|
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 04:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
I like to have more faith in humanity, but it does get harder every year.
Makes very little sense to me to claim that it's an open process and then say that if you didn't register as a member of the party, you get no influence on who we have to choose from as president (other than spoiling by not following one of the parties you aren't a part of).
The more I look at it the easier it is to understand how we've gone backwards on a lot of the progress we made during the 60's.
If all one has to do is be less bad than an ever increasingly bad party the situation easily gets worse with no sight of potential progress.
|
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.
I know my old church(not local) donated a while ago and I send them a donation on behalf of my grandparents. The local church(aka, where I currently live) isn’t of my denomination, so I’m not super active. I donated some money to them when they were doing work with other refugees and they mail me a news letter. But I don't think they donated to the UN directly. My Catholic relatives are all about helping Syrian refugees because the Pope is on board and they are good Irish Catholics.
|
On August 03 2016 04:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 04:13 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
What's this about proportions? 1.6 billion what? We're concerned with body counts here, and addressing entire populations on the basis of "one" person potentially going on a rampage. Your plan for "better mental healthcare" would only address the subset of mentally ill white males currently getting care. We need to address entire population - past, present, and future potentially mentally ill white males - with immediate (not "hope it gets better down the road") measures in order to prevent civilian massacres.
Anything else is just a tribe mentality.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 03 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
I've never seen a "Green Party" in any country that I could actually vote for. They generally have a nice surface-level appeal but when you get down to it and look at their policies they are usually a bottomless pit of suck.
|
On August 03 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:01 TMagpie wrote:On August 03 2016 00:24 MCWhiteHaze wrote:
You know what the biggest lie people fall into is? This statement right:
"I have to vote for the lesser of the two evils"
What? No you don't... No one holds a gun to your head and says you must vote for Hillary or Donald. That doesn't happen. You can vote for whoever you want, or not vote at all. I personally don't vote because I don't believe in how politics works and/or voting for anyone to me is a waste of time. I believe reform needs to happen on a personal social level before it will happen at the top.
Just my beliefs and I catch a lot of flack for them, oh well.
I get so sick of the presidential season...Family members arguing and getting mad at each other for the most ridiculous of reasons especially when we get such a jaded view and report. We end up arguing about things that aren't even true lol. Stupid.
God help us all. Amen.
If someone's dying on the street and there are two crappy hospitals you could take him to, do you prefer to choose the better of two goods despite you not liking either because that person's life is at stake? What if it's 300million lives, threatened by war, over taxation, under funding of social programs? People throw into squalor? What if it's 300million people who are about to get fucked regardless of your choices--would you rather let them be worse off so that you feel vindicated, or would you rather choose the better of two choices? Maybe we don't go to the hospitals that trade brown and black lives overseas to save lives here and instead we go to the doctor who left the hospital because of it's corruption and ineffectiveness.
So you'd rather go to the doctor without tools than the doctor with tools?
You'd rather not bring the man to the hospital because of how you feel about hospitals?
You'd rather people die than you having to make a decision.
You'd rather go to the doctor who when asked how what we should do when a genocide is happening in the middle east is to send more brown people into the meat grinder.
That's your answer?
|
umm, I'm not so sure abotu this last post of yours doodsmack; it just isn't making much sense to me. not sure anyone brtought up 1.6 billion, or it's particular relevance to the discussion here.
and the anything else tribe mentality point just doens't seem to follow.
|
United States42519 Posts
On August 03 2016 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I like to have more faith in humanity, but it does get harder every year. Makes very little sense to me to claim that it's an open process and then say that if you didn't register as a member of the party, you get no influence on who we have to choose from as president (other than spoiling by not following one of the parties you aren't a part of). The more I look at it the easier it is to understand how we've gone backwards on a lot of the progress we made during the 60's. If all one has to do is be less bad than an ever increasingly bad party the situation easily gets worse with no sight of potential progress.
First Past The Post is a shitty, shitty system but it's the one the founders used, probably because it's the one that was used in England at the time before the invention of much better and more representative systems. The refusal of Americans to update their constitution with time creates situations like this where clearly obsolete systems remain. Pretending FPTP doesn't exist and throwing away your vote isn't a solution to the problems posed by FPTP. You'll need to do it the same way you got a $12 minimum wage in the Democratic platform, get a lot of people in one of the parties to loudly demand it in an election year.
Complaining about how dumb FPTP is and how it rewards awful situations like choosing Hitler or Stalin over a third party candidate is fun and all but it won't ever actually get you anywhere because nobody thinks FPTP is effective. You're not changing hearts or minds, we all know how it works and where it fails. But FPTP is the system you have and it won't get changed until you get it changed using FPTP. And that's the tricky part. But nobody ever won an election by courting the votes of the principled and disaffected non voters, there's no point, those people won't vote. You need to be in the game to change it, even if it's a shit game, because it's the only game in town.
|
On August 03 2016 04:47 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 03:01 TMagpie wrote:On August 03 2016 00:24 MCWhiteHaze wrote:
You know what the biggest lie people fall into is? This statement right:
"I have to vote for the lesser of the two evils"
What? No you don't... No one holds a gun to your head and says you must vote for Hillary or Donald. That doesn't happen. You can vote for whoever you want, or not vote at all. I personally don't vote because I don't believe in how politics works and/or voting for anyone to me is a waste of time. I believe reform needs to happen on a personal social level before it will happen at the top.
Just my beliefs and I catch a lot of flack for them, oh well.
I get so sick of the presidential season...Family members arguing and getting mad at each other for the most ridiculous of reasons especially when we get such a jaded view and report. We end up arguing about things that aren't even true lol. Stupid.
