|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 03 2016 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:26 TheYango wrote:
And some people don't get the choice. If you're a cancer patient who needs chemotherapy, the competent doctor can't provide that to you as much as he would like.
The only people who get the luxury of a protest are those who are far removed enough from the system where the difference between two bad choices doesn't matter to them. For people who are directly affected (e.g the minorities who you claim to stand up for), it matters a lot. Or people who would rather die fighting than to let the status quo continue to deteriorate. It's as if folks are unaware that we've seen things get worse under both parties, and that the president is only a part of the puzzle. Submitting to the two party "less evil" paradigm is not a valorous choice to save marginalized people, it's a rationalization for supporting contrary positions. If helping marginalized people was actually the goal/justification, none of you would be voting for either candidate. What many here have turned this into is a choice of damage mitigation, which realistically completely removes progress from the equation.
Or they will learn to live with your disapproval. People who just received the right to marry and adopt children don’t have the luxury of risking it all on some protest vote. I don’t get to face my Muslim friends and tell them I voted for Jill “I don’t believe in vaccines” Stein in a fit of self serving protest of the status quo.
And the two third party options suck. And Bernie doesn’t want my vote.
|
On August 03 2016 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:15 TheYango wrote:
That doctor being a better doctor is meaningless if he doesn't have the facilities/staff/resources to provide adequate care either way. All those facilities/staff/resources are useless if the doctors are corrupt and incompetent. I'll take my chances in a strip mall office with a legit doctor over a facility that's rotten through and through. Some people would rather go to the hospital that's killing people out of incompetence and corruption than take their chances with a low rent facility with a competent doctor, that's fine for them, but let's not pretend the people who do't want to go are loons. On the other hand, I think it's a pretty good idea to go to the better doctor for help and choose the hospital he refers you to rather than insisting you'll go to him after he says he can't treat you.
We've moved on for a second opinion, unfortunately there are perverse incentives built into the system for that referral, mainly being he'll get shut down and not be able to help anyone if he doesn't submit and make that referral to the hospital he spent his whole life in hospitable opposition to. His calculation is different from the patient's. No coincidence he's not sending over the medical files before or after referring the patients.
|
Jill Stein just recently said something hilarious about wifi being bad for you, anyone got the quote? 'Twas quite funny iirc.
|
On August 03 2016 03:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:26 TheYango wrote:
And some people don't get the choice. If you're a cancer patient who needs chemotherapy, the competent doctor can't provide that to you as much as he would like.
The only people who get the luxury of a protest are those who are far removed enough from the system where the difference between two bad choices doesn't matter to them. For people who are directly affected (e.g the minorities who you claim to stand up for), it matters a lot. Or people who would rather die fighting than to let the status quo continue to deteriorate. It's as if folks are unaware that we've seen things get worse under both parties, and that the president is only a part of the puzzle. Submitting to the two party "less evil" paradigm is not a valorous choice to save marginalized people, it's a rationalization for supporting contrary positions. If helping marginalized people was actually the goal/justification, none of you would be voting for either candidate. What many here have turned this into is a choice of damage mitigation, which realistically completely removes progress from the equation. Or they will learn to live with your disapproval. People who just received the right to marry and adopt children don’t have the luxury of risking it all on some protest vote. I don’t get to face my Muslim friends and tell them I voted for Jill “I don’t believe in vaccines” Stein in a fit of self serving protest of the status quo. And the two third party options suck. And Bernie doesn’t want my vote.
and I with others.
You'd be lying if you told them having Hillary as president secured or protected any of that stuff. If the majority of Americans decided they changed their minds on gay marriage or adoption or how we treat Muslims everything about Hillary's record shows she would go with the political winds.
The vaccine thing has been debunked and everyone with a shred of integrity knows what she said about vaccines is totally reasonable. That it's still the go to dismissal of Jill is telling.
|
In any case, if you want people to go see your good doctor, it's more productive to help him hire nurses and get better facilities than to chastise people for going to the hospitals.
|
On August 03 2016 03:44 TheYango wrote:
In any case, if you want people to go see your good doctor, it's more productive to help him hire nurses and get better facilities than to chastise people for going to the hospitals.
It's not going to the hospitals which I would chastise people for, it would be the incessant caping for them.
|
On August 03 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:38 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2016 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:26 TheYango wrote:
And some people don't get the choice. If you're a cancer patient who needs chemotherapy, the competent doctor can't provide that to you as much as he would like.
