Page 142 of 542 FirstFirst ... 4292132138139140141142143144145146152192242 ... LastLast
Results 2,116 to 2,130 of 8122
  1. #2116
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    This is two and a half minutes in which Obama doesn't say what kind of limits he wants on legal immigration, or under what circumstances he'll kick out those who came into the country illegally, which were the things I noted Democrats are vague on.
    So it's not about "what they actually do" but what you assume they will do -- which is where the hypocrisy (and blatant party bias) comes in.

    Meanwhile, what your party "actually does" is protect Republican candidates that obstruct justice and separate families at the border as a "deterrent".
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 05-29-2019 at 05:56 PM.

  2. #2117
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    14,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    It's the algorithms. It's on Facebook and Google, et al.

    I watched a Joe Rogan interview with Adam Connover (Adam Ruins Everything), and the suggestions were bonkers. A lot of "_____ destroys feminist/SJW" type videos.

    I recall this coming up previously with Facebook's algorithm sorting people out. It's built that way.
    That's part of it. Part of it is also there's an audience for things that appear to anti-PC and some folks will absorb as much of it they can. They might reading say racist jokes ironically, then eventually the irony disappears.

  3. #2118
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    14,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    The most obnoxious kick my Cult of Shapiro ex-friend got on was just hardcore railing about how white priveledge doesn't exist. He would say it's not white priviledge, it's American priviledge--every one has the same oppurtunity as everyone else because it's America. All while posting condecending shit about people who are in debt. He is not in any debt, because his parents paid for his college, after which he received a well paying job.

    It always seems those who go hardest against the idea of white priviledge are the ones who are the most priviledged.

    Ugh, that dude sucks. I get so annoyed when I think of the 20+ years I wasted in friendship with him.
    I think it's many cases ( most?) it's the white people who are struggling. They think, "Hey they cut my hours at work and I got all these bills to pay...I'm sure not 'priviledged!'"

  4. #2119
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    14,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    A vote about Supreme Court justices usually favors Republicans. Polls consistently show their voters caring more about it, and that if it made a difference in 2016, it was to encourage more voters to back Trump.

    https://www.vox.com/2018/6/29/175110...kennedy-retire

    I'd also argue there's a better argument for the conservative view of jurisprudence (an understanding of laws should be based on the original intent of the lawmakers and/ or the ordinary understanding of the law) versus the liberal view (all conservative legal arguments are pretext to get what they want; this is not actually an argument for a particular vision of legal understanding although the subtext is the left should act in the same way.)



    If someone makes a strong claim based on their understanding of the political views of people they disagree with, it's important to determine whether their understanding is accurate and they know what they're talking about. In this case, there is the claim that Ben Shapiro intentionally bridges the gap between Fox News and white nationalists, which would be a vicious slander if untrue, even if Shapiro wasn't Orthodox Jewish.

    There may be a different discussion about Shapiro's shortcomings, but someone has to actually make it. People shouldn't be expected to come up with a better articulated version of someone else's argument.

    Arguments have to be followed where they lead. If the claim is that people who are fans of Shapiro are disproportionately likely to become terrible, and that this means Shapiro is bad, that logic has to be applied in all cases. When there are left-wing lunatics, we've got to look into whether they liked Maddow or Thinkprogress at any point, and be willing to make the same argument.

    Good and bad people can find something in particular ideologies and communicators; it doesn't make the ideology automatically good or bad. You might agree that the people who go to Shapiro because they're conservative and find Hannity/ O'Reilly intellectually dishonest or too focused on tradition have a point.

    To determine whether Shapiro's a problem, it's more important to look at what he actually does. What does he actually say to incite violence? What does he say that no one reasonable can agree with?
    Ben is constantly intellectually dishonest, mis-represents other points of view, and uses meanspirited language...yet is able to dress it up as "logic." Many times in the service of the worse sides of conservatism or the republican party. I'm not saying that Ben is making calls to violence, but not hard to see person going from watching Ben "own the libs" to watching Stephen Molynuex and "race realism" to something even darker.

  5. #2120
    "Comic Book Reviewer" InformationGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,356

    Default

    I'm not surprised, but I'm still surprised. It's just so pathetic.

    This is outrageous.

    The Trump administration asked the Navy to move the USS John McCain ship out of the port in Japan so Trump wouldn’t see it.

    It was being repaired so they draped a tarp over the name, made people w/ name on clothing take the day off.

  6. #2121
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    14,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post


    "Charging the president with a crime is something we could not consider."

