|
|
On November 12 2012 10:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:55 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation. u really overestimate family guy. Or perhaps is pulling a Karl Rove and just denying it on principle that such a thing could occur : P haha. I've been taught to interpret arguments as charitably as possible. That goes for jokes too. need to get you on some hateorade, go through hate camp, etc. for ideological combat training.
I guess I should do those things...
|
On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney?
Hmm... probably not. What breaks that for me would be that it meant he would have very loose border and immigration enforcement. I am almost willing to become a single issue voter based on who will keep out immigrants.
No other positions matter if, in the long run, conservative and libertarian positions are made unelectable by demographic change.
|
On November 12 2012 11:11 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney? Hmm... probably not. What breaks that for me would be that it meant he would have very loose border and immigration enforcement. I am almost willing to become a single issue voter based on who will keep out immigrants. No other positions matter if, in the long run, conservative and libertarian positions are made unelectable by demographic change.
Why would you want to keep out immigrants? More curious than anything else since America is pretty much founded by and still remains a lot of immagrants, you just sound so anti-immigration.
|
On November 12 2012 10:53 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:50 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 12 2012 10:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:43 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. On November 12 2012 10:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu? Correction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_systemIt's the arabic/hindu system. He put greater emphasis on Arabic since they got the naming rights (his point) and they dove deepest into the realm of zero more so than anyone at the time. You may be thinking of Brahmi numerals Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search. I'll give you props for that. I'll also say that you have, in a way, very cogently advanced the argument that blind faith in an ideology stunts intellectual growth and curiosity. It's just probably not the way you intended. Be the change you want to see in the world. Frantic wikipedia search? Why is it always changed from the argument to the search, was my findings incorrect? No, in fact your assertion was incorrect and I just provided some data to explain why your claim was incorrect, seems simple in nature no? I don't have all my notes from Comperative World Religions attached to my thigh at a moments notice that I can start sourcing data. The internet is good for that. I don't know why you're being so peevish. I was applauding your development as a researcher. Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search Facetious positions are common when making users make inaccurate claims. You can continue to be sarcastic, doesn't change you're making a non-valid point. You're also making the assumption I was trying to be a "researcher" while I was simply citing other researchers who dispelled your original statement. Just stop now and this will be forgotten in a page at most, no need to keep continuing your implication. Let's move on.
You seem to be confusing me for the individual who made the "original statement" about the origins of Arabic numerals. I'm not that guy. I'm just the guy making snide comments. Such confusion is fine, though, and, in the context of your other posts, even understandable. I'm sure that once Family Guy produces a gloss on this thread, you'll be back up to speed.
As for your suggestion that we move on. How about you move on. I'm in this to win the old TL holy grail of getting the last word, even if it means saying something completely unrelated that you don't want to respond to.. Be the change you want to see in the world.
|
On November 12 2012 11:18 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:53 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:50 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 12 2012 10:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:43 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. On November 12 2012 10:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu? Correction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_systemIt's the arabic/hindu system. He put greater emphasis on Arabic since they got the naming rights (his point) and they dove deepest into the realm of zero more so than anyone at the time. You may be thinking of Brahmi numerals Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search. I'll give you props for that. I'll also say that you have, in a way, very cogently advanced the argument that blind faith in an ideology stunts intellectual growth and curiosity. It's just probably not the way you intended. Be the change you want to see in the world. Frantic wikipedia search? Why is it always changed from the argument to the search, was my findings incorrect? No, in fact your assertion was incorrect and I just provided some data to explain why your claim was incorrect, seems simple in nature no? I don't have all my notes from Comperative World Religions attached to my thigh at a moments notice that I can start sourcing data. The internet is good for that. I don't know why you're being so peevish. I was applauding your development as a researcher. Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search Facetious positions are common when making users make inaccurate claims. You can continue to be sarcastic, doesn't change you're making a non-valid point. You're also making the assumption I was trying to be a "researcher" while I was simply citing other researchers who dispelled your original statement. Just stop now and this will be forgotten in a page at most, no need to keep continuing your implication. Let's move on. You seem to be confusing me for the individual who made the "original statement" about the origins of Arabic numerals. I'm not that guy. I'm just the guy making snide comments. Such confusion is fine, though, and, in the context of your other posts, even understandable. I'm sure that once Family Guy produces a gloss on this thread, you'll be back up to speed. As for your suggestion that we move on. How about you move on. I'm in this to win the old TL holy grail of getting the last word, even if it means saying something completely unrelated that you don't want to respond to.. Be the change you want to see in the world.
sounds good :D
|
|
|
The only person mad should be you I think... I don't know if you know this but most of the southern states are the POOREST states with regards to civilian per year accumulation, add that into the social collapse and federal funding cut and those states are making a statement, they're not going to do fuck all.
Texas, land of the prisons attempting to survive without federal funding? That'd be the day hahahahahaha. Texas has such a strong budget because of the privitized prison system, which is... kept afloat... by federal... spending... :D
|
LoL Oregon seceding because of Obama being elected? 328 people are living in the wrong state.
The only reason we secede is to make the socialist/liberal/communist/tree hugging/animal sanctuary, peace loving haven Cascadia.
|
idk, i would almost always consider social/civil rights issues more important than economic issues
|
On November 11 2012 13:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:53 aksfjh wrote:On November 11 2012 12:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:43 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. Do not try to speak for all conservatives, I'm sure they don't all share your views. Large groups turned to Romney pure for issues like gay marriage. Your idea of compromise is getting whatever you want. I'm sorry but the party in power is supposed to get "most" of what they want, they are given that mandate by the people. Denying them that is obstruction. 1) the people voted in the House again. 2) I can speak for conservatives much better than you, or any other liberal. 3) we obviously have very different definitions of compromise. conservatives haven't gotten all that much lately. 1) R - 53,822,442 - 48.5% D - 54,301,095 - 48.8% 2) You are pretty good at mirroring Republican talk radio and Fox News, but you're far outside of why most people vote Republican 3) Republicans have gotten a lot lately, it's just that what they got turned out to be full of shit. Debt ceiling crap, the individual mandate on health insurance (which was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, of all places), and extended tax cuts for the top bracket. Doesn't take long to see that everything they've done in the name of "compromise" has hurt the U.S., and you somehow expect us to give them more control. House races aren't about the popular vote. and yeah, I'll agree that the amount of obstruction that went on, whether justified or not, hurt Republicans a lot. educate me then on why conservatives vote Republican? and you have to understand that the mandate, while originally proposed by conservatives, was also dropped by conservatives a while ago. it's not a Republican position anymore. the debt ceiling compromise was a cluster-fuck, but that's more because of the situation than anything the current House did, and extending the tax cuts has been shown to be essential to creating jobs and growth.
Sorry for the late reply. The House of Representatives should, ideally, most closely represent the leanings of the people, but Republicans have held many state legislatures during the redistricting of the past 30 years, and we've seen that influence district turnout greatly. Seeing the popular vote between the parties, you'd expect the House to be within 8-10 Representatives at most for the majority lead, but we're sitting at close to 40.
A lot of Republican voters do so on notions of what the party used to be perceived as, the pro-business, pro-military, and social-stagnation party. The former changed to more of a pro-wealth position, but is essentially the same. The latter has lost a lot of weight recently, seeing how it also encompasses things like gun control and being "tough on crime/drugs." Military has probably lost the most distinction of the 3, but traditional Republicans have aren't likely to change voting patterns because of that.
If there is one thing I think a lot of Republican politicians miss the mark on, it's the "small government" line. A lot of people like the idea of a small government in the sense of an efficient government, not so much as a severely limited one. They don't want to lose Medicare or Social Security as we know it, just find ways to make it more affordable. Then the discretionary spending we already have almost always benefits some group greatly enough that it's not worth fighting over.
The mandate was dropped when it became a course Democrats were willing to take. In some sense, it was a political move to make that the starting point of the discussion, but it was a concession Republicans should have accepted. The debt ceiling was nothing less than a disaster for Republicans who goaded the Tea Party into a frenzy, and then voted in a bunch of rogue politicians. As for the tax cuts, the payroll tax cuts and lower bracket cuts have shown tremendous economic relief, while the top bracket cuts did almost nothing.
|
Reminded me of when I heard on the radio that there was a surge of Americans trying to immigrate to Canada when Obama won. They're going to be in a rude awakening once they discover our evil commie ways.
|
On November 12 2012 11:32 darthfoley wrote:
idk, i would almost always consider social/civil rights issues more important than economic issues
Luckily for me, my self-delusion operates under the acknowledgement of the possibility that they both go hand in hand 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i support kicking out jersey.
|
On November 12 2012 11:33 Tarot wrote:Reminded me of when I heard on the radio that there was a surge of Americans trying to immigrate to Canada when Obama won. They're going to be in a rude awakening once they discover our evil commie ways.
It's cool they'll all move to Quebec then make Quebec secede, it's a stupid online petition like all online petitions they go no where because there is no umph behind them, in this case it's just started by a few derps.
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
|
On November 12 2012 11:40 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 11:33 Tarot wrote:Reminded me of when I heard on the radio that there was a surge of Americans trying to immigrate to Canada when Obama won. They're going to be in a rude awakening once they discover our evil commie ways. It's cool they'll all move to Quebec then make Quebec secede.
Yea, because Quebec would be the PERFECT place for Americans that think Latinos should have to learn English before coming to America.
|
On November 12 2012 11:40 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 11:33 Tarot wrote:Reminded me of when I heard on the radio that there was a surge of Americans trying to immigrate to Canada when Obama won. They're going to be in a rude awakening once they discover our evil commie ways. It's cool they'll all move to Quebec then make Quebec secede.
What? Lol, Quebec is one of the most socialist places in Canada. Any American coming because Obama being elected to Canada is an idiot, Obama is making US more like Canada so maybe they should head... I dunno, where isn't being socialized? Go to a second or third world country and it'd fit better then Canada 
On November 12 2012 11:41 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 11:40 semantics wrote:On November 12 2012 11:33 Tarot wrote:Reminded me of when I heard on the radio that there was a surge of Americans trying to immigrate to Canada when Obama won. They're going to be in a rude awakening once they discover our evil commie ways. It's cool they'll all move to Quebec then make Quebec secede. Yea, because Quebec would be the PERFECT place for Americans that think Latinos should have to learn English before coming to America.
Lol didn't even think about that, holy shit that'd be such a fucking storm brewing.
|
On November 12 2012 11:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 11:11 Romantic wrote:On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney? Hmm... probably not. What breaks that for me would be that it meant he would have very loose border and immigration enforcement. I am almost willing to become a single issue voter based on who will keep out immigrants. No other positions matter if, in the long run, conservative and libertarian positions are made unelectable by demographic change. Why would you want to keep out immigrants? More curious than anything else since America is pretty much founded by and still remains a lot of immagrants, you just sound so anti-immigration.
Why would I want any immigrants? I do not see allowing immigration as a default position.
Most importantly multiculturalism has been a failure wherever tried; the most healthy nations tend to be either homogeneous or governed quite locally like Switzerland. Want to know why Africa is a mess? Europeans drew the borders largely ignoring ethnic concerns. Africans never really had a chance. Neither did Kurds.
Immigrants tend to have the worst political orientations, usually socially conservative but fiscally very liberal. Same is true of black Americans. Further immigration will only harm the prospects of me ever seeing the nation go down the path I want it to go down.
There are plenty of reasons, even silly ones. Population and environmentalism are in large part in conflict and I like my country to have nice trees and roads that aren't always congested. Fewer people wouldn't bring a tear to my eye.
If America's position globally declined I might also find that to be a positive development; a falling or stagnant population would bring that about.
The one thing that just makes me angry is when immigrants are portrayed as the victims when they don't complete educations or have higher rates of crime. Don't get me started. Like most things I tend to be against an idea rather than particularly in favor of another idea. That might be very wrong of me but it is what gets me motivated enough to be a keyboard warrior and actually bother to drop off a ballot once in a while.
|
On November 12 2012 11:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 11:32 darthfoley wrote:
idk, i would almost always consider social/civil rights issues more important than economic issues Luckily for me, my self-delusion operates under the acknowledgement of the possibility that they both go hand in hand
lol good point i was just saying i'd never vote for romney (throwing out his economic bs) because of what his beliefs are for other people's rights
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this poster talking about immigration...
Most importantly multiculturalism has been a failure wherever tried].
srsly? how about the u.s.
the only instances of failed integration are teh results of the majority's active marginalization of willing or unwilling migrant groups. precisely what you are doing now.
borders and sovereignty claims are basically more codified "pee on this tree" gestures. they may be 'natural' but so is genocidal instincts. there is no privileged claim to land resources and openness is the default position with regard to welcoming people into a community.
immigrants is a huge driving factor for growth. this is even under severe restrictions on the elite trained ones' ability to create businesses and generally contribute.
|
On November 12 2012 11:43 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 11:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 11:11 Romantic wrote:On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney? Hmm... probably not. What breaks that for me would be that it meant he would have very loose border and immigration enforcement. I am almost willing to become a single issue voter based on who will keep out immigrants. No other positions matter if, in the long run, conservative and libertarian positions are made unelectable by demographic change. Why would you want to keep out immigrants? More curious than anything else since America is pretty much founded by and still remains a lot of immagrants, you just sound so anti-immigration. Why would I want any immigrants? I do not see allowing immigration as a default position. Most importantly multiculturalism has been a failure wherever tried; the most healthy nations tend to be either homogeneous or governed quite locally like Switzerland. Want to know why Africa is a mess? Europeans drew the borders largely ignoring ethnic concerns. Africans never really had a chance. Neither did Kurds. Immigrants tend to have the worst political orientations, usually socially conservative but fiscally very liberal. Same is true of black Americans. Further immigration will only harm the prospects of me ever seeing the nation go down the path I want it to go down. There are plenty of reasons, even silly ones. Population and environmentalism are in large part in conflict and I like my country to have nice trees and roads that aren't always congested. Fewer people wouldn't bring a tear to my eye. If America's position globally declined I might also find that to be a positive development; a falling or stagnant population would bring that about. The one thing that just makes me angry is when immigrants are portrayed as the victims when they don't complete educations or have higher rates of crime. Don't get me started. Like most things I tend to be against an idea rather than particularly in favor of another idea. That might be very wrong of me but it is what gets me motivated enough to be a keyboard warrior and actually bother to drop off a ballot once in a while.
Clearly you doesn't like the H-1B, O-1, EB-1, EB-5 visa's, Ayn Rand and Mila Kunis
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