God help us all. Amen.
If someone's dying on the street and there are two crappy hospitals you could take him to, do you prefer to choose the better of two goods despite you not liking either because that person's life is at stake? What if it's 300million lives, threatened by war, over taxation, under funding of social programs? People throw into squalor? What if it's 300million people who are about to get fucked regardless of your choices--would you rather let them be worse off so that you feel vindicated, or would you rather choose the better of two choices? Maybe we don't go to the hospitals that trade brown and black lives overseas to save lives here and instead we go to the doctor who left the hospital because of it's corruption and ineffectiveness. So you'd rather go to the doctor without tools than the doctor with tools? You'd rather not bring the man to the hospital because of how you feel about hospitals? You'd rather people die than you having to make a decision. You'd rather go to the doctor who when asked how what we should do when a genocide is happening in the middle east is to send more brown people into the meat grinder. That's your answer?
I suggest you finish reading where that conversation went. Then come back with questions, if you still have them.
|
|
|
On August 03 2016 04:38 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 04:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 04:13 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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? What's this about proportions? 1.6 billion what? We're concerned with body counts here, and addressing entire populations on the basis of "one" person potentially going on a rampage. Your plan for "better mental healthcare" would only address the subset of mentally ill white males currently getting care. We need to address entire population - past, present, and future potentially mentally ill white males - with immediate (not "hope it gets better down the road") measures in order to prevent civilian massacres. Anything else is just a tribe mentality.
There aren't 1.6 billion people in America.
|
On August 03 2016 04:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 04:38 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 04:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 04:13 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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? What's this about proportions? 1.6 billion what? We're concerned with body counts here, and addressing entire populations on the basis of "one" person potentially going on a rampage. Your plan for "better mental healthcare" would only address the subset of mentally ill white males currently getting care. We need to address entire population - past, present, and future potentially mentally ill white males - with immediate (not "hope it gets better down the road") measures in order to prevent civilian massacres. Anything else is just a tribe mentality. There aren't 1.6 billion people in America.
But there are 1.6 billion Muslims.
|
|
|
On August 03 2016 05:00 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 04:54 oBlade wrote:On August 03 2016 04:38 Doodsmack wrote:On August 03 2016 04:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2016 04:13 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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? What's this about proportions? 1.6 billion what? We're concerned with body counts here, and addressing entire populations on the basis of "one" person potentially going on a rampage. Your plan for "better mental healthcare" would only address the subset of mentally ill white males currently getting care. We need to address entire population - past, present, and future potentially mentally ill white males - with immediate (not "hope it gets better down the road") measures in order to prevent civilian massacres. Anything else is just a tribe mentality. There aren't 1.6 billion people in America. But there are 1.6 billion Muslims.
Yes, but that's not what proportionality means. If you have a house with 50 light bulbs and one of them burns out, and the factory also happens to have made 1.6 billion light bulbs, you can't then decree that the chance of one of your light bulbs burning out is a longer shot than the lottery.
|
“And honestly, it’s not working so good. I know a lot about solar. I love solar. But the payback is what, 18 years? Oh great, let me do it. Eighteen years,” he said, turning to wind power. “The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that.”
thehill.com
luckily I am back from my ban to talk about the real issues
|
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.
If you are saying he has been lying out of political expediency-since the first Democratic debate-in saying that Hillary Clinton would be a perfectly fine president of the United States and would help the American people, you are calling Bernie Sanders a serial liar.
|
We hand out 30 year mortgages, but 18 year investments in windmills are bad apparently. What is the turn around on a standard natural gas power plant? And the bird issue is something that we can address through the power of science.
|
On August 03 2016 05:06 VayneAuthority wrote:“And honestly, it’s not working so good. I know a lot about solar. I love solar. But the payback is what, 18 years? Oh great, let me do it. Eighteen years,” he said, turning to wind power. “The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that.” thehill.comluckily I am back from my ban to talk about the real issues
then why open up with a quote of extreme ignorance? so we can mock it's stupidity?
Wind doesn't kill all the birds, it only kills some; and the environmentalists complain about that ALL the time. So it's just an example of idiocy and not knowing anything about the topic to claim otherwise.
|
On August 03 2016 05:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:06 VayneAuthority wrote:“And honestly, it’s not working so good. I know a lot about solar. I love solar. But the payback is what, 18 years? Oh great, let me do it. Eighteen years,” he said, turning to wind power. “The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that.” thehill.comluckily I am back from my ban to talk about the real issues then why open up with a quote of extreme ignorance? so we can mock it's stupidity? Wind doesn't kill all the birds, it only kills some; and the environmentalists complain about that ALL the time. So it's just an example of idiocy and not knowing anything about the topic to claim otherwise.
you realize im mocking the quote? Wew Lad
I was wondering which hardcore lefty would be the first to bait on this, looks like you get the gold medal zlefin
|
On August 03 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:
We hand out 30 year mortgages, but 18 year investments in windmills are bad apparently. What is the turn around on a standard natural gas power plant? And the bird issue is something that we can address through the power of science.
You could argue kids are an 18 year investment and people keep punching those fuckers out with reckless abandon. The bird issue isn't even an issue as wind turbines kill way less birds than buildings do and way way way way way less birds than cats do, but again, no one seems to give a shit about bird genocide caused by those things.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I'm suspicious of investments in "alternative energy" at present because the Obama administration has been quite bad about distinguishing scam artists from good companies worth subsidizing. And I trust his judgment better than Hillary's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