    So now Congress should be given access to all relevant information -- including the unredacted report -- so that they can do their job and impeach if necessary.

    That said, we know most Republicans will fight against that to the end because they put loyalty to party above loyalty to country.
    Ha! Muller's basically, "I did my job...Peace Out!"

  7. #2122
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ed2962 View Post
    Ben is constantly intellectually dishonest, mis-represents other points of view, and uses meanspirited language...yet is able to dress it up as "logic." Many times in the service of the worse sides of conservatism or the republican party. I'm not saying that Ben is making calls to violence, but not hard to see person going from watching Ben "own the libs" to watching Stephen Molynuex and "race realism" to something even darker.
    Ben isn't making /direct/ calls to violence but violence is the inevitable end of, say, dehumanizing arabs as, what did he say again...?
    shapiroracism.JPG

    But again: we have nazis openly telling us that Ben Shapiro was part of their journey to becoming Nazis. No matter how much Mets might tut at me about this being a 'vicious slander', it's exactly what it appears to be.

    Shapiro, who edits the conservative publication the Daily Wire, has made Islamophobic claims similar to other far right figures, such as saying that most Muslims are radicalized. Prosecutors in the case of a man who killed 6 and injured 19 in a Quebec City mosque in 2017 noted that the attacker visited Shapiro’s Twitter page 93 times in the month before the attack. Shapiro shrugged off the connection then, too.
    But I'm sure such rhetoric has no consequences, right? It's not like he wore a t-shirt or something.
    Last edited by Tendrin; 05-29-2019 at 07:32 PM.

  8. #2123
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Perhaps neonazis might have ulterior motives in blaming a prominent Jew for their actions.

    If you think he has said or written something that only neonazis could agree with, point it out.

    This is two and a half minutes in which Obama doesn't say what kind of limits he wants on legal immigration, or under what circumstances he'll kick out those who came into the country illegally, which were the things I noted Democrats are vague on.

    He specifies that the bill is a compromise, and not what Democrats actually want.

    And the party has gotten more radical since 2013.
    What's with your hard on for trying to limit legal immigration? You do realize that workers are coming here because the country needs them, not the other way around, and that we'd never be able to compete globally if we had to recruit from an ever shrinking base of "real Americans." If you want a white ethnostate so bad, go move to Russia or something, they'd be glad to take you.

  9. #2124
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,579

    Default

    Meanwhile, we now have freedom gas.

    Serioiusly.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...=.8714808e5fd9

    The Energy Department announced the approval of a liquefied natural gas project in Texas, saying it would allow “molecules of U.S. freedom to be exported to the world.”
    The department said the permit for the expansion of the Freeport, Texas facility “is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world.”
    The language drew wry responses on social media.
    “Personally, I don’t think this goes far enough,” Jason Bordoff, founding director of Columbia University’s Center for Global Energy Policy, wrote on Twitter. He urged the Energy Information Administration to “change its monthly data metric from mcf (million cubic feet) to musf (molecules of US freedom).”
    Another tweeter asked whether the administration would treat another hydrocarbon gas, propylene, the same as methane. “Or will some molecules be more free than others?”

  10. #2125
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It was pretty much a partisan power grab, although part of it is that Obama and Democrats played a bad hand poorly.

    Republicans had a majority in the Senate. They were not going to vote to give liberals a 5-4 majority. In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton remained vague on whether she would put Merrick Garland on the court, which took away the moral power of the argument.
    So they had to block Merrick Garland...so Hillary wouldn't block Merrick Garland? GOP logic just baffles me. There's no moral argument. Merrick Garland was never going on the Court, maybe because a black man nominated him, maybe just to own the libs.

  11. #2126
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    So they had to block Merrick Garland...so Hillary wouldn't block Merrick Garland? GOP logic just baffles me. There's no moral argument. Merrick Garland was never going on the Court, maybe because a black man nominated him, maybe just to own the libs.
    It was always about keeping the seat vacant so that a hardline conservative could eventually be appointed to it. Any other justification misunderstands the essential nature of the GOP.

  12. #2127
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Meanwhile, we now have freedom gas.

    Serioiusly.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...=.8714808e5fd9
    "Boris, what he said, you think he's already had some Goof Gas?"
    "Natasha, what he said; that is Goof Gas."

  13. #2128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    So it's not about "what they actually do" but what you assume they will do -- which is where the hypocrisy (and blatant party bias) comes in.

