the pandemic, climate change. I hope you are expanding your research to less motivated, more rigorously fact based sources, as well.
Meanwhile on YouTube Kids there are videos on the recommended page, teaching kids about pronouns, and consent, and sexual topics. Yet those videos are on YouTube Kids.
- Yes, the internet is an anonymous unregulatable wild west and no place for children. Most experts recommend no YouTube or reallyany social meda for children. You are probably fucking yourself up right now just by reading this. I could drop a pronoun at any moment.
Please educate yourself on the meaning of the terms you use before you use them.
I have and will.
Thank you for your concern.
Correct. Leftists seek to minimize government intervention in the lives of citizens.
"They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors. The Democratic Party is generally associated with more progressive policies. It supports social and economic equality, favoring greater government intervention in the economy but opposing government involvement in the private noneconomic affairs of citizens."
So yes you are correct on this one.
- I've already demonstrated that your argument is formally broken.
How so?
This is a lie:
So, you [LEFTISTS] say that you can't have an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus, right?
But then you guys also say that you don't need a uterus to be a woman, right?
I have met a few women who have suggested that only women should vote on abortion. I have never met any American who in serious debate would argue that a fellow American does not have a right to any opinion. This is an obvious falsehood and a misrepresentation of Leftism. Any false premise breaks the syllogism.
You can't provide one example of a left-leaning politician publicly stating that some citizens are not entitled to their own opinion on any subject under any condition. Suppressing opinion is a RIght-wing character flaw.I never said anything about politicians saying this. Again, the explanation I wanted doesn't have to do with political leaders and bills etc. This has to do with an ideology.
Yeah, a POLTICAL ideology. If you are saying that you can't find a single poltician who identifiies as Leftist and is recorded saying that only people with uteruses may have an opinion on abortion than you are conceding your point as lacking evicence. You can't say, "ok this is how a Leftist thinks" and then fail to produce any actual examples. If you're thinking well, there's people on the Internet who call themselves leftists and express some similar opinion than that's no kind of evidence at all. That could be a Russian Agent or an 8 year old or you, inventing evidence- whatever. You need to find a bunch of real live Leftists who make the argument you claim they make. If you can't do that then you had no basis to make the claim to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
-->@<<<oromagi>>>I see, so if you say something I don't like I am free to destroy you financially and ruin your life.
- That's right. I shouldn't have to explain to you that you owe me no fiduciary duty. Obviously, people who hinge their financial stability on their widespread popularity would be fools to make controversial poltical statements. That just marketing 101. The First Ammendment does not protect fools from bankruptcy.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
-->@<<<oromagi>>>Putin has no more right to dictate Ukrainian foreign policy than Mexico has a right to dictate US policy.Is a false statement. You dont get to put your missiles and interceptors in Ukraine. You may think that world is based on equality, but it is based on power.
- Of course, you reveal yourself as authoritarian by such statements. We Americans are dedicated to proposition that Freedom and Equality for everybody is the only truly sustainable form of government. "Might makes Right" is always more appealing to thugs and wife-beaters but we Americans learned from Jesus that " all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" so we sought to make poltical power both temporary and representative.
- By your totally situational morality, Putin is objectively too weak to control the largest, emptiest chunk of property on the planet. Strong, effective governments are therefore justified in challenging Putin's weakness and taking what they can.
If NATO was a threat to Russia, we'd never have given back Russia's missiles.Is a false statement. NATO is obviously a threat to Russia, when NATO countries invade Russia's allies and try to isolate Russia.
- Make up your mind, dummy. Either "the world is based on power" and Putin's weakness is provocative or "the world is based on rule of law" and Putin's genocides put him at the top of the World's "most wanted." Either way, Russia is a failure.
"You give back missiles" doesnt mean you wont harm Russia.
- Handing over your weapons is a universal sign of peace.
The values promoted by NATO are opposite of Russian values.
- Fundamental human values are essentially the same all over. The values that make it possible for Putin to make himself the richest man on Earth at the expense of the Russian people do not conform with Western or Christian or Democratic values, to be sure
80 years ago has nothing to do with people today.
- Anybody who believes that statement in any context is a surefire fool for life. Never trust anybody who tells you to forget the examples of our past- that person is always looking to fuck you up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
->@<<<oromagi>>>"Every leftist will stand up for every citizen's right to have an opinion." How do you reconcile this statement with the existence of the leftist cancel culture so prominent in society today?
- Easy: everybody has the right to an opinion, not just people you agree with. I have the right to say "fuck that pervert, I'm never listening to that evil bastard again." Twitter has a right to say "fuck those traitors- kick them off our stage and never associate our good name with theirs ever again."
- Cancel culture is a phenomenon in which those who are deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner are ostracized, boycotted or shunned.
- Freedom of expression means I can ostracize, boycott, or shun you for any reason and you may not ask the Government to make me listen to you.
- Your right to an opinion does not protect your opinion from any correction, mockery, derision, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
-->@<<<oromagi>>>False. Every leftist will stand up for every citizen's right to have an opinion.Unless you want the freedom to have guns, make abortions illegal, make castration and cutting off of limbs for children illegal, making child pornography illegal, confronting corrupt democratic officials, and etc.
- Still false. By definition, leftists believe that every citizen has a right to an opinion on any subject. Your definition of left/right seems to be coming from Tik Tok and Tucker and not from studying the Tennis Court Oath. Please educate yourself on the meaning of the terms you use before you use them.
Leftists seek to minimize government regulation of human organs and natural processes.You do know that leftists fight more government intervention, right?
- Correct. Leftists seek to minimize government intervention in the lives of citizens. For example, leftists argue that corporations like Twitter are free to do business with who they like without any intervention into that market by the Federal government, as rightists demands.
I think you're thinking about libertarians.
