Lurker > kayoticdreamz

kayoticdreamz posted...

on what planet would anyone that thinks "abortion = infanticide" would they ever accept that?

rape and incest pregnancies are beyond rare. they just freaking do not happen 99.99999% of the time where that would apply.

You'll be surprised that people aren't as binary as you think they are.

I sure am ok in recognizing as "Infanticide" and necessary under specific situations.

kayoticdreamz posted...

also the whole abortion thing is a big one too. either you side with the science guys aka the left and abortion is fine, or it's mass infanticide on a large scale. theres no reconciling those two things.

Or you can accept that it's Infanticide and still be ok with it due to circumstances.

kayoticdreamz posted...

also science seems hell bent on attacking God, as if God and science must be on polar opposite ends of the spectrum.

I concur.

There's no rule saying God & Science can't co-exist!

Many Scientists are Christians & religious practitioners after all.

I don't think you're gonna be able to have a constructive conversation on this here. For one, most people here have a narrow, partially honest, partially self-serving definition of what white supremacy means. You can't be a white supremacist if you're not out there in a hood, burning crosses. White supremacy means open membership in groups that are so identified with white supremacy that you can't deny they are white supremacist without getting laughed out of town. It's so closely identified with a few specific groups and phrases that of course there's little threat in their minds.

Part of the problem is that society is very clear that being a white supremacist is bad and it's not okay to be a white supremacist, but is nowhere near as good at teaching people what white supremacy actually is, its history, its goals, its legacy, or how it persists today. And that leads to a situation where people definitely know they don't want to be identified as a white supremacist because all but the most far gone know that will make most people hate and disregard you. But that also gives a strong incentive to narrow the definition so much that it's defined out of existence.

kayoticdreamz posted...

because it's the conservative natural response to the liberal BLM, antifia and their constant lunatics like Maxine Waters. I mean does the left really think they wouldn't create a natural kick back response to crap like BLM inciting violence or schools demanding days for colored people only(hilarious irony really) or shortly after trump got elected the tolerant left saying "and i have thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house".

honestly....did the left expect the right to literally not response in kind?

thats literally how Trump won, he's a somewhat conservative who is a nationalist who says fuck everyone but my fellow americans.....which and this may be shocking to the left, many americans like every other country only give a fuck about their own country.

"We kill people cause they say mean things to us. This is a natural reaction from a rational group of people."

Too many Anime Chicks too list.

It would literally be a multi-volume encyclopedia full of pics.

squarion posted...

Faye Valentine
Revy
Motoko

None of those are "current" though. I assumed TC meant characters from anime that came out in the past couple years.

vs hundreds of thousands of babies that die from abortion

fair next

The Libs have katanas

Webmaster4531 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

The US government will go bankrupt, probably in our lifetimes. That ship sailed long before Trump was elected, but I still oppose Trump's spending.

And LOL at the partisan libs on CE. Yeah, Bernie or Hillary would have gotten our fiscal house in order. What a joke.

They both proposed new taxes and a progressive tax scale.

Bill Clinton had a surplus and SNAP has never been expanded since.

The below is a good read if you're interested in seeing why Clinton didn't actually have a surplus.

https://www.mises.org/library/surplus-hoax

The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the United States isn't obligated to pay Social Security as a debt thus is able to cut payouts like the Trump administration proposes. It only becomes an actual debt when we borrow to pay out.

That article lumps Bonds and Social Security together as trust funds.

I can see how Social Security spending has increased because of baby boomers.

Still a progressive tax plan and new taxes are way more fiscally responsible than the Trump tax cuts. Seems like he's waiting until after the midterms before cutting spending on things people actually like.

Redirecting SS contributions towards other spending is obviously a misuse of that money, and SS would never have passed in the first place if it was advertised like that. The increase in spending towards boomers was predictable, but their contributions were blown so now the next generations have to pay into a Ponzi Scheme. Thats not all Bill Clintons fault, but its hard to take his surplus seriously.

No amount of progressive taxes would cover current spending and unfunded liabilities. I think we can write off Bernie pretty easily because he wanted enormous increases in public spending. Hillary is an establishment Democrat that likely would have acted like Obama, but with even worse foreign policy.

treewojima posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

of course half this board is defending this as not a failed socialist state.