    Meanwhile, what your party "actually does" is protect Republican candidates that obstruct justice and separate families at the border as a "deterrent".
    You're taking a point about a commentator and applying it to a different sphere (actions of elected officials.) There's going to be some bending of logic there.

    In the context of a commentator, when I'm referring to what he does, I do also mean to include what he writes and what he says. Politicians get to make laws, so their actions are going to be a bit different. They're going to face different restraints (IE- In the last 20+ years, there has only been one two-year period when Democrats had the White House and control of both houses of Congress.)

    Even taking that into account, a consideration of the actions of elected Democrats does suggest they're usually going to act in support of undocumented immigrants and people making asylum claims that are more likely than not to be rejected.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Ben isn't making /direct/ calls to violence but violence is the inevitable end of, say, dehumanizing arabs as, what did he say again...?
    shapiroracism.JPG

    But again: we have nazis openly telling us that Ben Shapiro was part of their journey to becoming Nazis. No matter how much Mets might tut at me about this being a 'vicious slander', it's exactly what it appears to be.



    But I'm sure such rhetoric has no consequences, right? It's not like he wore a t-shirt or something.
    The vicious slander was the idea that he intentionally guides people to white supremacism, that this is his purpose and reason he exists.

    That is a proxy for whether someone's understanding of conservatism is accurate, and whether the comments should be taken seriously.

    That is a dumb statement he made about Arabs nine years ago. However, that was a few years before he reached his current level of popularity, so it seems unlikely that a statement that is mainly brought up by his critics has radicalized anyone recently.

    Going after one group isn't necessarily proof of white supremacism. His example is a comparison between two groups white supremacists typically dislike (Jews and Arabs) rather than why the white race is superior to all others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    It was always about keeping the seat vacant so that a hardline conservative could eventually be appointed to it. Any other justification misunderstands the essential nature of the GOP.
    If the political parties involved were reversed, and the death of a liberal Supreme Court justice on the February of a presidential election year gave a Republican President the opportunity to flip the composition of the court, does anyone here really think a Democratic controlled Senate would have allowed that to happen?

  14. #2129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    What's with your hard on for trying to limit legal immigration? You do realize that workers are coming here because the country needs them, not the other way around, and that we'd never be able to compete globally if we had to recruit from an ever shrinking base of "real Americans." If you want a white ethnostate so bad, go move to Russia or something, they'd be glad to take you.
    I've expressed my views on why there should be limits on legal immigration before. I understand that good people can hold a different position.

    It is a rather unpopular position within the United States, and in terms of polling, my view that legal immigration should be increased a little bit to allow more skills-based immigrants (and keep the family reunification numbers the same) is left of the typical Democratic voter.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

    The context of the discussion has also been largely about what the Democratic party and its officials want to do. My main questions here are whether Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

    As for whether I have a hard on for it, I didn't bring it up.

    If I appear aggravated, it would come at the insinuation that my center-left views on this particular topic are treated as if it's something extreme (a desire for a white ethnostate?) and at the idea that Democratic lawmakers are clearly opposed to a major policy issue when it seems to me that they're not actually willing to answer a contentious but important policy question.

  15. #2130
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    If the political parties involved were reversed, and the death of a liberal Supreme Court justice on the February of a presidential election year gave a Republican President the opportunity to flip the composition of the court, does anyone here really think a Democratic controlled Senate would have allowed that to happen?
    You specifically said it's about "what they actually do" -- what the Democrats have "actually done" is proposed stronger border security and presided over decreased illegal immigration, while you sit here and try to argue that they are for "open borders" based on your own prejudices, not what they have "actually done".

    And what your party has "actually done" is block a legitimately selected Supreme Court justice from being seated -- nothing you say can change that. You can try to argue that the Democrats would do the same, but it's apparent to anyone with even half a brain at this point that the Republicans are the party that lacks integrity, not the Democrats. In fact, your "both sides are the same" arguments just further prove that you can't defend your party on it's own merits, and have to assume the worst about the ("open border") Democrats in order to justify Republican immoral and unethical behavior, even though your claim is that they should be judged by "what they actually do".

    You fail to apply that logic to your own party because you know it would destroy all of your arguments -- you have to deflect to talking points like "open borders" because you know you can't truly ethically justify breaking up families as a "deterrent" and refusing to even vote on a (moderate) Supreme Court Justice.

    Again, you're (repeatedly) trying to justify your -- and your party's -- hypocrisy which is clear to anyone who reads your posts.

    Meanwhile, your party is separating families and protecting a criminal "president" while you try to lecture others about ethics and fair debate.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 05-29-2019 at 09:15 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •