Lurker > darkknight109

OhhhJa posted...

You obviously are completely oblivious to blatant revenue gathering. It does happen in a lot of places.

It sure does. And they're still not forcing you to speed.

I like to call speeding tickets "idiot taxes", because in order to be hit by one you have to wilfully ignore the instructions helpfully posted for you on the side of the road that tell you how fast you can go to avoid one. And I'm thankful for them because it means I don't have to pay as much on my own taxes as a result.

Do cops abuse the system by making it a cash-grab instead of targeting areas by how dangerous they are? Yes. Is that bullshit? Absolutely and it should stop. Should we make tickets variable based on income like adjl suggested and as is done in some parts of Europe? You betcha.

Still not hard to avoid, though. Don't speed, don't get a ticket. Easy.

zebatov posted...

Again, people who can handle their shiz shouldn't be bothered.

Nobody can "handle it". This has been verified by scientific experiments over and over and over again. Some people believe they can and those people are wrong.

I live in BC and I am 100% in support of their drunk driving laws. Again, if you don't like it, don't drink and drive, which you shouldn't be doing anyways because holy shit, don't drink and drive.

Seriously, given how many people have killed themselves (or, far more importantly, other people) while driving drunk, at this point you'd have to be a self-centred raging asshole to ignore history and do the same.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

A buddy of mine had a speeding ticket for like 21 over and it was 600 plus.

MPH or KMH? If it was kilometres, that's a little excessive. If it was miles, that's completely reasonable.

Don't drive like an idiot, yo.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

If I'm not doing anything important on any given day, my default look is blue jeans + t-shirt (with a hoodie - usually black - if it's cold enough to need one). The only time I vary from this is if I'm going somewhere where more formal attire is required (the office, certain dinner occasions, etc.)
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Questionmarktarius posted...

Eliminate the movies, cut out the 3d everything, and it could have.

In other words completely redo the game.

Yes, if you did that, then it becomes a lot more feasible. But then it's not really a port anymore...
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

dragon504 posted...

the system could, but the cartridges couldn't

This.

Square actually wanted to port FF7 to the N64, but their own analysis indicated the carts simply couldn't handle it. Of note, certain PS1 games did wind up getting ported to the N64 (Resident Evil 2, for instance), since the system was generally powerful enough to handle anything the PS1 could (aside from cutscenes). The issue was that the N64's cartridges couldn't hold as much data as the PS1's discs (to say nothing of games like FF7 that were stored on multiple discs).

Questionmarktarius posted...

FF7 could have been done on Colecovision, were cart-space not a concern.

....erm... no, not really, no.

That's sort of like saying that I could run Skyrim on my 1992 PC as long as the hard drive was big enough.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

All those places have pretty terrible fries, but McDonalds is the best of a bad bunch.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I remember installing a Star Wars game (I forget whether it was TIE Fighter or Star Wars Chess) that I actually had to upgrade my computer for because it required an absolutely obscene amount of memory (~44 MB). I also had to configure it so it did not run any background processes except for those necessary for the game in question.

I remember the mild case of terror that came with installing a program from floppies, hoping not to see that garish error screen that indicated a corrupted floppy and signified that the last hour you spent swapping through a set of 47 different floppies was completely wasted.

I remember the phrase "It's now safe to turn off your computer".
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I'm pretty well off. I'm not a one-percenter, but I'm well within the top 10%.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

thedeerzord posted...

This is something I am seriously having trouble wrapping my head around.

It sounds like you don't actually know what's involved in the process then.

First of all, there are a lot more families who want to adopt than there are kids needing adoption. Since having a child out of wedlock stopped being gauche, most single/unwed mothers have opted to raise their kids themselves rather than giving them away to strangers.

And while there are always kids in the system, the overwhelming majority of them either have physical or mental disabilities that require a high level of care from prospective parents, behavioural concerns due to previous abuse/neglect, and/or are age 10+, which most families do not want to adopt because the "cute" phase has ended.

Trying to adopt is both expensive (as in tens of thousands of dollars expensive) and time consuming (minimum time from starting the process to adopting is usually about two years, but that's only for an adoption with no strings/conditions attached; if you have demands about what kind of child you want to adopt, that number goes up - in my area for kids who meet the criteria of "no major health issues, <2 years old", which is by far the most common request for hopeful parents, the waiting list is ~10 years long).

One other wrinkle is that most adoptions in developed countries these days are now "Open Adoptions", which encourages regular contact between the child and the birth parent(s). Depending on what kind of people the birth parents are and how opinionated they are on how their kids should be raised, this can provide its own challenges and some adoptive parents sometimes feel like the kid is not wholly "theirs" the way a biological kid would be, or that they are relegated to second-class status as a result.

You can go with overseas adoption instead, but that's even more expensive and comes with its own headaches, depending on where you're going (mountains of paperwork, paying off corrupt authorities, gaps in health history of child, having to do due diligence to make sure you're not dealing with human traffickers operating in disaster zones, etc.)

Basically, adoptions are not like the portray it in the movies, where you walk into an orphanage (those don't even exist in most developed countries anymore), take a look at the anklebiters, pick the one you like best, plonk down some money, and go home with it. There's a lot of time and money that's required and it's not an easy process at all. It's a route I'm strongly looking at for parenting, but I can absolutely understand why others would shy away from it given all the complications.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

An arrogant person who is smart is a pain in the ass, but at least they have something to (at least partially) justify said arrogance. It's still a shitty personality trait, but a tolerable one if the person is at least correct about what they're saying.

Someone who is arrogant and stupid is just the worst. Not only are they wrong but brazenly so and they don't even have the self-reflection to realise that fact.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

That was post election. iirc

Nope.

Here's a summary of the timeline (along with Donald Trump's first tweet that included the term "Fake News", which was on December 10, 2016)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/03/how-hillary-clinton-might-have-inspired-trumps-fake-news-attacks/?utm_term=.463525d897d0

Here's another article which references the shift that occurred late 2016/early 2017, when Trump suddenly fell in love with the phrase:

https://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515630467/with-fake-news-trump-moves-from-alternative-facts-to-alternative-language

Here's some summaries of the pre-election fake news spread, which was being talked about (albeit not as widely as it was after the election) even back then

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/technology/automated-pro-trump-bots-overwhelmed-pro-clinton-messages-researchers-say.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-google-crack-down-fake-news-advertising-n684101
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-pro-trump-twitter-bots-spread-fake-news
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

*sigh*

Topics like this depress me, because it proves Trump has taken over the term "Fake News" and completely neutered it of its efficacy.

No one seems to remember this anymore, but "Fake News" originally referred to the very real problem of Russian disinformation networks bombarding social media with completely false and non-factual stories in an attempt to discredit candidates they didn't like and more generally to sow discontent and disunity. This was a threat identified by intelligence agencies across the West, and in the US specifically. The name was coined during the 2016 election cycle and was supposed to refer to actual bullshit news that was pushed out by fraudulent, Russian state-sponsored media networks.

Then Trump came along and flat-out stole the phrase (presumably because he heard it in the news and liked the sound of it), except he used it to attack any news outlet he didn't like, including those that were legitimate or whose comparatively minor falsehoods were based on error, not malice. And that application of the phrase even started gaining traction among Trump's opponents.

It's infuriating because actual, legitimate Fake News is still an ongoing problem, one that is going to be an even bigger issue in the lead-up to the 2018 midterms, but Trump's abuse of the phrase is preventing us from actually discussing it properly and treating it as the threat it is.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

And now they're rapidly expanding a missile manufacturing plant.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-expands-key-missile-manufacturing-plant-1530486907

Oh my, it looks like Trump got duped! Hands up, who's surprised? Anybody? Anybody at all?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Low. Trump has said it's a priority for him, but the odds he'd be able to get a vehemently anti-RvW judge through confirmation are pretty slim (one of the Republican senators has explicitly said she would not vote for a judge who wasn't in favour of RvW). That and, while precedent isn't ironclad and "a change in social norms" is considered an acceptable justification for overriding precedent (see also "Dred Scott", "Separate but Equal"), the Supreme Court is generally loathe to do it, especially for something as controversial as abortion. It's worth recognizing that a majority of Americans still believe abortions should be legal in most or all cases.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I understand that roe v. wade is the framework for regulations on abortion. But what would overturning it mean? Would that mean there are no laws regulating abortion, or that there are no abortions? Does overturning it just take the matter out of the federal arena and put it in that hands of individual states to decide?

Your last sentence is correct.

If RvW is overturned, it essentially means that there is no federal standard or restriction on abortion, meaning States are free to pass their own laws, up to and including a flat-out ban on abortions.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

BlackScythe0 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

How is making a factual statement the same as making an absurd assertion?

Take this from someone who despises Trump, "Donald Trump is a fascist" is not a factual statement.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing, nationalistic, one-party dictatorship that typically involves forcible, violent suppression of opposition, suppression or control of the press, extreme militarization, and a high level of regulation and control of industry and commerce.

Trump ticks the boxes for right-wing nationalism and pretty much nothing else (and even then, he's to the left of most historical fascist parties). He has not led any violent crackdowns on political opponents; despite some bellicose rhetoric and empty threats that he has no power to fulfill (and which he hasn't even bothered to attempt), he does not control or suppress the free press; he still participates in a two party system and, while he seems wholly uninterested in any serious negotiations with the Democrats, he has at least invited them to participate on a few instances where he couldn't get his own party in line; while he is pro-military, he is not unusually so and could credibly be called a Republican Dove (at least compared to more militaristic Republican presidents like Bush Sr. and Jr.) given his military pullbacks in East Asia and Syria; and, on the last note, Trump is about as anti-regulation and anti-government control as he can get, and one of his huge bragging points is how much regulation and government oversight he is getting rid of (this is pretty much the opposite of what a fascist would be doing in his position).

Again, there is absolutely no need to go down this road. You have probably never had a less capable candidate who you can criticize on any number of issues; don't pick the only one that actually makes Donald Trump seem sensible and reasonable.

You are saying someone cannot be fascist until they have completely changed their nations form of government into fascism.

Do you recognize how nonsensical that is?

But, again, what is he doing that's fascist?

He's right wing. Alright. He's nationalistic. OK.

Is he greatly expanding the military? No. In fact he's pulling the military back in a lot of places. The Syrian rebels have been informed that the US is pulling out of the conflict and cutting off military aid; Trump is strongly in favour of sharply reducing the number of US troops in Asia and even traditional US bases in Western Europe, built to act as a deterrent to Russian aggression, are now being looked at with an eye to cutbacks, while Trump is encouraging other nations to replace US forces.

Is he centralizing power? No - in fact, he's doing anything but, cutting regulations and gutting government agencies wherever he can. He's trying to put power with corporations rather than with the government and nearly all of his most sweeping changes are huge boons for corporate America (and no one else).

Those last two points alone pretty much disqualify him from being a fascist. He hates the press, but there's nothing indicating that he's doing anything more than muddying the waters so that his supporters are less inclined to believe negative stories regardless of how true they are. He demonizes Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics, but you can be a racist asshole without being fascist.

So yeah... narcissistic bigoted shithead? Yes. But fascist? No.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Mead posted...

Using violence and fear to intimidate people who dont share your views sounds pretty authoritarian to me

Nope. Authoritarianism is a system requiring strict obedience to a central authority, usually at the expense of personal freedom. You can be violent without being authoritarian (again, violent anarchists being the classic example).
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Mead posted...

Fascism doesnt have to be right wing

Using the generally accepted definitions, yes it does. If it's not right-wing, it's not fascism, even though it can tick off most of the other boxes.

Fascists have historically been the ideological opponents of communists, which are pretty much the left-wing equivalent.

Mead posted...

Antifa is an ironic example of a left wing fascist group

Antifa doesn't have a centralized leadership, so their rallying points are a bit difficult to determine, but they're generally seen as a left-wing anarchist group, not authoritarian. Fascism is opposed to anarchism, so they don't make a good match.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

BlackScythe0 posted...

How is making a factual statement the same as making an absurd assertion?

Take this from someone who despises Trump, "Donald Trump is a fascist" is not a factual statement.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing, nationalistic, one-party dictatorship that typically involves forcible, violent suppression of opposition, suppression or control of the press, extreme militarization, and a high level of regulation and control of industry and commerce.

Trump ticks the boxes for right-wing nationalism and pretty much nothing else (and even then, he's to the left of most historical fascist parties). He has not led any violent crackdowns on political opponents; despite some bellicose rhetoric and empty threats that he has no power to fulfill (and which he hasn't even bothered to attempt), he does not control or suppress the free press; he still participates in a two party system and, while he seems wholly uninterested in any serious negotiations with the Democrats, he has at least invited them to participate on a few instances where he couldn't get his own party in line; while he is pro-military, he is not unusually so and could credibly be called a Republican Dove (at least compared to more militaristic Republican presidents like Bush Sr. and Jr.) given his military pullbacks in East Asia and Syria; and, on the last note, Trump is about as anti-regulation and anti-government control as he can get, and one of his huge bragging points is how much regulation and government oversight he is getting rid of (this is pretty much the opposite of what a fascist would be doing in his position).

Again, there is absolutely no need to go down this road. You have probably never had a less capable candidate who you can criticize on any number of issues; don't pick the only one that actually makes Donald Trump seem sensible and reasonable.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

BlackScythe0 posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Anyone who thinks any American president is a fascist is a fucking moron.

Trump IS fascist. So I'm not sure what to make of your flaming here.

Please stop this.

Calling Trump a fascist is like calling Obama a communist - it is meaningless noise that serves only to drown out legitimate discussion. You will change precisely zero minds with that language and only serve to make your own talking points seem less credible by dint of the fact that they're being uttered by someone who is putting Trump (an odious, but legitimately governing democratic leader) on the same level as some of the most evil men in history.

There's ample reason to hate Trump and there's plenty of perfectly valid criticisms you can level at him without veering into hyperbole. Seriously, you're in a target-rich environment - he provides new material pretty much daily. Don't validate him and his supporters by making yourself seem just as prone to wild exaggerations and mischaracterizations as he is.

You know that phrase about not arguing with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience? Name calling and wild exaggeration is Trump's level. Don't fight the battle there, because he's already won if that's where political discourse is steered.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Unbridled9 posted...

So what? Because their country is a shithole it's suddenly A-okay to cross the border and everyone should be welcoming and all that stuff?

This is not what I said.

Unbridled9 posted...

If Mexico suddenly became prosperous you know damned well that this exact same debate would still be happening with a bunch of bleeding heart emotionalizers claiming we should take every illegal immigrant.

This is meaningless speculation.

Unbridled9 posted...

If some non-violent, non felonious, non-gangmember person walked right up to the border, not even trying to hide it, walked right up to the check point and proceeded to pat the guards on the back before walking right on in, would you approve?

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

Unbridled9 posted...

No we don't

Yes, you do. It is written directly into US law and international treaties to which the US is a signatory. You may not like it, but them's the breaks.

Unbridled9 posted...

These are people who tried to come to America to live a life of wealth and prosperity without having to do things like 'pay taxes' and 'become actual citizens'.

According to a study - which, I hasten to add, was commissioned by the Trump administration, aka a group whose antipathy towards immigration is well-known and oft-stated - illegal immigrants are net-contributors to the US tax system to the tune of some $65 billion dollars a year. This is mostly because they still have to pay things like income and sales tax, which goes towards various social security programs that they cannot use by dint of not being citizens. In other words, they pay into the system and get very little back out of it.

Of note, the Trump administration attempted to bury these findings when they first came out, because it was inconvenient to their message of how illegal immigrants are all free-loading drains on the system. Simple fact is, if every illegal immigrant were to voluntarily stand up and walk out of the country with not a single penny of taxpayer money facilitating that exodus, America would still lose a considerable amount of money on the deal.

Unbridled9 posted...

Face it. When it comes to 'why' the reason is 'because I feel guilty and want to look good'.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that people may legitimately believe that these people are being given a shit deal? That they don't deserve to have their kids ripped away from them because that's a tremendously shitty thing to do? Why do you automatically assume it's about image and self-centredness, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?

Are you that much of a sociopath that basic human compassion is a completely alien concept to you?

Unbridled9 posted...

you wouldn't even consider going to do charity work or anything to try and help these other nations or these people

Absolute fucking horseshit I don't. Don't pretend you know how I spend my charity money or my time volunteering, because you plainly don't and are just making yourself look like an asshat.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

The left has the white supremacists with a guilt complex... and there are plenty more of those than there are actual white supremacists on the right.

I'm not sure you know what the term "white supremacist" means, if you think that it involves a guilt complex.

Sure, "White Guilt" is an actual thing, and yes, it's far more common on the left than the right, but it's very much a separate beast than "White Supremacy" and to confuse the two is to muddy the issues.

For what it's worth, I don't know of anyone who is upset about kids being separated from their parents because they have more melanin in their skin - they're upset because separating kids from parents is a really, really shitty thing to do, regardless of whether those kids and their parents are black, white, brown, or purple.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

OhhhJa posted...

The irony is that the far left are closer to white supremacists that any of the right

Is that why actual white supremacists are running for office as Republicans?

For note, your use of "actual" indicates your lack of understanding of what he meant.

I mean, here's a House of Representatives candidate who said that "God is racist and white supremacist" and that Jews are "descendants of Satan".
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article213937944.html

Here's another, running to replace Paul Ryan, who self identifies as "the pro-White Christian American candidate", has a long history of racist, islamophobic, and anti-Semitic comments (including the "Jews control the world media" schtick), and is so far off the deep end even Breitbart thinks he's crazy.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17224086/paul-nehlen-alt-right-paul-ryan-race

And, of course, we have Arthur Jones, Illinois candidate, who his own party has decried as a Nazi
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html

But sure, obviously it's the left that has the white supremacy problem.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Unbridled9 posted...

You know, this always bothered me about the who 'illegal alien' thing.

Why?

Seriously; why? Why is this even an issue? Would the democrats be so willing to jump to the defense of a Canadian illegal? What about a German or Japanese? Why is it that a nation, for some reason, doesn't have a right to protect it's own borders? To send back those who try to enter the country illegally? Why have a border at all if it holds no actual power or meaning? If you had someone who moved from NY to Cali then didn't proceed to file the proper paperwork and broke the laws for things legal in NY but not in Cali and got arrested for it; you wouldn't give a ****; and they're actual American citizens in America! Yet someone who is literally not an American citizen living in America against the laws of an entire nation gets caught suddenly it's some massive crime against humanity to deport them? This isn't some game of tag with a safe zone. This is real, adult, life!

Because Canada, Germany, Japan, and other parts of the US, are first world nations with low crime, low corruption, and excellent economic prospects, three descriptors that don't apply to huge swathes of Central America.

And ditch the buzzwords about how the US "is not allowed" to protect its border. No one is suggesting that violent felons or gang members be allowed to stream unimpeded across the border and implying otherwise is completely counterproductive to the discussion, because anyone who doesn't already agree with you is going to immediately ignore anything else you have to say because you're peddling in gross exaggerations and falsehoods (it's the same as people on the left calling Trump a fascist dictator - whatever point you're trying to make is lost at that point, because you've displayed a willingness to exaggerate facts to the point where they are no longer grounded in reality).

Yes, the US has a right to protect its southern border. It also has a moral and legal responsibility to offer safe harbour to legitimate refugees, and to treat those who do not meet that description ethically and humanely. Tearing kids from their parents' arms and leaving them separated for months, with no concrete process to reunite them, is neither ethical nor humane.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

While they are not to blame for the risk increasing (don't put words in my mouth), they are to blame for not lowering it.

So I guess you're at fault for acid attacks in London being so high. Why aren't you and the other Londoners doing anything to lower it? What's wrong with you? Here you are complaining on the internet instead of fixing your country - you really don't have any right to complain about it, because it's obviously your fault to begin with, at least according to what you've just said.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

Peterass posted...

They don't. This is nothing new. They entered the country illegally, giving a big FU to citizens and immigrants following the rules. Shame on parents from bringing kids into a situation that that know is wrong.

Yes, illegally crossing a border with their kids makes them such worse parents than staying put and getting murdered would.

What a maroon.

Taking their kids through a situation with an 80% rape risk is worse than staying put in a situation where you could get murdered but it hasn't happened to you for the life you grew up and had children in. Low risk of terrible situation is better than high risk of bad situation.

Because it's not like situations can ever change, right?

If you weren't murdered today, you'll obviously never be murdered. Totally accurate.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Ha is this the reasoning as muslims needing to apologize for Islamic terror attacks?

Congratulations, you caught the reference!

PyroBlade1985 posted...

The only only people apologizing should be the accused and the accused family.

And you didn't!
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

BREAKING NEWS: 1 crazy white lady in country of nearly 400 million people who represents the entire white race assaults black kid!!!

But seriously, this seems to be the new media narrative to drive down people's throats.

Yeah, sure, it's just a few bad apples, but where are the moderate whites condemning this sort of thing? Why aren't white leaders apologizing for this happening? They should be screaming this from the ramparts, but what do we get? Silence.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SushiSquid posted...

Zeus posted...

Well, all the Democrats have to do is somehow block the nomination process for the next two years or so then, if Trump gets re-elected, continue blocking it for the four years after that.

Can't. Current rules no longer allow filibusters on nominations.

What's interesting is that all the power rests with the moderate senators in both parties right now. If one Republican flips to a no vote and McCain's health precludes him from voting, the Republicans lose the nomination. The Republicans will be under tremendous pressure to get this done before the midterm elections, given there's a decent chance they'll be losing the senate.

The moderates could, in theory, form a bloc and refuse to support any nomination that doesn't fit the centrist mould, which would help their re-election bids (moderate democrats could tell Trump voters that they are willing to support reasonable requests from the president, while moderate Republicans could tell never-Trumpers that they're acting as a check on his more erratic impulses). Special mention to Jeff Flake, who has pledged to hold up Trump's nominations until he fixes the mess with tariffs - if he follows through on that pledge, he alone would be enough to sink any nomination.

Senators could extract a lot of concessions from the administration if they were so inclined; it will be interesting to see if any of them, particularly on the Republican side, go for it.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Can we just NOT turn POTD into Politics 2?

So apparently assaulting a black kid is "political" now.

Here I just thought it was universally thought of as a tremendously fucking shitty thing to do. My mistake, I guess some people support that sort of behaviour...
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, the Christians on the left and right are cherry-picking the Bible.

I'd personally say the right is more guilty of that than the left.

Socialism is basically just applying Jesus's teachings to a socioeconomic model of government, and there are many, many, many passages that specifically call out protecting and caring for "the widow, the fatherless, the foreigner, and the poor" (four groups that conservatives have historically had troubles with).

Not saying it doesn't happen on the left, but I can name far more examples of it on the right.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

quigonzel posted...

Vice City is still the best GTA.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Nah, the 2000s were kind of awful. The music was trash and while the gaming was good overall, the 90s were better.

My nostalgia soft spot is always mid-80s to mid-90s. Maybe even early 80s if I'm being charitable.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

PyroBlade1985 posted...

I'm impressed. You actually did something instead of blocking.

Unless I'm forgetting someone, the only person I've ever blocked on PotD was duckbear.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Figured of speech are sometimes just that. There isn't always some deeper implication.

Sure. And I can dress up in a white robe and hood and run around waving a confederate flag and also claim that I didn't mean any harm and I love black people and don't understand why everyone finds my bedsheets so offensive.

At some point the symbol becomes the message. If you don't understand what's wrong with using a phrase like "jungle fever" and a monkey emoji when talking about black people - even if said in jest - I don't think there's much I can do to help you.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Mead posted...

Circled post is the one he ended with the monkey emoji

https://imgur.com/ylFsNnM

Which was clearly a lighthearted joke based on a famous pop culture reference for white dudes liking black girls... but I didn't realize living in the jungle was generally considered an inferior lifestyle anyway but I guess the far left views their white suburban lifestyle as superior to everyone else's

....you honestly don't see the problem with the phrase "jungle fever" and the implication that black people live in jungles?

Really? Really?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left for choosing who it's ok to decide to serve.

Except I don't see any hypocrisy.

The prevailing view I've seen on the left is that it's OK to refuse service to people, except for if you're refusing them on grounds of things they cannot change (race, sexual orientation, etc.). I can't say I have seen anything where the left is complaining about someone being denied service, except if it falls into one of those categories.

And, again, you vary in your posts as to whether you say it's not OK for people to refuse service (as you did when you say that it's "fascist" for people to refuse service on moral grounds) or whether it's totally fine (as you did when you said you agreed that the Colorado baker should be allowed to refuse service on moral grounds). About the only difference I can see in your opinions is whether the conservatives are the ones being booted or the ones doing the booting.

OhhhJa posted...

And while I agree with you that we should lighten up on illegal immigration as it really isn't a real problem in my mind, you will continue to pretend this is exclusively a trump issue and will place no blame on Obama being the partisan guy that you are.

I'm not putting any blame on Obama for the current situation because I've yet to see anyone put forth a reason as to why there's any blame to be so placed. If you have some, do share.

I mean, what am I supposed to be blaming Obama for? That kids were separated from parents back then too? Sure they were, but only for as long as it took to verify that they were travelling with their parents (typically a few days tops). That kids were housed in detainment facilities? They were, but only in the case of unaccompanied minors (which, unlike under Trump, represented those who were truly crossing the border alone, not just those who had been separated from their parents and thus had been made unaccompanied). That people got deported then too? They did, but Obama ordered that the focus be on gang members, violent felons, and those with criminal records; if you didn't fit into one of those categories, you were a lower priority, which makes sense to me. That he allowed a swarm of illegal immigration, thus necessitating the current crackdown? That's simply not true - the estimated illegal immigrant population actually went down over the course of Obama's presidency, from a high of 12.2 million in 2008 when he took office to a low of 11.2 million in 2012, where it would remain relatively stagnant for the rest of his presidency (2016 estimated illegal immigrant population was 11.3 million). To be perfectly fair, a lot of that decrease was likely due to the Great Recession, but the point remains that Obama didn't oversee an explosion in illegal immigration, much as some conservative talking heads seem to like to pretend otherwise.

If Trump went back to doing things the same way Obama did, you wouldn't hear me complaining. While it was far from perfect and there was room for improvement, it seemed to me to be an eminently fair way of dealing with a complicated problem to which there are no easy answers.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

And how about that time magazine retraction with the child that was never as actually separated from the mother... and the kid was kidnapped according to the father. And how about that photo that everyone was outraged about with the kids in the cage that was actually from 2013

Saying "how about" instead of "what about" doesn't stop it from being whataboutism, you know.

But to address this, this argument isn't the winner you seem to think it is.

For one, the kid wasn't kidnapped. The father said he didn't support the wife taking the kid across the border, but - his own words here - "It was her decision at the end of the day."

For two, most of the media outlets that ran the picture of the crying girl correctly reported the facts - that mother and daughter were taken away together and that was the last that was seen of them. The story that accompanied the picture - the testimony of the photographer - had him musing about their fate and speculating that they were probably separated based on the new Trump policies, but all of the reporting I personally read on the subject correctly characterized that as the photographer's own thoughts, not ironclad facts. Time, admittedly, did not and was forced to issue a correction.

For three, and most important, none of what you said actually changes anything. The fact that Crying Girl wasn't actually separated from her mother doesn't change the fact that thousands of others were (and still are). The fact that one of the images of kids in cages was actually from the Obama years doesn't change the fact that there are dozens more out there of kids in cages from this year - including some released by the administration itself! The fact that some kids were separated from their parents during Obama's crackdown on the border does not change the fact that Trump and Jeff Sessions sought a much tougher crackdown and that it was they - not Obama, not the Democrats, and not the law - who made the decision to stop prioritizing the deportation of felons and instead treat everyone who crossed the border the same, thus leading to a spike in the number of family separations.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Arguing that someone can change their political perspective at will is eerily similar to people saying you can choose not to be gay

And if you read back through this topic, you'll note that I said that ejecting people based solely on their political beliefs was dumb. People are allowed to do it (because, yes, you can choose to change your politics), and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be allowed, but it's still dumb.

That said, you seem to be waffling on this. Earlier you said you support the right of businesses to refuse service, like the baker did for the gay wedding, and now you seem to be suggesting that such treatment of conservatives by liberals constitutes relegating them to "second-class citizen" status (while strangely omitting minorities from that characterization, despite the fact I just provided ample evidence it's happening to them too, and at much greater rates than it's happening to conservatives). You need to decide whether you're supporting this sort of treatment or not.

OhhhJa posted...

Which really illustrates how fascist the left has become.

An awfully bold claim from someone whose president just suggested that the solution to the immigration crisis was to remove border-crossers without trial or charge.

OhhhJa posted...

They lost the election and somehow republicans still manage to be ejected out of businesses more than any other one protected class.

Do you really want to go down this road? Because I can guarantee that for every story you can post about a Republican official getting tossed out of an establishment, I can match you with a conservative being the one doing the tossing (which is a pretty grim statistic even before you realise that the latter is illegal and the former isn't, as well as the facts that conservatives dwarf minorities in terms of numbers).

OhhhJa posted...

You can argue that they are morally wrong all you want but all that tells me is that you're proclaiming your moral superiority and you're trying to bend people to your will. Sounds fascist to me.

Yet earlier in this topic you said you agreed that the baker should have the right to refuse service to gay people, which he did purely on moral grounds.

So, pairing that with this post here, I guess - in your own words - you support fascism?

OhhhJa posted...

I mean... I can easily name 10 examples of just Republicans getting booted from eastablishmrnts

Then do so. With sources, please.

OhhhJa posted...

whereas his was one or two examples from separate protected classes

Because that's what was asked for.

OhhhJa posted...

But to add to the argument of the control of the branches of government... are you trying to tell me there isn't a divide between the government and the general populace because all I keep hearing about is how the dems won the popular vote and that Russians bought the election

So you're saying that the Republican government is not representing the people and their wishes?

Just want to make sure I'm correctly understanding what you're saying here before I respond to this.

(for the record, talking about the divide between citizens and government isn't a great argument here, because Sanders isn't a citizen - she's a member of the government, and a fairly visible one at that).
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Nuffinz0rz posted...

darkknight109 posted...

I did.

No, you didn't. You danced around it with a non-answer. I'll ask you one more time, and if your answer is anything but a yes or no, then it confirms you've been trolling the whole time.

Nuffinz0rz posted...

So you agree I got modded for being successful at life?

No.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Nuffinz0rz posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Nuffinz0rz posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Nuffinz0rz posted...

darkknight109 posted...

I'm pretty successful and I've never been modded.

You must just be doing it wrong.

You didn't join the group of posters who celebrate being successful though.

Sounds like they weren't actually celebrating being successful then, or they wouldn't have gotten modded.

So you agree I got modded for being successful at life?

I mean, I've never gotten modded for being successful at life, so...

Answer the question

I did.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

PyroBlade1985 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

The Religious Right do it all the time with blacks, gays, Muslims, etc. But when they have the same done to them, its suddenly rather immature?

Name ten examples.

Baker refuses to make a wedding cake after discovering it was for a gay couple
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html

Latino family of five refused service at restaurant with no explanation
https://uptownalmanac.com/2013/05/locals-corner-accused-refusing-seat-latino-family

Muslim woman refused service at McDonalds while wearing hijab
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mcdonalds-apologises-hjiab_uk_5a216b9ce4b03350e0b6473b

Kentucky clerk refuses to issue marriage license to gay couple
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/03/526615385/gay-couples-lawsuit-against-kentucky-clerk-is-back-on-after-appeals-court-ruling

California waiter refused to serve four Latina customers, demanded to see proof of residency
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/19/a-california-waiter-refused-to-serve-4-latina-women-until-he-saw-proof-of-residency/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8eee182802bc

Transgender man refused service at barbershop for "religious" reasons
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/transgender-man-to-sue-california-barbershop-refused-service

Hispanic customers refused service at gas station for speaking Spanish to each other
https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/hispanic-customers-accuse-gas-station-cashier-of-refusing-service-for-speaking-spanish/75-520726388

Black party of 25 friends and family refused service at South Carolina restaurant because a white woman felt "threatened" by their group
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401990/25-African-Americans-thrown-South-Carolina-restaurant-white-woman-complained-feeling-threatened.html

Oklahoma restaurant owner says he won't serve disabled, gay or black customers, or those on welfare
http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/comment-page-1/

Nashville IHOP denies service to transgender activists
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/lgbt/2018/05/21/transgender-activists-say-gawkedat-denied-service-nashville-ihop

Game set match?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

But you shouldn't pick and choose who it's ok to refuse service to and who it's not.

It seems pretty simple to me - you can refuse service to someone only for things that they are able to change.

For instance, someone does not have a choice on whether or not they are black. Or Asian. Or a woman. Or gay. Or Irish. So you can't refuse service based on those grounds.

Someone absolutely has a choice of whether or not they want to lie in service to a political party. Or help implement strategies that separate children from their parents. Seems OK to me to refuse service on those grounds.

If I go into a bar and act like an asshole, insulting the staff and everyone else in the restaurant, they have (and should have) the right to kick me out, because I am responsible for my behaviour.

OhhhJa posted...

At this point were getting close to the point of making Republicans second class citizens as many cases as we've seen of this happening

--> Controls every branch of government
--> "Second-class citizens"

Pick one.

Sanders wasn't tossed out of the restaurant for being Republican (given that the rest of her table was also very likely Republicans and they were allowed to stay, though they left anyways), she was tossed out of the restaurant for the things she had said and done.

For the record, I would not have a problem with a restaurant in a heavily Republican area refusing service to a Democrat (I would think it was dumb, unless it was objecting to a specific policy that Democrat had implemented or supported that cause measurable harm, but they're well within their rights to do so regardless).
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Nuffinz0rz posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Nuffinz0rz posted...

darkknight109 posted...

I'm pretty successful and I've never been modded.

You must just be doing it wrong.

You didn't join the group of posters who celebrate being successful though.

Sounds like they weren't actually celebrating being successful then, or they wouldn't have gotten modded.

So you agree I got modded for being successful at life?

I mean, I've never gotten modded for being successful at life, so...
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Nuffinz0rz posted...

darkknight109 posted...

I'm pretty successful and I've never been modded.

You must just be doing it wrong.

You didn't join the group of posters who celebrate being successful though.

Sounds like they weren't actually celebrating being successful then, or they wouldn't have gotten modded.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I'm pretty successful and I've never been modded.

You must just be doing it wrong.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Its to ensure no class becomes a second-class status.

Do you not see the irony? If there is a protected class, everyone else is inherently second-class.

Assuming that everyone begins on equal footing.

Which, y'know, they don't.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Depends.

I don't like the idea of seeing people get refused service over their political beliefs, even people (like Sanders) who I disagree with strongly. That said, the issues with Sanders - and, indeed, with this administration - go beyond the political. Sanders is willingly aiding and abetting someone who lies to the public at a shocking rate and serves as the mouthpiece for many of those lies. That's not politics. By the same token, the administration's clusterfuck on the southern border (and the fact that they couldn't seem to get their message straight on whether the policy was terrible and caused by Democrats, fantastic and caused by Jeff Sessions, terrible but a good negotiating chip, or flat-out non-existent) has elements beyond the political. Whether you believe increased border security is a good thing or not is a political matter; but whether you believe children should be torn away from their parents (some of whom were asylum seekers at legal ports of entry), with no clear pathway to reunification, is not a political quandary, it's a moral one. And refusing service has long been a tool in resolving moral disagreements.

I still haven't quite decided where I sit on this, but honestly the idea of seeing Sanders get tossed out of a restaurant doesn't really make me lose any sleep.

I do, however, get a kick out of watching the same conservatives who were cheering the gay wedding cake guy losing their minds over this.

zebatov posted...

Any establishment can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason they want.

Not quite true - you're not allowed to refuse service based on protected classes (race, religion, gender, etc.), but otherwise are in the clear.

Decoy77 posted...

Was it wrong, yep. Is this any different than the Starbucks one? Yeah I'd say it's even worse. She wasn't loitering around the place, she was going to actually eat there. So if Starbucks got destroyed for it they should too...

Not really analogous situations. The Starbucks guys were in Starbucks for a purpose that the chain itself advertises ("community hub") and were refused access to the restrooms for not buying anything, then told to leave despite that enforcement not being made against anyone else (and it's hard not to see the racial aspect of that incident either).

Sanders was tossed not because of her skin colour, but because of her politics and because her presence was a) Potentially bad for business given that the restaurant was located in a liberal town and b) Making several members of the staff, who were gay and/or Hispanic, uncomfortable.

The Starbucks guys were tossed out because of who they were; Sanders was tossed out because of what she had done. There's an important distinction there.

OhhhJa posted...

Protected classes are bullshit. There is no legitimate reason for any group in America now to be a protected class. There is hate spread fairly equally in many different directions now and to protect any one group is hypocrisy at this point

Crime stats prove you wrong, but don't let a little thing like facts get in your way.

OhhhJa posted...

How hypocritical you sound... the left continues to amaze me

He says while conveniently ignoring that it was conservatives who were arguing that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to customers simply because they were gay a few weeks ago.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

You can either have quality or you can have accessible. Most accessible schools don't have quality while most quality schools severely limit who they accept.

It's weird how this is only true in America and third world countries.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Doctor Foxx posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Blightzkrieg posted...

Trump literally ordered something to stop that apparently isn't happening and was also happening under Obama XD

Everything I've seen says it only started under Trump.

That's fake news if you ask the Trump train. Apparently Obama is to blame for Trump choosing to put tens of thousands of children into internment camps this summer

No, no, no, it's fake news and not happening and if it was it was caused by Democratic laws that only congress can fix. The US did not have a policy of separating children from their parents, period, and that policy is justified and Biblical and that's why Trump is ending it with an executive order. The whole thing was blown way out of proportion by the dishonest media and was a travesty because the president hated seeing the kids put in cages (which were actually pens) and taken away to summer camps, even though they were all child actors that could have been freed by building the wall. The new Zero Tolerance policy (which didn't exist, period) wasn't a new policy, just an old law, and was a deterrent, and done to protect the children, and look how much fun they're having watching TV, and the Democrats could end all this summer camp business if they just cooperated, and above all no separation policy exists.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Metal_Mario99 posted...

ShadosAtPhoenix posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Nice false dichotomy you've got there.

Not quite....they had to separate the kids because it's illegal in the US to keep the kids with the parents when the later are incarcerated. They basically had no choice in the matter (now, if you want to make the argument the parents should not be incarcerated, sure. But that's a completely different argument).

Stop defusing his emotional warfare with facts!

It's weird how, despite your supposed "facts" (which are bullshit) this is the first administration that's had a problem with this.

It's almost like everyone else had this problem and its solutions understood and this administration is too dumb to figure it out.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!