If the people don't own the state or the means of production, can it really be considered socialist? It's like putting lipstick on a pig; you may as well take advice from Kim Jong Un on how to run a "democratic people's republic." Chavez, Maduro and his ilk are just populist authoritarian shitheads. Call me when their political opponents stop mysteriously disappearing.

Im drunk but even I can see that. But maybe thats why socialism sucks. Cuz people suck and will abuse their power? It always seems to devolve in authoritarianism. Maybe if we were a hive mind then socialism would work

"White privilege" is used to justify policies / programs that push those of other races directly into higher-level roles, without them working their way up from the lower ones. The end result being, due to that lack of experience, they don't know how to properly handle that role, do a poor job, and everyone thinks "oh those minorities are just useless" - when in fact it's not that they're useless; it's that they were never given a chance to gain the needed experience.

This is how real systemic racism operates these days. Subtle, not noticable out of context, and almost invariably under the guise of "fighting racism" rather than perpetuating it. And, more often than not, it comes from the side that invariably claims they're "anti-racist" and will cry "racism" any time their racism-perpetuating policies are questioned or opposed.

Ryven posted...

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

Modern feminists and SJWs would throw hissy fits and screech until they get what they want, look at how shitty the left is acting due to Trump and the republicans winning elections.

And thus, Marcy was born.

the funny thing is Marcy was meant to be a total stereotypical 1-dimensional feminist parody and still isn't anywhere near as ridiculous as how people paint feminists today.

By whom?

On the one side it's a bad one dimensional MRA thing written to be as dumb and idiotic as possible.

On the other, in hindsight Al is a semi-sympathetic character: a guy trying to put meager bread on his family's table on to vilified for not bringing home more of it so they don't have to do that icky work stuff. The family dynamic was abusive. They stole from him. Even Marcy only seemed to exist to fuck with him and take away what little pleasures he had (what that NO'MAM episode started on actually) so the whole show would be seen as offensive to people for daring to make the man the victim of the women in his life and showing it as a bad thing.

They can't. Republicans have the majority and they also recently changed the rules where you don't need 60 votes.

J E S U S posted...

Roshon posted...

The Founding Fathers failed us with this crap system.

How would you feel if the parties and ideologies were swapped?

The two party system sucks. I think that's been said for a long time regardless of who is in power. Anyone supportive of it is a gullible fool or actively profiting from it.

kayoticdreamz posted...

There is plenty of evidence of the supernatural out there

There is zero evidence.

Huh so it was. Maybe I should watch the final episode then just to finish it. I remember thinking "Lindsey is good now??!" but turns out he's still bad. Let's see what becomes of that if I can find the series.

DK9292 posted...

I thought this was "Miss Obama" as in a female Obama.

Wait, wait, wait...

What if...

What if Barack Obama becomes a transwoman and changes his name to Barrette Obama?

Technically he could run for president again, no? I mean Barack Obama was elected twice, but not Barrette.

Worth a shot.

Please Barack take one for the team.

We are a nation hopelessly divided. We are more divided now than we have ever been in our history. And before you start screaming at me about the Civil War, keep in mind that bloody conflict was fought over one major issue. In those days, take ten families from New York and ten families from Alabama, put them all in a room, and youd find they mostly had the same values (and bad accents).

Now, fast-forward to today and do that same thing. Those families have virtually nothing in common. We as a nation have polarized and separated from each other.

Bringit posted...

There's a bit of nuance to this scene depending how deep you wanna go.

Up until this point Spike and Buffy had been having very rough sex, including violent foreplay, there had even been times when they both said "no" but carried on anyway. I'm not sure Spike realized it was different this time until it was too late and even if he did, he's soulless and not much more than a monster (literally a demon).

That's not an attempt to excuse him or blame Buffy but rather defending the scene as it's not out of character for Spike

This. IIRC, the scene is even shot in such a way that you go from Buffy's "he's trying to rape me" perspective to Spike's "if we just have sex, she'll remember she loves me" perspective. It's the culmination of their relationship; Spike feeds Buffy's depression and nigh-suicidal tendencies so she'll continue the relationship while Buffy abuses Spike's feelings for her to have extremely violent, self-destructive sex.