- No, you are using Tucker Carlson's definitions of words rather than the dictionary. When you use non-biased expert sources, you discover that "Scholars distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines. Libertarians of various schools were influenced by liberal ideas. Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists especially social anarchists, but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists" (Wikipedia)
- You are thinking about Rand Paul who is only anti-Goverment when he has to pay to taxes and is fine with police violence and government pussy inspections. Barry Goldwater was the last Libertarian in the Republican Party and left that party in disgust at Republican's rejection of American Conservatism.
Children in the womb are not property. They are not defined by where they are located.
- Oops. Read what I wrote again.
Conservatism prioritizes the baby's right to the mother's womb, and Leftism prioritizes the mothers right to kill a child.
- Conservatism values traditional solutions to social problems over untested new solutions. When the founding fathers were making the laws, abortion was so commonplace that Ben Franklin could offer home abortion recipes in his newspaper without causing any consternation but no women were going to jail for seeking abortions. American Conservatism is Leftist by definition and your attempt to paint the radical, populism of MAGA as Conservative is without any academic or historic merit.
Then explain the issue I proposed.
- I've already demonstrated that your argument is formally broken.
- Your conclusions are based on a primitive, Tucker-style poltical dichotomy with no relation to the tenants of political science.
- Your first proposition is fatally stupid:
- P1: Leftism says that citizens' freedom of thought concerning abortions rights should be limited to women.
- You are conflating Leftists with members of the American Democratic Party. Not at all the same thing.
- You don't seem to undersand the dictionary definition of Leftism.
- You can't provide one example of a left-leaning politician publicly stating that some citizens are not entitled to their own opinion on any subject under any condition. Suppressing opinion is a RIght-wing character flaw.
- To quote Bernard Baruch's leftist position: "Every man has the right to an opinion but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Nor, above all, to persist in errors as to facts."
- Your facts are wrong. Your conclusion depends on a foundation of false assertions.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You forgot: Ukraine demanded to join NATO and host US bases and missiles.
- NATO bases and missile. Putin has no more right to dictate Ukrainian foreign policy than Mexico has a right to dictate US policy. Also, let's remember that the US gave all the nuclear missiles in Ukraine to Russia and paid for the expense. If NATO was a threat to Russia, we'd never have given back Russia's missiles.
Ukraine should be saving lives and not fight useless unwinnable wars sponsored by US.
- Ukrainians remember that the last time Russia took over, they used that authority to genocide every Ukrainian they could find and then moved Russians into the empty farms and towns. Ukrainians have no choice but to fight to the death: that choice is either die free now or die enslaved later. Ordinary Russians have no beef with Ukraine and no motive to fight. Ukriane will win because Ukrainians are fighting for their lives while an incompetent Russian army wastes its soldiers on a cause none believe in. Even if Russia kills Zelensky and takes ove govt., the Ukrainian people are now one unified, European nation that will resist Russian autocracy until Russia is no more. Russia will fall apart again before Ukraine does.
Created:
Posted in:
So, you guys say that you can't have an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus, right?
False. Every leftist will stand up for every citizen's right to have an opinion. Leftists seek to minimize government regulation of human organs and natural processes. Obviously, the leftist/rightist dichotomy fails to inform the question of abortion. Leftism priorititizes human rights over property rights. Rightism prioritizes property right over human rights. Any argument that the unborn child's right to live surpasses the US Citizens' right to healthcare autonomy and privacy is an inherently leftist argument, just as any argument that the US Citizens' right to healthcare autonomy and privacy surpasses an unborn child's right to live is likewise a leftist proposition. RIghtism claims that property rights surpass any human consideration and so the chief executive of the relevant estate controls all human functions pertinent to that estate. Only Trump's grab-em-by-the-pussy bridgade and other teenaged pervs are thinking about citizen's uteruses and how to center public policy around the inspection of citizen's crotches.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I literally quoted from to catch a predator
- and got your boners from playing the prey. noted.
Created:
Free to successfully carry out a far-right insurrection with the full backing of the USA? What a madlad!
- No. Free to defend Ukrainian independence from Putin.
Created:
Gee, I wonder why you had to go as far from mainstream as a Marxist magazine to find an opinion radical enough to support your claim. Why would you believe Marxist opinion before mainstream Conservative opinion (i.e. Romney, Cheney, Graham regarding Ukrainian independence? I say again: your opinion regarding Ukraine is not in alignment with Conservative American opinion and too few Republicans who use the word hold any motives in common with American Conservatives. American Conservatives are pro-Democracy, which can't be said of enough Republicans these days. Those of us who value democracy stand by Ukriane. Because you do not value Democracy, it comes as little surprise that you do not value Ukrainian independence- because that that is the thing both fight to preserve. Because we are free- we owe others their right to freedom. Ukraine wants and deserves to be free of Putin's autocracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WeaverofFate
-->@<<<oromagi>>>You'd be surprised, I've seen good arguments on both sides for each of these topics.
- You have it exactly. Even allowing for good arguments, I would be surprised if the merits of Feudalism could ever be proved to outweigh the merits of Capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
I'd say five or six of these topics are practically truisms. Is there really any good argument for feudalism over capitalism? I mean, aren't the factual results, when compared, overwhelmingly in favor of capitalism? You could make a reasonable environmental appeal, I suppose, but it's not as if you have a lot evidence to submit.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Oh, is that all you've got, dumb-dumb? I'm gay. How is that going to make you look any better educated?As long as you don't act on it, you are alright in my book
- Please. Question: how many straight men still remember who Perez Hilton was? Answer: zero
- Remember when you got caught pretending to be a teen-aged girl on this site?
Created:
- That's right. The People of Ukraine demanded that Ukraine join Europe and ousted Putin's ultra-corrupt puppet president. Putin freaked out at the loss of control and invaded Ukraine.
The USA started the entire conflict by backing a far-right insurrection in Ukraine.
- Pro Tip: the side with the guys with the palaces with the golden toilets and private exotic zoos is ALWAYS the RIGHT WING. The side getting gunned down at peaceful protests is ALWAYS the LEFT WING.
- Ukraine declared independence from Russia's genocidal 80 year long colonialization in 1991. The US, the UN, EU, NATO (i.e. Western Civilization) have all ever since been committed to notion that Ukraine should remain free and independent of Russia. Putin considers Ukraine a Russian colony; his to command and control, and like Stalin before him, is willing to murder every last Ukrainian on Earth to prove that they are his subjects. Yes, all freedom-loving people on Earth oppose Putin and his evil attempts to re-colonize any part of Ukraine- including Donbas, including Crimea. All freedom-loving people demand that the Russian people overthrow their warmongering oligarchs and overlords and then themselves seek membership in the European Union as a free and equal partner nation.
Created:
"Bush=bad" does not mean "Trump=bad".
- No, I meant Republican=bad. The last Republican President who didn't completely suck at the job was Eisenhower
False and deeply ignorant of World historyIs false. The war in Ukraine started under president Biden.
- Exactly. Anybody who doesn't know that Russia invaded the Urkaine in 2014 should keep their ignorant mouths shut.
Trump was able to keep peace during his time in office. Biden ruined it. I guess you support wars now.
- Russian murdered 8,000 Ukranians while Trump sucked Putin's cock for 4 years.
Is that some new gay term?
- Oh, is that all you've got, dumb-dumb? I'm gay. How is that going to make you look any better educated?
Is a false statement. Trump didnt hand over US allies to Talibans. Biden was the one to hand over 70.000 US allies in Afganistan to Talibans. You are confusing migrants with allies who will get tortured at the hands of Talibans. Migrants are crime producers and rapists and didnt help the USA. I dont know why you want more rapists in USA.
- Mentally ill. You don't even know that the migrants Biden rescued and the Afghan allies are the same group of people. You don't have command of basic situational facts. Clearly, you are just repeating things you've been told without any analysis or alignment of the facts. Why bother?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
-->@<<<oromagi>>>it was nevertheless totally treason to give the Taliban their 5000 man army backIts called making peace and fixing the mistake that lasted for 20 years.
- The mistake made by the last Republican bozo who pretended to command armed forces. After Tora Bora, military opinion, allied forcesand Democratic opinion came to the conclusion that we'd done what we could in Afghanistan and should exit before the end of the year with fewer than 10 US deaths. Republicans insisted on staying to catch bin Laden but we know now that Bush ordered forces to stand down in the search for bin Laden soon after Tora Bora. In the absence of any goal whatsoever, Republicans assured that Afghanistan would go on until some President was willing to take the poltical hit.
The problem with people like you is that you think "peace=easy" and "peace=not offering anything to make peace".The truth is: "peace=difficult" and "peace=making offers for peace".
- I think no such thing and you don't know the first thing about how I think so kindly shove that "people like you" bullshit back up into your hate-infected cunt where it belongs.
Your president Biden caused war in Ukraine
- False and deeply ignorant of World history
and another cold war and is about to have war again in Syria.
- Since you obviously don't read history history why bother trying to make predicitions?
He also left a bunch of pro-USA people to rot in Afganistan. We all remember those evacuation videos.
- Let's recall that Trump ran in 2015 on a "zero Muslim immigration" policy. Although he was never allowed to get away with mass discrimination on the basis of religion, Trump did dramatically throttle down the number of immigrant allowed to the US each year of his term. In 2021, Trump's policy only permitted 15,000 "pro-USA" people to migrate to the US from any nation for any reason- in spite of making peace with the Taliban and being in charge of 2021 immigration polcy, Trump made no allowance for Afghan people. Trump's plan for all those "pro-USA" people was to never ever give a single fuck. Biden rescued about a quarter of million. Trump rescued none although he clearly had the deeper responsibility to come up with a workable policy.
Created:
Remember when Biden handed Afghanistan to the Taliban, and gave them our equipment?
- I remember that Trump promised to get out of Afghanistan but lacked the moral courage to actually do it. I remember when Trump signed a Peace Treaty without consulting the Afghan people, government, or even military? Remember how Trump failed to meet any of his deadlines except releasing the top 5000 Taliban held in Afghan prison so they could attack US forces and then handed off the one-year evacuation plan to Biden with zero benchmarks accomplished and eight weeks left to deliver? Yes, I remember, although it was only Trump tenth or eleventh most treasonous act during his presidency, it was nevertheless totally treason to give the Taliban their 5000 man army back, with all the commanders and captains realeased from prison BEFORE attempting a withdrawal. Except for Putin's loudly expressed delight, no serious strategic thinker on Earth can think of one reason why Trump pulled that idiotic anti-American move. By Trump's last day in office, he made it possible for the Taliban to rebuild to its greatest strength since before 9/11/2001. Trump traded the lives of American soldiers for a chance to make his political opponents look bad. Biden manned up, took the poltical hit and the responsiblity for lives lost like morally competent Commanders-in-Chief always do.
Remember how he said we got all of the Americans out?
- No, because that is a fucking lie. Please don't pollute these forums with your evil fake news.
- Here is Biden's direct quote on Aug 31st, 2021:
"Since March, we reached out 19 times to Americans in Afghanistan, with multiple warnings and offers to help them leave Afghanistan — all the way back as far as March. After we started the evacuation 17 days ago, we did initial outreach and analysis and identified around 5,000 Americans who had decided earlier to stay in Afghanistan but now wanted to leave.
Our Operation Allies Refuge ended up getting more than 5,500 Americans out. We got out thousands of citizens and diplomats from those countries that went into Afghanistan with us to get bin Laden. We got out locally employed staff of the United States Embassy and their families, totaling roughly 2,500 people. We got thousands of Afghan translators and interpreters and others, who supported the United States, out as well.
Now we believe that about 100 to 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan with some intention to leave. Most of those who remain are dual citizens, long-time residents who had earlier decided to stay because of their family roots in Afghanistan.