The only people who get the luxury of a protest are those who are far removed enough from the system where the difference between two bad choices doesn't matter to them. For people who are directly affected (e.g the minorities who you claim to stand up for), it matters a lot. Or people who would rather die fighting than to let the status quo continue to deteriorate. It's as if folks are unaware that we've seen things get worse under both parties, and that the president is only a part of the puzzle. Submitting to the two party "less evil" paradigm is not a valorous choice to save marginalized people, it's a rationalization for supporting contrary positions. If helping marginalized people was actually the goal/justification, none of you would be voting for either candidate. What many here have turned this into is a choice of damage mitigation, which realistically completely removes progress from the equation. Or they will learn to live with your disapproval. People who just received the right to marry and adopt children don’t have the luxury of risking it all on some protest vote. I don’t get to face my Muslim friends and tell them I voted for Jill “I don’t believe in vaccines” Stein in a fit of self serving protest of the status quo. And the two third party options suck. And Bernie doesn’t want my vote. and I with others. You'd be lying if you told them having Hillary as president secured or protected any of that stuff. If the majority of Americans decided they changed their minds on gay marriage or adoption or how we treat Muslims everything about Hillary's record shows she would go with the political winds. The vaccine thing has been debunked and everyone with a shred of integrity knows what she said about vaccines is totally reasonable. That it's still the go to dismissal of Jill is telling.
I live in the same state a Jill Wifi is bad for children Stein. I hear about her and the Green Party all the time. She and that party suck. They can barely win a seat in state government, let alone nationally. Its not because the DNC is keeping them down. They couldn’t’ even win in the People’s Republic of Cambridge, the land where the local judge said “I don’t do the bidding of banks” in open court and dismissed all debt collection cases on the court’s docket.
|
On August 03 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 02:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:41 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:33 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Yes because it's all liberal trickery and you and Donald "Mexico is gonna pay for a wall and we're gonna ban a religion" Trump are just victims under siege. This is called 'lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you'You're becoming that which you hate most about Trump It's called addressing Trump supporters because of their dangerous views. And no one is banning a religion That's interesting, why don't you think your candidate means what he says? He's never said he wanted to ban a religion I realize it's temporary, but you really can't be that far removed from reality. EDIT: and yes I know it's only a ban on immigration/travel. No less dangerous an idea, point still stands. I'm not removed from reality. You're just exaggerating your attacks when you decided to lash out against everyone who has decided to vote differently than you, which is a vast and diverse group of people voting for a variety of different reasons, and got called out on it. Yes I used hyperbole as we all do here and then you decided to get technical only address the hyperbole. Yes you're removed from reality, because history and Japanese internment and all that don't mean it's not a radical move. We've progressed as a country, and it is a radical move, based on a tribe mentality. Your view that electing its proponent is a good idea is dangerous. And this is just one of the reasons your views are dangerous. And I trust you are also committed to vetting and monitoring mentally ill white males in the US, due to their body count over the past couple years and the danger they pose to us. Or do you not want to implement any special danger-reducing measures in response to mass killings of civilians?
I addressed your shitposting because it gets old coming in here and seeing you just flaming anyone who disagrees with you - all. the. time. Then you made a hyperbole to justify your shitposting and I called you out on it
I'm not removed from reality. Hillary is proposing to take in 50,000 more Syrian refugees. We know ISIS is attempting to infiltrate refugee groups to commit acts of hatred and violence. I don't want 50,000 refugees in my country if the potential exists that one of them could end up murdering me or my friends or my family or just random innocent american civilians one day in the name of hatred or their God.
And I actually do think mental health needs much more attention than it gets in politics - so once again you assume wrong facts about others.
I don't think it should just be white males that better mental health though, rather everyone should have equal access to it independent of what their skin color is, which is another stupid as hell thing for you to say.
You sure love your racial profiling for someone so set on affirming anyone who votes differently from what you agree with is racist.
|
On August 03 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 03 2016 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:15 TheYango wrote:
That doctor being a better doctor is meaningless if he doesn't have the facilities/staff/resources to provide adequate care either way. All those facilities/staff/resources are useless if the doctors are corrupt and incompetent. I'll take my chances in a strip mall office with a legit doctor over a facility that's rotten through and through. Some people would rather go to the hospital that's killing people out of incompetence and corruption than take their chances with a low rent facility with a competent doctor, that's fine for them, but let's not pretend the people who do't want to go are loons. On the other hand, I think it's a pretty good idea to go to the better doctor for help and choose the hospital he refers you to rather than insisting you'll go to him after he says he can't treat you. We've moved on for a second opinion, unfortunately there are perverse incentives built into the system for that referral, mainly being he'll get shut down and not be able to help anyone if he doesn't submit and make that referral to the hospital he spent his whole life in hospitable opposition to. His calculation is different from the patient's. No coincidence he's not sending over the medical files before or after referring the patients.
I think I'm going to live in the world where the better doctor is the kind of person who doesn't lie through his teeth all the time and is still ultimately looking out for my best interest, because it's completely indistinguishable from the world where he's a serial liar and ultimately not much better than the hospitals anyway as a result.
And since that way I don't keel over dead while screaming in his waiting room about how both the hospitals are evil, to the point of not rejecting all reviews to the contrary.
|
On August 03 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:41 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:33 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Yes because it's all liberal trickery and you and Donald "Mexico is gonna pay for a wall and we're gonna ban a religion" Trump are just victims under siege. This is called 'lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you'You're becoming that which you hate most about Trump It's called addressing Trump supporters because of their dangerous views. And no one is banning a religion That's interesting, why don't you think your candidate means what he says? He's never said he wanted to ban a religion I realize it's temporary, but you really can't be that far removed from reality. EDIT: and yes I know it's only a ban on immigration/travel. No less dangerous an idea, point still stands. I'm not removed from reality. You're just exaggerating your attacks when you decided to lash out against everyone who has decided to vote differently than you, which is a vast and diverse group of people voting for a variety of different reasons, and got called out on it. Yes I used hyperbole as we all do here and then you decided to get technical only address the hyperbole. Yes you're removed from reality, because history and Japanese internment and all that don't mean it's not a radical move. We've progressed as a country, and it is a radical move, based on a tribe mentality. Your view that electing its proponent is a good idea is dangerous. And this is just one of the reasons your views are dangerous. And I trust you are also committed to vetting and monitoring mentally ill white males in the US, due to their body count over the past couple years and the danger they pose to us. Or do you not want to implement any special danger-reducing measures in response to mass killings of civilians? I addressed your shitposting because it gets old coming in here and seeing you just flaming anyone who disagrees with you - all. the. time. Then you made a hyperbole to justify your shitposting and I called you out on it I'm not removed from reality. Hillary is proposing to take in 50,000 more Syrian refugees. We know ISIS is attempting to infiltrate refugee groups to commit acts of hatred and violence. I don't want 50,000 refugees in my country if the potential exists that one of them could end up murdering me or my friends or my family or just random innocent american civilians one day in the name of hatred or their God. And I actually do think mental health needs much more attention than it gets in politics - so once again you assume wrong facts about others. I don't think it should just be white males that better mental health though, rather everyone should have equal access to it independent of what their skin color is, which is another stupid as hell thing for you to say. You sure love your racial profiling for someone so set on affirming anyone who votes differently from what you agree with is racist.
Bring all the refugees to me, I’m not afraid. We have caught terrorists before, we can do it again. I have faith in our ability to find them, so bring me the poor, sick and needy. My local church already offered to assist any refugees, so I’m sure we got this.
|
Plansix -> has your church donated to the un refugee organization?
On the trump/purple heart; I wonder if he'll do something stupid which actually violates the law on medals. probably not, but ya never know.
|
On August 03 2016 03:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 03 2016 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:15 TheYango wrote:
That doctor being a better doctor is meaningless if he doesn't have the facilities/staff/resources to provide adequate care either way. All those facilities/staff/resources are useless if the doctors are corrupt and incompetent. I'll take my chances in a strip mall office with a legit doctor over a facility that's rotten through and through. Some people would rather go to the hospital that's killing people out of incompetence and corruption than take their chances with a low rent facility with a competent doctor, that's fine for them, but let's not pretend the people who do't want to go are loons. On the other hand, I think it's a pretty good idea to go to the better doctor for help and choose the hospital he refers you to rather than insisting you'll go to him after he says he can't treat you. We've moved on for a second opinion, unfortunately there are perverse incentives built into the system for that referral, mainly being he'll get shut down and not be able to help anyone if he doesn't submit and make that referral to the hospital he spent his whole life in hospitable opposition to. His calculation is different from the patient's. No coincidence he's not sending over the medical files before or after referring the patients. I think I'm going to live in the world where the better doctor is the kind of person who doesn't lie through his teeth all the time and is still ultimately looking out for my best interest, because it's completely indistinguishable from the world where he's a serial liar and ultimately not much better than the hospitals anyway as a result. And since that way I don't keel over dead while screaming in his waiting room about how both the hospitals are evil, to the point of not rejecting all reviews to the contrary.