Incidentally, the bathroom scene would be the exact reason you have a safeword in that kind of relationship.

EternalDivide posted...

Some liberal is going to do something violent and then things will really go to hell

The left will act violent?

Excuse me?

Ex-fucking-cuse me?

What the fuck was the Quebec attack?
What the fuck was Toronto?
What the fuck was Charlottesville?
What the fuck was Parkland?

Dozens of people have been killed by your fascist fucking party and you call the left violent? Can you cite a SINGLE. FUCKING. DEATH. From any form of leftist terrorism in the West in the past, I don't fucking know, twenty goddamn years? No, you fucking can't, because you're brainwashed by Faux News and the fucking fictitious blogs you subscribe to that make shit up so Pappy Putin can keep funding them.

Realistically speaking here.
Given the current state of the far left and the continued spiraling out of control mentality. It's only a matter of time before someone does something very stupid. And it won't be a conservative. Some liberal is going to do something violent and then things will really go to hell.

Look at that Maxine Waters. She stopped an inch short of calling for outright violence but did call for public shaming and persecution of those connected to Trump. There's no stopping this. It'll only get worse until they do start to justify actual violence or murder because they believe they're right about everything and anyone that disagrees is a nazi monster that's going to kill them first unless action is taken.

They're shooting themselves in the foot and only digging their party a deeper hole.
And it's easy to see how things can and should be handled if it gets worse. Freedom of speech only goes so far. "Imminent lawless action" can be acted upon. The First Amendment no longer applies when someone is advocating the use of violence or force. Look that up if you don't believe it. If things do go in the direction they seem to be going. It's only a matter of time before the feds do act and remove from office or prosecute or arrest some of these ultra left types. Whatever the process would be.

kayoticdreamz posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Trump confirmed that it's a lie in the second article you posted.

After Trump and Brenner changed topics, Trump returned to the subject and reportedly said, "If, I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them."

Why would Trump admit to having books about Hitler?

...Not that his cult would care; they would actually praise him for it.

I mean, no matter what Trump says you won't believe him. If Trump got on Twitter right now and made a tweet that said "Global warming is real and we need to reduce pollution." you would call him a liar.

this

the anti trump movement would still call trump hitler if trump could magically cure cancer and walk on water.

as opposed to slurping everything he says like you people?? XD

pathetic

Its very interesting to see big government leftists get offended over border security. Its like they dont realize that this is what government coercion looks like at the end of the day.

You rarely see the governments guns when it forces productive people to pay everybody elses bills or when it steals from future generations to finance current govt spending, but those guns are still there. They are just more visible at the border because illegal immigration is a form of invasion.

Then of course theres the obvious contradiction of, the government should be big enough to give me other peoples money but too small to do something as basic as secure a damn border.

Solar_Crimson posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Trump confirmed that it's a lie in the second article you posted.

After Trump and Brenner changed topics, Trump returned to the subject and reportedly said, "If, I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them."

Why would Trump admit to having books about Hitler?

...Not that his cult would care; they would actually praise him for it.

I mean, no matter what Trump says you won't believe him. If Trump got on Twitter right now and made a tweet that said "Global warming is real and we need to reduce pollution." you would call him a liar.

@kayoticdreamz posted...

the tolerant left ladies and gentlemen.

i love how the left picks and chooses what laws are worth enforcing and what laws are not.

Did you think Jim Crow laws were worth enforcing? Since you apparently seem to be oblivious to the idea that some laws might be flawed.

kayoticdreamz posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

shnangyboos posted...

That's true. Maybe discussing racism against whites is less fruitful than discussing racism against blacks, but it's all pointless. At least you won't have a bunch of black people arguing for racism against blacks.

and thats where other cultures and races make logical sense. it's literally only white people who argue for discrimination against their own race and argue for laws to ensure whites have a handicap in society.

its beyond asinine.

white guilt and shame was real. Whites should be like every other race and culture, and that is proud of their heritage which includes far more than slavery(which is something every race and culture has participated in FYI)

Yikes

proving my point.

tell me, why is it bad for white people to have pride in their culture and race and heritage?

Your question doesn't relate to the post that I replied to. Try using identical terms and then try again.

People should be moderated for supporting the law? What kind of logic is this!?

kayoticdreamz posted...

shnangyboos posted...

That's true. Maybe discussing racism against whites is less fruitful than discussing racism against blacks, but it's all pointless. At least you won't have a bunch of black people arguing for racism against blacks.

and thats where other cultures and races make logical sense. it's literally only white people who argue for discrimination against their own race and argue for laws to ensure whites have a handicap in society.

its beyond asinine.

white guilt and shame was real. Whites should be like every other race and culture, and that is proud of their heritage which includes far more than slavery(which is something every race and culture has participated in FYI)

Yikes

Race is a social construct,

That's true. Maybe discussing racism against whites is less fruitful than discussing racism against blacks, but it's all pointless. At least you won't have a bunch of black people arguing for racism against blacks.

shnangyboos posted...

Discussing racism against whites here is as fruitful as discussing racism against blacks.

If you say so

If you discuss racism against black people, most people will listen

If you discuss racism against white people, most people will ignore you and those who do listen will insult you and deny it.

Basically boils down to "It's okay to be racist against white people because white people are bad" without irony

Right now on CE there is a topic full of people celebrating the idea of white people dying out because they are bad and stupid.

Replace white with literally any other race or creed and it would be a topic of suspensions

The same reason that WE dont want immigrants. They have people working hard and they dont want to turn it into a bunch of freeloaders.

since when was calling someone Pocahontas considered racist? maybe thoughtless and inconsiderate AT MOST. most definitely not racist.

my god, speaking of being embarrassed, im embarrassed being a millennial, millennials are extremely sensitive. i think this generation gets triggered and offended just for the sake of it. i blame social media for giving everyone a voice. literally EVERYONE, and the sensitive stay at home moms took it and ran with it and now theyve influenced millions to regurgitate their bs.

Those were my teenage years

Too bad they arent in mainstream radio anymore

Now its all rap

kayoticdreamz posted...

to the point of TC....whites should yes get to have their own country(s) just like other people. no one is calling for the diversification of China or Japan or Africa. it's strangely only white countries that need more diversity. it's not that other races or cultures are bad, it is more whether or not diversity has an economic policy for a country works, and given all the racial tension that is building up in this country, i would argue that diversity does exactly what it's root word "Div" says and that is it divides us making us the divides states of america and not the united states of america.

Also, this falls apart the second you know anything about American history. 'White' people (as you conveniently like to pretend are a homogenous group to begin with) aren't native to the Americas.

kayoticdreamz posted...

there is also the fact that people are homogeneous by nature, and no it's not just nazis that behave that way. we all do it. it can easily be backed up by some googling and research.

That's factually wrong. Like 90% of the groups we talk about today (French, British, German, etc) all exclusively exist because of people mixing. As I've said before, British is literally Welsh, Briton, Irish, Pictish, Roman, Angle, Jute, Saxon, Danish, French/Norman, just for starters. It's hilarious to pretend now that humans can't mix.

Like, Ghengis Khan succeeded because he mixed. Romans succeeded because they mixed. You know why like 75% or Europe has Scandinavian ancestry? Ding ding ding, they mixed. It's in our very nature.

Also, this crap about diversity destabilizing the country is hilarious. Things are more stable now than they were in the 1930's or 40's, or, hell, even during the Cold War.

Theres always that one asshole being like yeah guys cmon I just dont see whats so wrong about wanting to turn America into a white ethnostate.

whomstever has had a shower in the past week

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 changed everything; it opened up Mexico. Here is table


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

Very clearly after 1965 on the chart other races increased and non-Hispanic whites decreased. The Hispanic population has grown from 3.2% in 1960 to 16.3% in 2010. Asians from 0.5% to 4.9%.

Birth rates also favor the same trend
https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

Hispanics have the highest birth rate, followed by Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, then black, then Native American, then White, then Asian.

Up until 1965 it was mainly whites and a smaller percentage of blacks. From 1965 onwards the Hispanics have grown and according to birth rates will continue to grow and eat away at the overall percentage of the population.