The bottom line: Ninety-eight percent of Americans in Afghanistan who wanted to leave were able to leave.
And for those remaining Americans, there is no deadline. We remain committed to get them out if they want to come out."
- So no, BIden never said "we got all the Americans out." That is a twisted lie. What compelled you to tell the opposite of the truth? What do you plan to do to amend for this deliberate attempt to spread fake news?
- The Washington Times is a propaganda instrument of the Korean Unification Church. Unless you believe that Rev Sun Myung Moon was the second incarnation of Jesus Christ the Messiah on Earth then the Washington Times has a different perspective on telling the truth than you. Let's recall the time the Times falsely reported that Russia had launched a nuclear weapon in violation of the test ban when the truth was a minor earthquake. Apparently, Jesus wanted to start WW3, before he died as an ultra wealthy, corpulent, old Korean man.
- Keep in mind that many or most of the dual-citizenship Afghans who refused the first 19 calls to evacuate were involved with the heroin trade in Afghanistan and had huge investments ready to harvest in August 2021. Many had never checked in with the US embassy or even wanted the US to notice they were in Afghanistan. The Taliban had been promising heroin manufacturers that they would leave them alone but that was just a ruse to keep the facilities intact until the Taliban could take them over. Many of those dual citizens who were voluntary hold-outs then are now unemployed drug dealers trying to get to the US.
- Although Biden reported 100 to 200 dual citizens remaining in Aug 2021, those estimates rose after the Taliban took over and trapped holdouts started notifying the State Dept. The current estimate is about 1000 dual citizens, of which about 800 have already been quietly rescued from Afghanistan by stealth and spywork since Aug 2021.
- Why do you suppose the Washington Times failed to relate these well-known, obviously highly pertinent facts to you?
Created:
Posted in:
DEMOCRAT: (US politics) A member or supporter of the Democratic Party in the United States.
REPUBLICAN: (US politics) A member or supporter of the Republican Party of the United States.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I think Trump did do it. But I also think that a lot of other republican politicians and democratic politicians did it as well.So why is everyone only after Trump?
- Trump tried to overthrow the US Govt.
- Claims he is above the law
After all Hunter Biden has more evidence against himself, yet has not been convicted once. He has literal videos of himself with prostitutes and doing drugs.
- Both misdemeanors are pretty difficult to convict post-facto and without any material complaint.
- According to multiple forensic investigations every potentially incriminating bit of data on HB hard drive(s) has been tampered with to an inadmissable degree. The parts of HB's hard drive(s) that show less tampering also contain no evidence of any wrongdoing.
- The FBI says they have enough evidence to prosecute Hunter for buying a gun while failing to declare that he was a drug addict but seems reasonable to assume tht Republicans don't want to be on record advocating a gun possession prosecution.
There is substantial evidence of money laundering with the Chinese government.
- This is false. The NY Times reported that after years of Barr initiated investigation, the FBI has found no evidence to support any such claim and that investigation is now strictly tax-related.
I think Trump is guilty of this crime. but won't be convicted, only because it was 6 years ago "allegidally". The statute of limitation prevents him from getting convicted, so even if he is found guilty of this crime, he won't be charged.
- FACT CHECK: false
- Politifact: "Whether this is true or not is unknowable until any specific charges against Trump have been made public. There’s reason to doubt Trump could be saved by the statute of limitations, experts said. One possible charge floated by legal experts could be "falsifying business records in the first degree," which is a felony under New York state law. This could have a statute of limitations of up to five years. Cohen paid Daniels in October 2016, which is about six and a half years ago, which would be past the statute of limitations.
- But there’s a catch.
- Trump formally changed his residency from New York to Florida in October 2019, and the district attorney’s office may argue that this would "toll," or stop the clock on, New York’s statute of limitations, The Associated Press reported. Stopping the clock for this or other reasons is a credible argument, Brand said, but "these issues are often litigated, so it’s hard to say how the statute of limitations would figure in this case."
- In the US, one is never found guilty before being charged.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
if trump used campaign money to pay the hush money, couldn't the government say that he used campaign funds for a non-election purpose?
- there's no evidence I'm aware of claiming that Trump used campaign money
don't you think that that would have looked way more scandalous? that the government can get him no matter what he does, if they disagree with how to characterize it?
- Trump hid half a million dollars from the IRS and FEC. If you hid half a million dollars from the IRS you'd be in jail. Is Trump subject to the same law or does Trump get to skate by on the special laws for white boys who inherited billions?
i realize that your point is that he was suppose to report it no matter the purpose, but i guess my only point in response is that that seems like a technicality and trivial.
- I agree that compared to Trump's 20 year relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, or taking money for charities and keeping the cash for himself , or treasonously defrauding the American people regarding the 2020 election and attempting to overthrow the oldest democracy on Earth these charges are small potatoes.
Created:
Posted in:
Question. Is it gay that the male voice actor for this book has given me no less than 3 erections?
Not when you're popping viagra like tic-tacs, no.
Created:
Posted in:
- Since Hunter McNeil only fucked her to get her to join his team, I'd call the sex transactional.
- I think as in most fantasy romance novels written for 15 year old boys, it is only rape if her tentacles go deeper than his prostate.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i dont know the legal details, but .... this is a witch hunt, and if anyone should go to jail, it's the district attorney who brought this case.
- I would encourage you to learn the legal details before coming to such grand conclusions.
- The Federal Election Commision required Trump to report any expenditure by any campaign employee during campaign season spent to influence the election. Some outside lawyers point out that the urgency and amount of the expenditure was directly linked to the proximity of voting day and therefore Trump was required to report that spending to the FEC whatever the specific payment circumstances.
- The FEC also required Trump to report all expenditures during the campaign over $100 that didn't influence the election.
- Either way, Trump broke this law. If the FEC wasn't deadlocked by Trump appointees, they would probably present him with a small fine for failing to report that payment.