I dun get it. What happened to the Hippocratic oath?
|
|
|
On August 03 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:41 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:33 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
This is called 'lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you'
You're becoming that which you hate most about Trump It's called addressing Trump supporters because of their dangerous views. And no one is banning a religion That's interesting, why don't you think your candidate means what he says? He's never said he wanted to ban a religion I realize it's temporary, but you really can't be that far removed from reality. EDIT: and yes I know it's only a ban on immigration/travel. No less dangerous an idea, point still stands. I'm not removed from reality. You're just exaggerating your attacks when you decided to lash out against everyone who has decided to vote differently than you, which is a vast and diverse group of people voting for a variety of different reasons, and got called out on it. Yes I used hyperbole as we all do here and then you decided to get technical only address the hyperbole. Yes you're removed from reality, because history and Japanese internment and all that don't mean it's not a radical move. We've progressed as a country, and it is a radical move, based on a tribe mentality. Your view that electing its proponent is a good idea is dangerous. And this is just one of the reasons your views are dangerous. And I trust you are also committed to vetting and monitoring mentally ill white males in the US, due to their body count over the past couple years and the danger they pose to us. Or do you not want to implement any special danger-reducing measures in response to mass killings of civilians? I addressed your shitposting because it gets old coming in here and seeing you just flaming anyone who disagrees with you - all. the. time. Then you made a hyperbole to justify your shitposting and I called you out on it I'm not removed from reality. Hillary is proposing to take in 50,000 more Syrian refugees. We know ISIS is attempting to infiltrate refugee groups to commit acts of hatred and violence. I don't want 50,000 refugees in my country if the potential exists that one of them could end up murdering me or my friends or my family or just random innocent american civilians one day in the name of hatred or their God. And I actually do think mental health needs much more attention than it gets in politics - so once again you assume wrong facts about others. I don't think it should just be white males that better mental health though, rather everyone should have equal access to it independent of what their skin color is, which is another stupid as hell thing for you to say. You sure love your racial profiling for someone so set on affirming anyone who votes differently from what you agree with is racist. Bring all the refugees to me, I’m not afraid. We have caught terrorists before, we can do it again. I have faith in our ability to find them, so bring me the poor, sick and needy. My local church already offered to assist any refugees, so I’m sure we got this.
I'm actually envious of your optimistic faith
|
On August 03 2016 03:57 zlefin wrote:
Plansix -> has your church donated to the un refugee organization?
On the trump/purple heart; I wonder if he'll do something stupid which actually violates the law on medals. probably not, but ya never know.
If you're referring to the Stolen Valor Act, it was found unconstitutional in US v. Alvarez.
|
On August 03 2016 03:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 03 2016 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:15 TheYango wrote:
That doctor being a better doctor is meaningless if he doesn't have the facilities/staff/resources to provide adequate care either way. All those facilities/staff/resources are useless if the doctors are corrupt and incompetent. I'll take my chances in a strip mall office with a legit doctor over a facility that's rotten through and through. Some people would rather go to the hospital that's killing people out of incompetence and corruption than take their chances with a low rent facility with a competent doctor, that's fine for them, but let's not pretend the people who do't want to go are loons. On the other hand, I think it's a pretty good idea to go to the better doctor for help and choose the hospital he refers you to rather than insisting you'll go to him after he says he can't treat you. We've moved on for a second opinion, unfortunately there are perverse incentives built into the system for that referral, mainly being he'll get shut down and not be able to help anyone if he doesn't submit and make that referral to the hospital he spent his whole life in hospitable opposition to. His calculation is different from the patient's. No coincidence he's not sending over the medical files before or after referring the patients. I think I'm going to live in the world where the better doctor is the kind of person who doesn't lie through his teeth all the time and is still ultimately looking out for my best interest, because it's completely indistinguishable from the world where he's a serial liar and ultimately not much better than the hospitals anyway as a result. And since that way I don't keel over dead while screaming in his waiting room about how the hospitals are evil.
No one is saying he is a serial liar. He's telling his truth, it's just not our truth. What's best for us and what's best for him to say to us don't always align. That's the reality of our system.
