Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3293
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 18 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Hopefully we can avoid that. We can't afford it. 

    It’s not just a cost-benefit analysis; it’s fucking wrong and immoral. We’ve been drumming up the “invade Iran” horseshit for decades despite the fact that our intelligence estimates keep saying the same thing about the broad picture of Iran every year in that report they release, which say:

    -Iran’s military expenditures are relatively low compared to the region (even less so compared to the world)

    -Their expenditures, as well as their military doctrine, is geared towards “deterrence against a foreign invasion”

    -To the extent they are pursuing nuclear weapons, it’s merely to enforce that defensive/deterrence strategy.

    What’s said in contradiction to any of that is in blind servitude of jingoism for jingoism’s sake. This construct of Iran as a threat to the US is a pure fabrication. It’s a fantasy.

    • Like 1
  2. 56 minutes ago, slorch said:

    Almost trivial, but it’s not- smog check on car inspections...but only in certain counties.

    And that's make-believe in what way?

    Quote

    Either they all pollute or none of em do... except in California, where do you need a completely different emission system. 

    Again, you stated "The point is that the left has their ‘make believe’ bullshit that they force on others too." How does this qualify as make-believe in a way that's any way near on par with religion?

    Quote

    love it when you act coy.. Let’s bury our heads in the sand and just blame Christians... lolz.  

    This has nothing to do with me acting coy, burying my head in any sand, or me blaming Christians.

    This has to do with you pretending not to know things that you know. You know full well that you're deliberately conflating religion with "make-believe bullshit" and you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue by changing the subject. "Make-Believe" encompasses a very broad variety of topics, and religion happens to be just one of them. It's also, however, the very biggest one. So when you try to compare conceptions about the environment, right or wrong, understand that those claims that you decry have something in common: they are testable and potentially falsifiable. Religions and all of their assertions, on the other hand, are neither. 

    So yes, you are deliberately manufacturing a false equivalence between science and religion. You even referred to such matters as one of "faith," which is a spectacular and unforgivable lie, and you knew that before saying it all the same. Faith is a belief that is held in the absence of evidence and can be argued in spite of it. If you could, via a peer reviewed scientific analysis prove to the PETA people, for example, that claim X or claim Y is demonstrably incorrect, the bulk of them would change their minds about it and only the most severe barking lunatics would hold onto their beliefs even tighter. The thing is, said barking lunatics constitute a very small fraction of the environmental movement as a whole. PETA, as an organization, does not have anything remotely close to a morally reprehensible sentence that reads "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record" in its mission statement as groups such as Answers in Genesis infamously do in their detestable statements of faith.

    Literally every word in that quoted passage you said is absolutely wrong in every way that it could be wrong, and you're not going to talk your way out of that.

     

    • Like 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, maninblack said:

    riiiiiiiiight

    That's not gonna work.

    1) You implied that the previous poster had suggested anywhere in the remote vicinity of some exorbitant minimum wage when his exact words were "but the govt has to set a floor.  It’s fair to disagree what that floor should be, but to say it shouldn’t exist is silly." You knew he said that, so to characterize what he said as anything otherwise in order to advance some "point" is a paradigmatic example of a strawman fallacy. You knew that.

    2) "Gagillion" isn't a real number. You knew that too.

  4. 1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

    Joe Biden @ debates: "It's because of my time in the civil rights movement, the marches I was in, the speeches I gave, that I think it's GOOD for the Hyde amendment to restrict access to abortion to poor and black communities because we need more black babies. Just think of how much more entertaining music and sports will be."

    Liberals online, taking a brief break from attacking Biden's closest opponent: "GOD DAMNIT BERNIE BROS YOU MUST VOTE FOR THIS MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    Their establishment is going to play the “moderate” and “experienced” card very hard. What people have to be able to do is to see that for what it is:

    ”Yes, please vote for us. We’re completely unprincipled, we always back down from a fight, we only go as far as our corporate coffers allow us to, etc. Bernie is the exact opposite of literally all of those things, but we’ve been doing this way longer than he’s been doing his thing. Vote for us.”

  5. 21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    Biden will win the Dem nomination because old people love a stupid, rambling shithead.

    But he will lose the general because no one can beat Donald at that game.

    ----------------------

    Biden was slated to deliver a brief opening statement, loaded onto teleprompters, and then take voters’ questions. He deviated from the script, left the podium and then the stage altogether. He started with what aides had hoped would have been his headline of the day, the environmental policy.

    But by the end of opening statement to his town hall, Biden had noted that his home-state of Delaware has more minorities than New Hampshire, mentioned that he wanted former New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch in his Administration, reminisced about how he enjoyed having a new car for the prom because his dad ran a dealership and recalled how Barack Obama often overstated Biden’s working-class roots. There was also loose talk about overtime regulations, NATO’s future, Mitch McConnell’s deal-making, Chinese “xenophobia” and gay rights. Eventually, the teleprompter operator just gave up trying. Biden kept trying to wrap up but kept having another thought. He said “lastly” at least three times in trying to nail his landing.

    ----------------------

     

    Democrats are to politics what Republicans are to religion/reality:

    They claim only to know things they do not know, and then they claim not to know things that they do know.

    "Just trust us, Biden is the best we have"

  6. 1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

    If they really wanted to make a dent, all those border patrol new hires should be doing employer inspections instead of border patrol. 

    That and stop imposing unlivable living conditions on peoples of other countries in the region via imposing/supporting vicious dictators and other right wing regimes that do absolutely nothing but enrich themselves and their small pocket of

    Bottom line, and I’ve said this over and over: if you don’t want people illegally coming here, don’t give them a reason to. When you support Contra-esque regimes and when you allow employers to hire illegal immigrants with zero fear of prosecution, you are giving those people reasons to come here. This is not a Have-Your-Cake-And-Eat-It-Too proposition; you either care about illegal immigration or you don’t. If you don’t want to address root causes, then by definition, you don’t care.

    • Like 2
  7. Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

    Hell, they line up on entrance/exit ramps in the mix master during rush hour to panhandle.   They didn't go anywhere, they just scattered and regrouped. 

    And it was largely a reaction to that very short-lived ordinance that stated the DPD had the right to ticket them. That lasted about...a month.

  8. 1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    hahahaha, yeah, they all left Dallas

    I was just about to say, I live in Dallas and can tell you they haven’t “gotten rid” of jack shit. We still have people sleeping on sidewalks, we still have panhandlers, we still have people walking the streets screaming incoherent nothings, etc. I have that Nextdoor app and cannot tell you how many emails I’ve gotten that are about posts that read along the lines of “homeless guy on [intersection] seen masturbating.”

    Acting as if Dallas, or any other major city for that matter, is some sort of homeless-free paradise is an exercise in Make Believe and Pretend. I suppose that’s to be expected with that particular crowd, given their propensity to automatically assume absolute horseshit.

  9. 8 minutes ago, SDG said:

    Hm.  You asked for evidence and I provided it...

    You didn’t provide jack shit. I asked for evidence to support the suggestion that so-called “libtards,” which in itself is a deliberately vague and ambiguous term, actually contribute to the creation of homelessness via allowing them to “pitch tents” and all that. 

    You post a video about how people are feeling emotionally about how homeless people are living outdoors. That’s not evidence, that’s a dodge. 

    The person I was responding to answered a question that stated “Please explain how liberalism is the cause of homelessness. I’m seriously interested in this answer. 

    So the two of you are saying that the reason that there is homelessness is because already homeless people are pitching tents instead of being thrown in jail. That anyone would find that logical is an indictment of one’s reasoning faculty.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...