- Keep in mind that Trump's lawyer pled guilty to a campaign finance violation.
- Since last fall, SDNY has custody of Trump.org accounting books- both the public book used for taxes and the outrageously different book that shows Trump.org actual income and receipts.
- The most likely charge is falsifying book-keeping to cover up an illegal activity, that illegal activity being the failure to report the expenditure to the FEC. Not much of a crime but it is clear that Trump falsified the reason for his payments to Cohen in order to conceal that payment from the FEC.
- Cooking the books by itself is usually a misdemeanor but becomes a felony if cooked to conceal a crime.
- There's potentially other charges. For example, Cohen hired men to physically threaten Daniels and her daughter in 2011. If Cohen can show that intimidation was done at Trump's instruction and if the statute of limitations is extended (in NY, some statutes of limitations clocks only run when the accused is a permanent resident of the state), that's a pretty serious felony.
- Let's remember Cohen used the same Delaware account to conceal $500,000 paid by relatives of Putin insider Viktor Vekselberg in the weeks immediately following the election. Vekselberg also donated $250,000 to Trump's inaguration fund six months after the inaguration. Although Mueller never connected these payments to anything Trump knew or did, no plausible explanation about why Putin's friends are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the accounts of Trump's friends just after the election has never been explained. It's possible that Cohen has finally provided an explanation for these massive payouts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You're so thick, you don't know when you're being called a blockhead.
Here are the 15 major points, all direct quotes from the article YOU submitted. Please explain how any of these support "Conservatives are more aware of their surroundings and prepare for the worst while expecting the best. "
I contend that none of these support your phony claim and at least one of these contradicts your claim outright
- The following are of the 15 biggest psychological differences academics have found between liberals and conservatives around the globe.
- Being scared can make you more conservative.
- A 2003 review of research conducted in five countries looked at 22 separate tests of the hypothesis that fear fuels conservative viewpoints and found it was universally true.
- A conservative brain is more active in different areas than a liberal one.
- This aligns with the idea that feeling afraid makes people lean more to the right.
- On the other hand, feeling safe and endowed with strength might make you lean a little more liberal than you otherwise would.
- The authors of that study said their results suggest that socially conservative views are driven, at least in part, by people's need to feel safe and secure.
- Liberals are less squeamish about looking at yucky stuff like vomit, feces, and blood.
- But in our modern world, some research suggests this kind of aversion toward "impure" pathogens may also impact how people see other people who aren't like them, including social "out-groups" like immigrants or foreigners.
- Conservatives tend to display more ordered thinking patterns, whereas liberals have more "aha" moments.
- it showed that liberal brains had a tendency to reorganize their thoughts in more flexible ways, while the conservatives tended to take a more step-by-step approach
- Conservatives have more structured and persistent cognitive styles," she said in a statement.
- Liberals tend to follow the wandering gaze of others more often, while conservative eyes stay more focused on the original subject they're looking at.
- "We did not expect conservatives to be completely immune to these cues," lead author Michael Dodd said when the study was released.
- NOTE: this study suggest the opposite of your claim that conservatives are more aware of surroundings
- Holding conservative views seems to make people more resistant to change and help them explain inequality.
- "People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals," the researchers said.
- Liberal and conservative tastes in music and art are different, too.
- conservatives preferred more simple paintings, familiar music, and unambiguous texts and poems, while liberals enjoyed more cubist and abstract art.
- conservatives tend to avoid uncertainty and dislike ambiguity more than their liberal counterparts.
- Liberals are more likely to describe themselves as compassionate and optimistic, while conservatives are more likely to say they're people of honor and religion.
- liberals' top moral concerns tend to be about compassion and fairness, while conservatives are more concerned with loyalty, tradition, respect for authority, and purity.
- Conservatives believe they have more self-control.
- But the conservatives didn't always out-perform the liberals. When they were told that their free will might undermine their own self-control, they performed worse than their liberal peers.
- Liberals and conservatives extend feelings of compassion to different people.
- Conservatives self-report more parochialism in that they tend to expend their empathy toward more well-defined, closed social circles like the family whereas liberals self-report more universalism in that they expend their empathy toward more permeable, broader social circles, like the world as a whole
- Conservatives tend to report feeling greater meaning and a sense of purpose in life than liberals do.
- The study complied data on thousands of people in 16 different countries around the world over four decades, and found that conservatives, overall, reported feeling greater meaning and purpose in life.
- Research also suggests shared values likely matter more than shared politics when it comes to who we vote for.
- Trump supporters ... seek power over others, are motivated by wealth accumulation, and prefer conformity, hierarchy, and clear-cut rules for behavior," the authors wrote in their paper, published online in the journal Personality and Individual Differences in February 2018
- One British study found that voters who were aggressive, angry kids were more likely to distrust the government and lean liberal as adults.
- Some, but not all, of this link was explained by educational attainment and socioeconomic status in adulthood."
- Both conservatives and liberals think they're always being fair.
- However, the findings suggested that while liberals and conservatives may both think they are applying judgment equally, they each tend to judge members of their own ideology more favorably than others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@ILikePie5Indoctrinated =/= educated
case in point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Education =/= smart
case in point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
At any rate, it's pretty easy to tell that TWS never got to the part in school where they teach you how to use sources to back your claim.
Liberals are more naive and ignorant of their surroundings and the "real world" than conservatives.Conservatives are more aware of their surroundings and prepare for the worst while expecting the best.
The words NAIVE, IGNORANT, SURROUNDING do not appear in either article. This article mostly says the opposite of TWS's claim.
TWS is fraudulently pretending that these sources back his entirely anti-scientific, faith-based claim because he can't find sources that actually do back the claim.
There is no question that Liberals are better at abstract thinking, innovation, insight, empathetic thinking, critical analysis than the concrete thinkers who still think the bible is literal and that race is meaningful. 86% of artists, musicians, actors are liberal because careful observation of one's surroundings and translating observation into art that resonates is so liberal a quality that it is called a "liberal art."