I've been reminded more times than I can count that the hospital doesn't need my support anyway so I don't see why I should support something that doesn't support me or care if I support it over supporting someone who (even if misinformed) genuinely wants to earn my support. That's the assbackward paradigm people are accepting.
I find this best summed up with the image suggesting "If Stalin won the Democratic nomination, and Hitler the Republican, one of them would win the white house" unless of course there was a population that didn't buy into the "lesser evil" stuff and they supported a candidate who wasn't either of those two.
Just to be clear I'm not suggesting Hillary and Trump are Stalin and Hitler, just if those were our two party choices Democrats would be here telling us how we have to support Stalin otherwise we will get Hitler, instead of crying out for another option and supporting them when they came.
|
Meh I dont see the use. Better for him to stay out of the mudfight and focus on making Hillary look better
|
United States43964 Posts
On August 03 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 03 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 03 2016 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:15 TheYango wrote:
That doctor being a better doctor is meaningless if he doesn't have the facilities/staff/resources to provide adequate care either way. All those facilities/staff/resources are useless if the doctors are corrupt and incompetent. I'll take my chances in a strip mall office with a legit doctor over a facility that's rotten through and through. Some people would rather go to the hospital that's killing people out of incompetence and corruption than take their chances with a low rent facility with a competent doctor, that's fine for them, but let's not pretend the people who do't want to go are loons. On the other hand, I think it's a pretty good idea to go to the better doctor for help and choose the hospital he refers you to rather than insisting you'll go to him after he says he can't treat you. We've moved on for a second opinion, unfortunately there are perverse incentives built into the system for that referral, mainly being he'll get shut down and not be able to help anyone if he doesn't submit and make that referral to the hospital he spent his whole life in hospitable opposition to. His calculation is different from the patient's. No coincidence he's not sending over the medical files before or after referring the patients. I think I'm going to live in the world where the better doctor is the kind of person who doesn't lie through his teeth all the time and is still ultimately looking out for my best interest, because it's completely indistinguishable from the world where he's a serial liar and ultimately not much better than the hospitals anyway as a result. And since that way I don't keel over dead while screaming in his waiting room about how the hospitals are evil. No one is saying he is a serial liar. He's telling his truth, it's just not our truth. What's best for us and what's best for him to say to us don't always align. That's the reality of our system. I've been reminded more times than I can count that the hospital doesn't need my support anyway so I don't see why I should support something that doesn't support me or care if I support it over supporting someone who (even if misinformed) genuinely wants to earn my support. That's the assbackward paradigm people are accepting. I find this best summed up with the image suggesting "If Stalin won the Democratic nomination, and Hitler the Republican, one of them would win the white house" unless of course there was a population that didn't buy into the "lesser evil" stuff and they supported a candidate who wasn't either of those two. Just to be clear I'm not suggesting Hillary and Trump are Stalin and Hitler, just if those were our two party choices Democrats would be here telling us how we have to support Stalin otherwise we will get Hitler, instead of crying out for another option and supporting them when they came.
Any realist would accept that a plurality of people would vote along party lines regardless of the candidate, that Stalin in his younger days would easily get a lot of the female vote and that Hitler would have a lock in on the patriotic male vote with his promises of Lebensraum in Canada. And that even if other candidates did take a significant portion of the vote there would be no consensus about who the other candidate would be. Better to ask yourself "Am I on Hitler's list? If so, Stalin. Am I not on Hitler's list? Hitler it is then". You can still have a preference, if you're a Jew then you'll take Stalin over a futile third party vote and a risk of Hitler.
|
On August 03 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:41 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:33 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Yes because it's all liberal trickery and you and Donald "Mexico is gonna pay for a wall and we're gonna ban a religion" Trump are just victims under siege. This is called 'lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you'You're becoming that which you hate most about Trump It's called addressing Trump supporters because of their dangerous views. And no one is banning a religion That's interesting, why don't you think your candidate means what he says? He's never said he wanted to ban a religion I realize it's temporary, but you really can't be that far removed from reality. EDIT: and yes I know it's only a ban on immigration/travel. No less dangerous an idea, point still stands. I'm not removed from reality. You're just exaggerating your attacks when you decided to lash out against everyone who has decided to vote differently than you, which is a vast and diverse group of people voting for a variety of different reasons, and got called out on it. Yes I used hyperbole as we all do here and then you decided to get technical only address the hyperbole. Yes you're removed from reality, because history and Japanese internment and all that don't mean it's not a radical move. We've progressed as a country, and it is a radical move, based on a tribe mentality. Your view that electing its proponent is a good idea is dangerous. And this is just one of the reasons your views are dangerous. And I trust you are also committed to vetting and monitoring mentally ill white males in the US, due to their body count over the past couple years and the danger they pose to us. Or do you not want to implement any special danger-reducing measures in response to mass killings of civilians? I addressed your shitposting because it gets old coming in here and seeing you just flaming anyone who disagrees with you - all. the. time. Then you made a hyperbole to justify your shitposting and I called you out on it I'm not removed from reality. Hillary is proposing to take in 50,000 more Syrian refugees. We know ISIS is attempting to infiltrate refugee groups to commit acts of hatred and violence. I don't want 50,000 refugees in my country if the potential exists that one of them could end up murdering me or my friends or my family or just random innocent american civilians one day in the name of hatred or their God. And I actually do think mental health needs much more attention than it gets in politics - so once again you assume wrong facts about others. I don't think it should just be white males that better mental health though, rather everyone should have equal access to it independent of what their skin color is, which is another stupid as hell thing for you to say. You sure love your racial profiling for someone so set on affirming anyone who votes differently from what you agree with is racist.
Not even a word from you on monitoring and vetting mentally ill white males - the group with the highest body count among the mentally ill. You just want better care for them? How about taking immediate danger-reducing measures by tracking and monitoring all of them? Or do you only want to take immediate measures on Muslims because of your tribe mentality? Guess you're fine going to movie theaters and other public places, but personally I think "the potential exists that one of them could end up murdering me or my friends or my family or just random innocent american civilians one day".
|
On August 03 2016 04:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:41 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:33 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 02:19 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 02:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
This is called 'lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you'
You're becoming that which you hate most about Trump It's called addressing Trump supporters because of their dangerous views. And no one is banning a religion That's interesting, why don't you think your candidate means what he says? He's never said he wanted to ban a religion I realize it's temporary, but you really can't be that far removed from reality. EDIT: and yes I know it's only a ban on immigration/travel. No less dangerous an idea, point still stands. I'm not removed from reality. You're just exaggerating your attacks when you decided to lash out against everyone who has decided to vote differently than you, which is a vast and diverse group of people voting for a variety of different reasons, and got called out on it. Yes I used hyperbole as we all do here and then you decided to get technical only address the hyperbole. Yes you're removed from reality, because history and Japanese internment and all that don't mean it's not a radical move. We've progressed as a country, and it is a radical move, based on a tribe mentality. Your view that electing its proponent is a good idea is dangerous. And this is just one of the reasons your views are dangerous. And I trust you are also committed to vetting and monitoring mentally ill white males in the US, due to their body count over the past couple years and the danger they pose to us. Or do you not want to implement any special danger-reducing measures in response to mass killings of civilians? I addressed your shitposting because it gets old coming in here and seeing you just flaming anyone who disagrees with you - all. the. time. Then you made a hyperbole to justify your shitposting and I called you out on it I'm not removed from reality. Hillary is proposing to take in 50,000 more Syrian refugees. We know ISIS is attempting to infiltrate refugee groups to commit acts of hatred and violence. I don't want 50,000 refugees in my country if the potential exists that one of them could end up murdering me or my friends or my family or just random innocent american civilians one day in the name of hatred or their God. And I actually do think mental health needs much more attention than it gets in politics - so once again you assume wrong facts about others. I don't think it should just be white males that better mental health though, rather everyone should have equal access to it independent of what their skin color is, which is another stupid as hell thing for you to say. You sure love your racial profiling for someone so set on affirming anyone who votes differently from what you agree with is racist. Not even a word from you on monitoring and vetting mentally ill white males - the group with the highest body count among the mentally ill. You just want better care for them? How about taking immediate danger-reducing measures by tracking and monitoring all of them? Or do you only want to take immediate measures on Muslims because of your tribe mentality? Guess you're fine going to movie theaters and other public places, but personally I think "the potential exists that one of them could end up murdering me or my friends or my family or just random innocent american civilians one day".
I'm of the impression that better mental healthcare would result in the ability to identify and monitor those with mental health issues such that those displaying signs of posing threats to themselves or others would be taken into care to prevent this from happening.
Got another other false accusations?
Also, I was under the impression you see more mentally ill whites because you have more white people living in America. Do you have any statistical evidence to support the idea that they make up a disproportionate amount of shootings related to mental illness in terms of their proportion of the population?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