Perhaps, but it also true that Democrats are younger, more moderate and better educated than GOP, unaffiliated voters, on non-voters.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
-->@TheUnderdogOpposition does not necessarily equal anger.
- But calling for the death of an ideology (i.e. where woke goes to die) does necessarily equal anger.
- You must admit that DeSantis and his followers are at least pretending to be angry about something.
From the “anti-woke”, I only see anger manifest when people’s children are indoctrinated in ideology without their knowledge or permission.
- Please give a very specific example- name a Florida school that that INDOCTRINATED (indoctrinated means beliefs (not facts) without a critical framework) children (K-12) in a belief system without their parents knowledge or permission.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Harvey LeRoy "Lee" Atwater was an American political consultant and strategist for the Republican Party. He was an adviser to Republican U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee. Atwater aroused controversy through his aggressive campaign tactics, especially the Southern strategy.Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968, you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.(Wikipedia: Lee Atwater)
In 2023, busing is no longer an issue and Republicans have essentially flipped on states' rights so the new abstractions are CRT, BLM, Woke, etc. Republicans demonstrate little understanding of the original concept but they have no problem understanding that these abstractions are code for black people and that's all Repubicans need to know to express opposition.
For example, we have the only black Republican in the Senate, Tim Scott, saying the other day ""Woke supremacy is as bad as white supremacy. We need to take that seriously." Never mind that nobody bothers to define woke supremacy, never mind that White Supremacists are a tiny group that has committed 335 murders over the past 10 years while I don't know that Scott could even put together a coherent explanation for what a Woke supremacist idealogical murder might look like. Fortunately for Scott, he doesn't have define anything. All FOX viewers need to know is that it is some kind of black ideology for them to know how they feel about it.
Among American conservatives, woke has come to be used primarily as an insult. Perry Bacon Jr. suggests that this "anti-woke posture" is connected to a long-standing promotion of backlash politics by the Republican Party, wherein it promotes white and conservative fear in response to activism by African Americans as well as changing cultural norms. Such critics often believe that movements such as Black Lives Matter exaggerate the extent of social problems.Linguist and social critic John McWhorter argues that the history of woke is similar to that of politically correct, another term once used self-descriptively by the left which was appropriated by the right as an insult, in a process similar to the euphemism treadmill. Romano compares woke to canceled as a term for "'political correctness' gone awry" among the American right wing. Attacking the idea of wokeness, along with other ideas such as cancel culture and critical race theory, became a large part of Republican Party electoral strategy. Former President Donald Trump stated in 2021 that the Biden administration was "destroying" the country "with woke", and Republican Missouri senator Josh Hawley used the term to promote his upcoming book by saying the "woke mob" was trying to suppress it.(Wikipedia: woke)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
In other words, being vaccinated alone barely prevents you from dying of COVID.
Scientific American:
"this perception is an example of a phenomenon known as the base rate fallacy. One also has to consider the denominator of the fraction—that is, the sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. With shots widely available to almost all age groups, the majority of the U.S. population has been vaccinated. So even if only a small fraction of vaccinated people who get COVID die from it, the more people who are vaccinated, the more likely they are to make up a portion of the dead."
In order to avoid the pitfalls of absolute numbers, it is useful to instead look at incidence rates—usually expressed as the number of deaths per 100,000 people. Standardizing the denominator across all groups offers a very different picture.
- So if we take a look at the last week of 2022,
- if we looked at a slice of 100,000 unvaccinated Americans- 43.27 or one out of every 2,311 unvaccinated Americans died of COVID that week.
- if we looked at a slice of 100,000 vaccinated Americans- 10.92 or one out of every 9,157 vaccinated Americans died of COVID that week
- if we looked at a slice of 100,000 boosted Americans- 5.02 or one out of every 19,920 boosted Americans died of COVID that week
It is also important to consider the ages of those who are dying. People 65 and older make up the group that is both the most likely to be vaccinated (and boosted) and the most likely to die of COVID. (Being older is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID because the immune system weakens with age.) So when you separate the age groups, it becomes even clearer that vaccination reduces the risk of death. And because immune protection from vaccination wanes with time, and because some older people do not mount a good immune response to the primary series, being boosted reduces that risk even further.
- So if we take a look again at the last week of 2022, only 1.43 or one out of ever 69,930 unvaccinated Americans under 65 years old died of COVID that week
- but only .37 or one out every 270,270 vaccinated Americans under 65 died of COVID that week and
- no boosted Americans under the age of 65 died from COVID that week.
An additional factor to consider is that as the pandemic wears on and a disproportionate number of unvaccinated people die from COVID, the unvaccinated population shrinks. This leaves a comparatively larger vaccinated group, leading to an increase in total deaths despite the lower death rate among vaccinated people. No vaccine is 100 percent effective, but immunization reduces the risk of dying from COVID substantially.
In other words, it is false to claim that "being vaccinated alone barely prevents you from dying of COVID." The last weekof December, unvaccinated people died from COVID at about 4 times the rate of vaccinated people and ten times the rate of boosted people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Atheism is too simple:Atheism turns out to be too simple.If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.Dark would be without meaning.
- Here, you are plagiarizing Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. Please give the credit due to the person who actually wrote the argument you are using.
The Domino Example:
- That is the Islamic Kalam Cosmological Argument, popularized by Craig in 1979.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Not when the media is controlled by the government and especially not when the entity in question is not media but a platform facilitating public dialogue. Social media is analogous to fedex, not a newspaper.
- Obviously, FOX is many times more like a platform facilitating public dialogue than FedEx. You are shit at anologies.
Your analogy is missing the government, which is confirmed to be present.
- Sorry, that's a lie.
- "Taibbi reported that he found no evidence of government involvement in the laptop story, tweeting, "Although several sources recalled hearing about a 'general' warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there's no evidence—that I've seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story."
A publisher is an editor exercising original speech.
- False. You fabricated your own definiton to suit your delusion.
- Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free.
- "Publisher" can refer to a publishing company or organization, or to an individual who leads a publishing company, imprint, periodical or newspaper.
- Anybody pretending that Twitter ain't a publisher is living in the QAnon bubble.
To quote the National Review:
"A number of conservatives seem wedded to the false idea that if social-media sites like Twitter act like “publishers” rather than “platforms,” they can be stripped of liability protections. Take my friend John Daniel Davidson, who writes in The Federalist: “If Twitter wants to editorialize and ‘factcheck’ President Trump’s tweets with disclaimers, then it should be treated like any other publisher.”
But it is. John makes numerous solid points about the transparently partisan and hypocritical way in which Jack Dorsey runs his business. And perhaps John believes there should be new legislation governing Internet liability. Right now, though, there’s no legal distinction between a “platform” and a “publisher” in Section 230. Twitter is already treated like every publisher.
The Wall Street Journal and New York Times are both publishers, and yet they also enjoy Section 230 protections for third-party content. The law encourages moderation of third-party users.
Here is the relevant bit:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
Nowhere does Section 230 stipulate that this moderation needs to adhere to any ideological “neutrality” — a subjective, debatable and unconstitutional standard, even if it did.
The government may not impede original speech in any way.
- False, insane.
- The First Ammendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The Executive and Judicial are nevertheless required to set limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and protections, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property
Explain to me how Twitter does not publish and Fox is not a platform.
A platform is a stage like a forum in classical Rome or an Agora in classical Greece. The public are invited to come in, and once inside they engage in speech.The owner of the forum does not own the speech, has not commissioned any particular opinion, and does not determine whether the views expressed reflect his own (are true in his opinion).A publisher publishes, that is creates discernible units of speech over which editorial control has been (in theory) applied. Various persons may be enlisted to produce the speech, but the speech is by that token commissioned and the publisher takes responsibility for it.
- Both are "press" as far as the First Ammendment is concerned. FOX is also a stage. Twitter also publishes. Both entities are identical according to Section 230. Your distinction stinks because it is driven by a need to fault your enemy without acknowledging the identical sin within.
This is why you can sue a newspaper but you cannot sue a forum. If laws were different they would be wrong, this is (for once) the correct analysis.
- False. Ignorant.
- You can't sue a newspaper for factually quoting a subject's slander any more than you can sue Twitter for quoting a subject's slander. You can sue a newspaper for inaccurately fact checking a slander in exactly the same way you can sue Twitter for inaccurately fact checking a slander.
- GOP Media has once again fabricated a complete nonsense for you to believe and you have once again believed it without checking with any lawyers or media experts or in fact, anybody outside of your QAnon bubble.
The government may not impede expression regardless of the origin.
- False, extreme, delusional.
It may not censor a newspaper and it may not censor individual expression.
- False
What have I ever done to give you the impression that such pathetic word games would work on me? Equivocation - the fallacy. Moving on...
- I know dictionaries are such a hassle when you're trying to re-define your reality.
In all seriousness if the above was true it is too close to a violation of the 1st amendment for comfort.
- False. The First Ammendment does not prevent the President from making demands on media. Journalistic ethics prevent good reporters from acquiesence to political demands.
the mere act of being approached by the government in any form invokes the threat of force.
- Is that why you guys are always shooting up schools?
The government should never be getting anywhere near the subject of speech, expression, or religion in any private communications ever.
- Impossible, irrational extremism.
If Trump told the post office or FedEx to not deliver political mail
- Well, let's not forget that Trump did do exactly that on a massive, incredibly expensive and wasteful scale, in a blatant effort to supress mail-in voters.
Trump would then be in a state of rebellion against the constitution of the United States of America and ought to have been exiled or executed.
- Yeah, Trump's way past you, man.
Created:
Posted in:
DeSantis 2014: “We in the Congress have been urging the President, I’ve been, to provide arms to Ukraine. They want to fight their good fight. They’re not asking us to fight it for them. And the President has steadfastly refused. And I think that that’s a mistake. I think that when someone like Putin sees Obama being indecisive, I think that whets his appetite to create more trouble in the area. And I think if we were to arm the Ukrainians, I think that would send a strong signal to him that he shouldn’t be going any further.”
DeSantis 2022: "This is a guy who basically is an authoritarian gas station attendant — OK? — with some legacy nuclear weapons from the old Soviet Union,” DeSantis said of Putin. “Their whole society is hollowed out except for that energy. Hit him where it counts.”
I guess DeSantis is now convinced Republicans can't win without Russia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Want details? Actually read the twitter files instead of just claiming you did.
In other words, you have no evidence of any particular incidence of censorship. You are running away from any specific charge knowing that any specific claim is easily disproved.
To censor is something you do to another, something they do not agree with.
- False.
- censorship [noun[
- The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated
- When the expression is controlled by media, that is called editorship. Editorship is free expression protected by the First Ammendment The Right Wing is explictly forbidden from controlling media's editorial decisions.
Here is an analogy to help you: Asking someone for tea is very different from "asking" them (with a gun in your hand) to go steal someone else's tea.
- Using this analogy, Twitter decides that one of its vendors is selling lawn clippings and calling it "tea." Twitter asks the vendor to stop calling it tea. When the vendor refuses, Twitter discontinues supply from that vendor. No government, no guns, no theft- all that is just huffs and puffs in the QAnon hyperventilation chamber.
. Fox is a media company, not a social media company. A publisher, not a platform.
- Show me where the US Constitution makes a distinction between publishers and platforms,
- Explain to me how Twitter does not publish and Fox is not a platform.
If Fox hosted a forum and emails were uncovered where the DOJ was telling Swecker who to ban on that forum, that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
- A Forum is "A gathering for the purpose of discussion; A form of discussion involving a panel of presenters"
- Worse than former employees getting advice, Trump actually just ordered FOX who to ban, who to promote, who to attack.
- For example,
- Then-President Donald Trump urged the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, to use the influence of his network to help sink the Senate candidacy of coal baron Don Blankenship in 2018, according to newly released court documents.
Blankenship was surging in the polls in the final days of a bruising West Virginia GOP primary race, prompting concern among Trump and other Republicans that his potential victory could lead to a failed attempt to unseat incumbent Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, in the general election.
So, Trump appealed to Murdoch to ramp up the network’s criticism of Blankenship, lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems said in court documents as part of a defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
If the purpose of said censorship was to subvert an election, that would (by recent precedent) be insurrection.
- So we agree then that Trump is guilty of insurrection.
The appropriate response would then be to exile or execute Chris Swecker and every last person in the DOJ who participated or knew without reporting.
- I'm okay with exiling Trump- I think public execution would only give some undeserved sympathy.
While you are pussyfooting around any specific accusation, you do seem to be relying on the Twitter files as your source. Let's be sure to note that Matt Taibi specifically refutes your claim and your source does not back your accusation in any way.
Elon Musk tweeted that Twitter had acted "under orders from the government," though Taibbi reported that he found no evidence of government involvement in the laptop story, tweeting, "Although several sources recalled hearing about a 'general' warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there's no evidence—that I've seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story." His reporting seemed to undermine a key narrative promoted by Musk and Republicans that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories. Musk further claimed that this content moderation violated the First Amendment. However, legal experts refuted the idea that content moderation by a private company violates the First Amendment, as it only restricts government actors. David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said that Twitter is legally able to choose what speech is allowed on their site, noting that both the Biden campaign, which was not part of the government, and the Trump White House could request specific content moderation actions.
- You believe in Elon Musk's lies even though Elon is basing his claim on Taibi and Taibi says as loud as he can that Elon Musk is wrong and knowingly lying. Every bit of sober, factual reporting regarding the Twitter files calls your intepretation that of the celebrity-following stooge, the resentment in search of a wrong to bitch about.
Created:
Posted in:
- You realize you have failed to answer the two main questions
- - what was censored by whom when?
- what does this have to do with white supremacy?
asking people not to speak is very different from "asking" people to censor.
- Orwellian double talk
I'm talking about DOJ employees and agents working in positions of high power at social media companies coordinating with their masters in the DOJ (read deep state because this is unconstitutional)
- Oh, you mean more like Chris Swecker, Kerri Kupec, Andrew Napolitano, John Pistole, Trey Gowdy, etc ?
Created:
Posted in:
- The theory for governments to restrict economic freedom while allowing speech for the masses has existed up until Marie Antoinette said "let them eat Cake."
- Since the French Queen never said that, let's note that this claim is exposed as bullshit.
The list of top 10 failed Democracies are countries where the government owns and manages the speech venues, not the free market.
- Second request: Let's see your top ten list.
Most people in Socrates time who spoke freely either took the hemlock or would not be able to speak or vote without property.
- And slaves were denied their right to free speech in Southern states. Free speech is always a relative and evolving condition.
[Singapore] are objectively not a free market....
- agreed. In spite of the rankings, the US market is objectively more free than Singapore.
Created:
Posted in:
Why are you defending insurrectionists? How can you do that without shame?
- Can't tell what you are talking about....again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yea I've been through your brand of mental contortionism before with the Biden corruption stuff. Not interested in doing that again, at least no without some sign of a sane third party.
- Yeah, it is called rational inquiry and thinking for oneself
The state may not "request" censorship anymore than it may "request" restriction of religion, anyone who doesn't find that obvious is already stupider than Trump on his worst day.
- Well, that's just super ingnorant of basic facts. American Governments ask the press to kill or delay stories on a daily basis, some requests are honored, most aren't- but there's no harm with asking. Thomas Jefferson asked reporters to delay their scoop on the Lewis and Clark expedition until Jefferson had a chance to ask Congress for funding. Abraham Lincoln created a corp of trusted reporters who kill or leak stories at hist request- float trial baloons, spread rumors, etc. Reporters like Walter Cronkite figured out where D-Day was landing weeks before June 6th but they sat on the story at government request. Reporters knew the Manhattan Project was an atomic weapon more than a year before they went public. Trump has editors of newspapers actually buying up stories for the sole purpose of making sure they never see the light of day. FOX News was the only venue that knew Trump paid Stormy Daniels BEFORE the election, when Trump was still denying he'd ever met her and FOX killed that story for a year in exchange for leverage over Trump. Apparently, Trump and Hannity discussed strategy almost every night for years. Such horse-trading is how the Fourth Estate cooperates with the other three estates and is a part of that estate's power in the system of checks and balances.
Anyone who is willing to accept that state of affairs after learning that a significant portion of upper management "were" high ranking agents of the state is stupider than Whoopi Goldberg on her worst day.
- I assume you are talking about Roger Ailes, Paul Ryan, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Karl Rove, etc. It does seem excessively partisan but then, newsrooms have a right to seek the wisdom of experienced politicians when trying to navigate Washington politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->@<<<oromagi>>>You would know if you actually were paying attention to the twitter files instead of lying about it and claiming you knew everything already.James Baker for example.Sleeper = doesn't act as agent until the right timeCoordinating with handlers at the FBI for censorship and censoring the twitter files even as Musk was demanding transparency = 10^-9 chance of coincidence.
- What censorship are you talking about? Try hard to be specific.
- In a free country, Twitter gets to print whatever it want and it gets to refuse to print whatever it wants. Twitter gets to talk to the FBI about what it doing or never talk to the FBI, whatever. None of that amounts to government censorship.
- How is this conspiracy theory related to topic- white supremacy=right wing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
are you talking about something specific or just ranting? Federal sleeper agents=QAnon true believer
Created: