Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 22 NEXT
 

BOOM headshot65:
stuff

I'm not bothered by your opposition. I'm just earnestly noting that I don't think anyone believes that this was "the last straw" for you with Obama. The last straw was probably a hell of a lot closer to Election Day 08.

BOOM headshot65:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Bashing NBAF

Stagnant:
More NBAF bashing

*tap, tap* Is this thing on? I know you are technically not supposed to do this on the internet, but screw it. Im 18, its a town of 50,000, and I know how to defend myself. I Am a resident of Manhattan, Kanas, where the NBAF was being built. I have driven by the construction multiple times. I could deal with them cutting NBAF if nothing had happened yet. BUT, they already have the foundation dug out, they already have all the material there. There has already been $5 Million spent on the project. And NOW, he wants to cut it? BULL!! Not only would this facility be helpful to America, It could be to the WORLD. Research in viruses has always led to more potent medication.

My rage has nothing to do with Obama. I still think he is a good man...he is just a loasy president.

Now Stag, Robert. I would answer the rest of your post, But I have to go to school now. I will answer when I get back in about 5 hours...and most likely have even more to answer thanks to my NBAF rant.

If you even 1% impartial you would have seen that Congress were the ones who denied the funding. Obama had no choice but to shut the project down because Congress refused to fund it. Maybe you think that Obama should fund it out of his own pocket?

Seekster:
Adorable, but even fundamentalist Christians are tame compared with fundamentalists Muslims. There is no Christian equivalent for Jihad, no crusades were just something made up by the Papacy a long time ago, I can assure you that if the Pope called a crusade today nobody would go, can you say the same for some Imam calling a jihad?

You missed the point. Fundamentalist islamists don't really have the capacity to drag our country back into the dark ages at this point. We're strongly opposed to the values they hold, and their military threat is virtually non-existent: they managed to kill a few thousand people, and haven't had any success at all since then. The real threat is when we allow them, or any other religious groups to undermine our education, our sciences, and our freedoms.

I consider myself a social conservative but even I find Santorum to be too far to the right. However I would not consider either of those quotes which you provided to be wrong. Ideally yes one should wait until they are ready to commit to one partner (or at least one partner at a time) for sex. That is my personal view mind you and I wont force it on anyone else.

Well that makes you a good step better than ol' Frothy. You also aren't running for popular office.

I would also agree with Santorum that our societies tolerance of casual sex has led to long term and immeasurable harm to the moral-fiber of our society so to speak.

Guess what: you are wrong. That statement isn't just unjustifiable, it's simply flat-out wrong, from any standpoint beyond one of religious faith. We, as a species, are not wired for monogamy or sexual restraint; this idea of "sex is only for procreation within married couples" is a massive step away from anything sensible for us, as we were created (be it by god, evolution, or whatever). This so-called "moral decay"? It really doesn't show. It's been something conservatives have been bitching and pissing about since like the 60s, but... It never really seemed to happen. What happened was that more people felt freer to live their lives in a way which didn't fit in with the incredibly small world-view of certain closed-minded people. Even as crime goes down, even as charities become more numerous and more effective, even as people band together to help each other more than ever, these people still scream about how morality as we know it is a dying breed. It isn't.

But it gets even worse than that. You know what happened before abortion was legal? I'll give you a hint: it didn't exactly entail the happiest of campers. Various solutions included shotgun weddings, public shamings and prison for whore-like behavior, alienation from possible support networks, marrying the rapist, and secretly getting a back-alley abortion from a shady doctor. There's this interesting thing about such behaviors: even when they're forbidden, it doesn't tend to solve the problems behind them, and the forbidden behavior will keep happening. Hell, you want proof? Look up the statistics for things such as abortions, teen pregnancies, divorces, and infidelity in most of New England, a traditionally liberal, blue region, and compare them to the Midwest. You'll see a pretty clear trend show up.

Premarital, casual sex is nothing new. It's older than civilization itself. It's only now that we have taken this progressive step that we have realized that the harm involved in having it be socially acceptable is mitigated by its social acceptability (because you have people you can go to, because it's not the end of the world if something goes wrong) and that forbidding it only compounds these issues without preventing the problem.

Your way of thinking is backwards and foolish. Historically speaking, the socially conservative among us have always, always been wrong. It's a lesson not to be ignored, and not to be taken lightly.

I sincerely hope that Romney wins the nomination because I don't want to have to vote for Santorum, especially since he would lose. Yes I would have to vote for Santorum because I don't believe in not voting in Presidential elections and the only person the Democrats are running is Obama so my hands would be tied.

And of course, even Stalin or Mussolini would be a preferable choice to our horribly incompetent president who has done nothing positive beyond passing groundbreaking health care reform, ending one of our long-standing foreign wars, and making it so that I'm not quite as required to claim that I'm from Canada. Your opinion on that matter is well-known, if entirely laughable.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
I would also agree with Santorum that our societies tolerance of casual sex has led to long term and immeasurable harm to the moral-fiber of our society so to speak.

Guess what: you are wrong. That statement isn't just unjustifiable, it's simply flat-out wrong, from any standpoint beyond one of religious faith. We, as a species, are not wired for monogamy or sexual restraint; this idea of "sex is only for procreation within married couples" is a massive step away from anything sensible for us, as we were created (be it by god, evolution, or whatever). This so-called "moral decay"? It really doesn't show. It's been something conservatives have been bitching and pissing about since like the 60s, but... It never really seemed to happen. What happened was that more people felt freer to live their lives in a way which didn't fit in with the incredibly small world-view of certain closed-minded people. Even as crime goes down, even as charities become more numerous and more effective, even as people band together to help each other more than ever, these people still scream about how morality as we know it is a dying breed. It isn't.

But it gets even worse than that. You know what happened before abortion was legal? I'll give you a hint: it didn't exactly entail the happiest of campers. Various solutions included shotgun weddings, public shamings and prison for whore-like behavior, alienation from possible support networks, marrying the rapist, and secretly getting a back-alley abortion from a shady doctor. There's this interesting thing about such behaviors: even when they're forbidden, it doesn't tend to solve the problems behind them, and the forbidden behavior will keep happening. Hell, you want proof? Look up the statistics for things such as abortions, teen pregnancies, divorces, and infidelity in most of New England, a traditionally liberal, blue region, and compare them to the Midwest. You'll see a pretty clear trend show up.

Premarital, casual sex is nothing new. It's older than civilization itself. It's only now that we have taken this progressive step that we have realized that the harm involved in having it be socially acceptable is mitigated by its social acceptability (because you have people you can go to, because it's not the end of the world if something goes wrong) and that forbidding it only compounds these issues without preventing the problem.

Your way of thinking is backwards and foolish. Historically speaking, the socially conservative among us have always, always been wrong. It's a lesson not to be ignored, and not to be taken lightly.

An opinion cannot be either right or wrong.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
I sincerely hope that Romney wins the nomination because I don't want to have to vote for Santorum, especially since he would lose. Yes I would have to vote for Santorum because I don't believe in not voting in Presidential elections and the only person the Democrats are running is Obama so my hands would be tied.

And of course, even Stalin or Mussolini would be a preferable choice to our horribly incompetent president who has done nothing positive beyond passing groundbreaking health care reform, ending one of our long-standing foreign wars, and making it so that I'm not quite as required to claim that I'm from Canada. Your opinion on that matter is well-known, if entirely laughable.

Nah Obama is better than those two, better than Carter too.

By the way Obama didnt do anything to end the Iraq War that wasnt going to be done anyway at around the same time. He does not deserve credit for following Bush's plan. That simple competence.

Ok, back from school. And now... [Warning: There is an incoming wall of text!"

Stagnant:

BOOM headshot65:
stuff

I'm not bothered by your opposition. I'm just earnestly noting that I don't think anyone believes that this was "the last straw" for you with Obama. The last straw was probably a hell of a lot closer to Election Day 08.

That is not 100% true. I was not like Some People Who were instantly wishing failure on him.

Heck, while I was miffed that McCain didnt win, I was hoping Obama would do good because, "By God, our first African-American President people!" And as I said, there is nothing wrong with Obama, the man. But there is Plenty wrong with Obama, the President:

Warning- "Obamacare": Good idea in principale, but the government Shouldnt FORCE people to buy health insurance. Please note, this same thing is why I initially had an aversion to voting for Mitt Romney [see: RomneyCare]

Strike 1- "Axing Constillation": Great, now the chinese will surpass us in space travel too. I would kill to have a "new" space race.

Strike 2- "MASSIVE cuts to the military": Anyone who knows me would know why that rubbed me the wrong way.

Final Warning- "Catholic-Contraceptive fiasco": Will explain below

Strike 3- "NBAF cut": Sorry Mr Obama. I had hoped you would do better. [Game over]

"It is in my belief system that I am morally forced, by the will of the almighty creator Dickbutt, to never operate a business in a building that completely follows regulations. Therefore, I should be exempt from them on behalf of my religious beliefs."

Imagine a person who truly and genuinely had a religious belief entailing that. Would that give them a good reason to shrug off building regulations? No! Of course not! That would be fucking stupid! The fact is, for some reason or other, employee health insurance has to cover contraception. Having a certain religion or religious belief cannot and should not provide exemption to universal and well-grounded legislature and regulation.

Well, heres the thing. Not following building codes is a threat to people around them and anyone who walks in the building. So of course that would be a horrible thing to let them follow. Its the same reason that church that says "Smoke Majriuana. It is the body and blood of Christ." Is illegal. However, having the catholic church NOT provide contraceptive is only going to affect 2 people. And even then, there are PLENTY more options of where you can get them. Lets take where I work for example. My boss does not include "preventive measures" in basic company healthcare plans (And this is a locally owned buisness before you cry "evil corperations!"). However, we still sell contraceptive in the store for an entirely resonable price, one that even someone working minimum wage could afford.

The whole argument is just ridiculous on several levels. For example, the fact that a non-negligible portion of catholic men and women use birth control (the 98% figure was somewhat misleading, granted, but it still does offer an interesting figure nonetheless - sexually active catholic women who don't want to get pregnant are using birth control) means that it isn't necessarily the morality of the catholics which is being infringed upon, but the morality of a bunch of stuffy old men who probably haven't had sex in ages, who really need to stop getting involved in issues of female reproductive rights.

But see, Even the LIBERAL catholics (just like politics, the church is divided between Liberal and conservative) are protesting this. They dont object to Catholic women USING contraceptive...but they opposing the government FORCING thier church to conform to an idea they dont want to support. They think that if the church should not support contraception, but believe that it is completly OK to get it through other means and use it.

I mean, seriously, Fox News did a panel on this and didn't even bother to find the one token woman you would expect from them on issues like this.

Oh no, believe me, that was something that tick me off to. Ugg, I remeber when Fox News used to have class in presenting the news. Now, they have just degraded into a cesspool of the most extreme the conservatives have to offer. Well, at least Some people on there are showing a little bit of class.

See, here's the thing: it doesn't go against the beliefs of anyone involved in any meaningful way. If someone being hired by an institution affiliated by the catholic church has a moral obligation to not use birth control, they probably won't get it from the insurance. The institutions pay for insurance. If they don't like it, nobody is forcing them to buy insurance in the first place.

But the Obama administartion has placed them in a position of "Do it, or face Financial Ruin." The penalty for breaking the insurance mandate works out to some $2,000 PER EMPLOYEE. This is the lowest number I found, so it may even be on the low side. What I know, is NO organization, no matter how large, could afford that kind of fine. So what are they to do. Eat the cost by cutting money to charity, or give in to a practice they find immoral?

But Frothy didn't just claim that it was violating the first-amendment rights of the church (which, while incorrect, in the grand scheme of things isn't that dumb). He (and others) claimed that it was a "war on religion", that the current administration was going to strip away our religious freedoms, and that we would end up faced with the return of the Guilloutine in a strange slippery slope from secular humanism to the french revolution! There is not a single part of that which is accurate, and almost all of it is fucking bullshit. I mean, for fuck's sake, the president even compromised on the issue! He was willing to take the responsibility for the actual purchase of the contraception out of the hands of the institutions. If that's a "war on religion", then my arguments in favor of legal abortion are a "war on fetuses" and Tyler Perry is running a "war on comedy" (hmm... that may actually have some merit).

I will admit, the whole "war on religion" thing is, for the most part, unfounded. He has pushed some things on religion that really, he shouldnt have, but this is not a war on it.

On the topic of Santorum "sinking himself"... In the primary? Come on. He's dropped bombs such as the belief that abortion is wrong even in the case of rape, and that women should accept this gift from god. He's spoken out against contraception, claiming that it's unnatural and against God's will. His entire "morality" platform is based on hardline fundamentalism of the Pat Robertson brand: the freedoms of those who aren't christian can go fuck themselves. Oh, it'll sink him like a fucking rock in the general election, but in the primary? The republican party probably does have enough socially-backward retards in it to get this guy through the season. I mean, come on! Look at this crap!

Well now. Theres the thing. I never said Santorum was 100% right. He is INSANE in his stances. However, there are some things he is right on to certain people. He is just the minority of a few big arguments wrapped up in one neat package. For instance:

"100% ban on abortion": Minority of the Pro-Life movement. Most people in the Pro-Life movement are willing to accept abortion under 3 basic condition- Rape, Incest, and Harm to the Mother. For most people, while those are still problems, they can at least be defended. The "100%" Crowd like Santorum are a rare bread.

"Ban on Gay Marriage": Minority of American society as a whole. As time passes, people are becoming more and more open to the idea, and I am sure that it will be leglized in all 50 states by the end of my lifetime.

"Ban on Contraceptive": This one is probly isnt so much of a minority in, but it still has some holes in it. As I have said, I would rather have Contraceptive made more avalible because it is the lesser evil...but it is still an evil. He is right in that casual sex IS a problem though. But then again, I think you know where I am going with this Mindset Stagnant.

Santorum himself is nuts, and he takes things too far. But that doesnt make everything that comes out of his mouth 100% wrong.

pyrate:
If you even 1% impartial you would have seen that Congress were the ones who denied the funding. Obama had no choice but to shut the project down because Congress refused to fund it.

Actually, OBAMA is the one who proposed the budget. HE is the who who basically told the DHS "Can you do without a new bio-defense facility, even though Plum Island was built in 1954 and beyond obsolete?" He could have vetoed the bill that ended funding, he could have passed an executive order forcing funding, but no. He just let it go. The common consensise around here? He id it out of spite for Kansas Senators and Congressmen. This is not just the Republicans around here saying that. Even the Democrats say it was out of spite, considering out of our 6 represenatives, NOT ONE has good standing with the Obama White House. Even our lone DEMOCRAT on the Hill, Lynn Jenkins, has poor standing with him.

Maybe you think that Obama should fund it out of his own pocket?

Funny you should mention that. Kansas State University, Gov. Brownback, our represenatives, and many others are coming forward to try and restore funding, and in the mean time, pay for consturuction out of pocket. The latest estimates say they have raised over $10 billion of lost funds already.

BOOM headshot65:

pyrate:
If you even 1% impartial you would have seen that Congress were the ones who denied the funding. Obama had no choice but to shut the project down because Congress refused to fund it.

Actually, OBAMA is the one who proposed the budget. HE is the who who basically told the DHS "Can you do without a new bio-defense facility, even though Plum Island was built in 1954 and beyond obsolete?" He could have vetoed the bill that ended funding, he could have passed an executive order forcing funding, but no. He just let it go. The common consensise around here? He id it out of spite for Kansas Senators and Congressmen. This is not just the Republicans around here saying that. Even the Democrats say it was out of spite, considering out of our 6 represenatives, NOT ONE has good standing with the Obama White House. Even our lone DEMOCRAT on the Hill, Lynn Jenkins, has poor standing with him.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The budget was not created by Obama, in the end Congress are the ones who write the thing and determine what gets funded and what doesn't. Yet they never get blamed by people like you. As for your ideas; what "bill" is there to veto? He can't veto a specific part of the budget, it's all or nothing, and if he did veto it over this project you'd be calling him the worst President for "trying to shut down the government." As for executive orders, the SC ruled he can only use those for things that hte Constition ruled he had powers for, so simply put he does not have the power to force funding for anything, since the Budget is exclusively the domain of Congress.

Shaoken:

BOOM headshot65:

pyrate:
If you even 1% impartial you would have seen that Congress were the ones who denied the funding. Obama had no choice but to shut the project down because Congress refused to fund it.

Actually, OBAMA is the one who proposed the budget. HE is the who who basically told the DHS "Can you do without a new bio-defense facility, even though Plum Island was built in 1954 and beyond obsolete?" He could have vetoed the bill that ended funding, he could have passed an executive order forcing funding, but no. He just let it go. The common consensise around here? He id it out of spite for Kansas Senators and Congressmen. This is not just the Republicans around here saying that. Even the Democrats say it was out of spite, considering out of our 6 represenatives, NOT ONE has good standing with the Obama White House. Even our lone DEMOCRAT on the Hill, Lynn Jenkins, has poor standing with him.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The budget was not created by Obama, in the end Congress are the ones who write the thing and determine what gets funded and what doesn't. Yet they never get blamed by people like you. As for your ideas; what "bill" is there to veto? He can't veto a specific part of the budget, it's all or nothing, and if he did veto it over this project you'd be calling him the worst President for "trying to shut down the government." As for executive orders, the SC ruled he can only use those for things that hte Constition ruled he had powers for, so simply put he does not have the power to force funding for anything, since the Budget is exclusively the domain of Congress.

Well, the president is the leader of this country. HE should try and get congress under control. Plus, even though he is not the one to pass it, he is the one who SUGGESTED IT! Know, it was congresses choice to include the defund, but Obama brought it up first.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Adorable, but even fundamentalist Christians are tame compared with fundamentalists Muslims. There is no Christian equivalent for Jihad, no crusades were just something made up by the Papacy a long time ago, I can assure you that if the Pope called a crusade today nobody would go, can you say the same for some Imam calling a jihad?

You missed the point. Fundamentalist islamists don't really have the capacity to drag our country back into the dark ages at this point. We're strongly opposed to the values they hold, and their military threat is virtually non-existent: they managed to kill a few thousand people, and haven't had any success at all since then. The real threat is when we allow them, or any other religious groups to undermine our education, our sciences, and our freedoms.

Interesting how he says that fundamentalist muslims are worse than fundamentalist christians and ignores the bombings of women's health clinics by fundamentalist christians, the killing of doctor's that offer abortion services, the Norway bombing last year. That's before we even get to the Christian cults prevalent in the US alone that lead to things such as WACO.

They are just bad as each other and his own bias leaves him unable to see that.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Adorable, but even fundamentalist Christians are tame compared with fundamentalists Muslims. There is no Christian equivalent for Jihad, no crusades were just something made up by the Papacy a long time ago, I can assure you that if the Pope called a crusade today nobody would go, can you say the same for some Imam calling a jihad?

You missed the point. Fundamentalist islamists don't really have the capacity to drag our country back into the dark ages at this point. We're strongly opposed to the values they hold, and their military threat is virtually non-existent: they managed to kill a few thousand people, and haven't had any success at all since then. The real threat is when we allow them, or any other religious groups to undermine our education, our sciences, and our freedoms.

Interesting how he says that fundamentalist muslims are worse than fundamentalist christians and ignores the bombings of women's health clinics by fundamentalist christians, the killing of doctor's that offer abortion services, the Norway bombing last year. That's before we even get to the Christian cults prevalent in the US alone that lead to things such as WACO.

They are just bad as each other and his own bias leaves him unable to see that.

Yes they are just as bad as each other and what makes you think I ignore those nutters who want to bomb an abortion clinic. I oppose abortion and will support opposing it by all non-violent means. Killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics is just wrong. That being said how often does that sort of thing happen? Not much. How often do we have people being killed by Islamic fundamentalists? Pretty much daily.

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Stagnant:

You missed the point. Fundamentalist islamists don't really have the capacity to drag our country back into the dark ages at this point. We're strongly opposed to the values they hold, and their military threat is virtually non-existent: they managed to kill a few thousand people, and haven't had any success at all since then. The real threat is when we allow them, or any other religious groups to undermine our education, our sciences, and our freedoms.

Interesting how he says that fundamentalist muslims are worse than fundamentalist christians and ignores the bombings of women's health clinics by fundamentalist christians, the killing of doctor's that offer abortion services, the Norway bombing last year. That's before we even get to the Christian cults prevalent in the US alone that lead to things such as WACO.

They are just bad as each other and his own bias leaves him unable to see that.

Yes they are just as bad as each other and what makes you think I ignore those nutters who want to bomb an abortion clinic. I oppose abortion and will support opposing it by all non-violent means. Killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics is just wrong. That being said how often does that sort of thing happen? Not much. How often do we have people being killed by Islamic fundamentalists? Pretty much daily.

According to FBI statistics 94% of terrorist acts within the US are NOT the actions of Muslims. In fact a Jew is more likely to commit a terrorist act in the US compared to a Muslim.

It seems to me that terrorist activity is directly related to the stability of a region and the population. A high Muslim population means that a high number of attacks are going to be committed by Muslims. A region that has been torn apart by war and has constant civil conflict has more attacks than one that is stable.

To say that Muslims are the main perpetrators behind terrorism is only based on circumstance. If it were Christians that lived in the war torn ME and Muslims that lived in the West then Christians would be the ones committing terrorist acts.

pyrate:

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Interesting how he says that fundamentalist muslims are worse than fundamentalist christians and ignores the bombings of women's health clinics by fundamentalist christians, the killing of doctor's that offer abortion services, the Norway bombing last year. That's before we even get to the Christian cults prevalent in the US alone that lead to things such as WACO.

They are just bad as each other and his own bias leaves him unable to see that.

Yes they are just as bad as each other and what makes you think I ignore those nutters who want to bomb an abortion clinic. I oppose abortion and will support opposing it by all non-violent means. Killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics is just wrong. That being said how often does that sort of thing happen? Not much. How often do we have people being killed by Islamic fundamentalists? Pretty much daily.

According to FBI statistics 94% of terrorist acts within the US are NOT the actions of Muslims. In fact a Jew is more likely to commit a terrorist act in the US compared to a Muslim.

It seems to me that terrorist activity is directly related to the stability of a region and the population. A high Muslim population means that a high number of attacks are going to be committed by Muslims. A region that has been torn apart by war and has constant civil conflict has more attacks than one that is stable.

To say that Muslims are the main perpetrators behind terrorism is only based on circumstance. If it were Christians that lived in the war torn ME and Muslims that lived in the West then Christians would be the ones committing terrorist acts.

In related stats, the majority of people in US prisons are white (given the number of muslims in the United States I would be shocked if they committed even a sizable minority of a terrorists attacks in the country which is a low number to begin with).

You are playing with statistics when all you really need to do is look at the news.

Seekster:
In related stats, the majority of people in US prisons are white (given the number of muslims in the United States I would be shocked if they committed even a sizable minority of a terrorists attacks in the country which is a low number to begin with).

You are playing with statistics when all you really need to do is look at the news.

Do we really have less than 6% muslim population in the USA? O.o

Stagnant:

Seekster:
In related stats, the majority of people in US prisons are white (given the number of muslims in the United States I would be shocked if they committed even a sizable minority of a terrorists attacks in the country which is a low number to begin with).

You are playing with statistics when all you really need to do is look at the news.

Do we really have less than 6% muslim population in the USA? O.o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Main_religious_preferences_of_Americans

0.6% are Muslim.

1.7% are Jews.

Seekster:

An opinion cannot be either right or wrong.

Is that your opinion? Because it's still wrong.

A _preference_ can't meaningfully be wrong. If you liked Justin Bieber's work better than Beethoven, you would be profoundly lacking in musical taste, but you wouldn't be 'wrong'. If you insist that "your opinion" is that Global warming is a hoax by EVIL HIPPIES, that _is_ wrong, because we have factual evidence to the contrary of your claim.

And your apparent "opinion" that a 1950's nuclear family is the only socially optimum social grouping is also WRONG, because we have factual evidence to the contrary of your claims.

Oh it's Bymidew out to harass Seekster. It's been a while.

Bymidew:
-inane banter-

recruit00:
Oh it's Bymidew out to harass Seekster. It's been a while.

Yes it has, yes it has.

Seekster:

In related stats, the majority of people in US prisons are white (given the number of muslims in the United States I would be shocked if they committed even a sizable minority of a terrorists attacks in the country which is a low number to begin with).

You are playing with statistics when all you really need to do is look at the news.

Citation?

The numbers I have in front of me are for 2009 and show blacks as having 120k more in prison than whites (total across both genders)

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

In related stats, the majority of people in US prisons are white (given the number of muslims in the United States I would be shocked if they committed even a sizable minority of a terrorists attacks in the country which is a low number to begin with).

You are playing with statistics when all you really need to do is look at the news.

Citation?

The numbers I have in front of me are for 2009 and show blacks as having 120k more in prison than whites (total across both genders)

http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#2

Is it possible the source you are looking at was measuring it proportionally?

Blacks do have a higher than proportional incarceration rate compared with the proportion of the total black population of the USA than any other race does but in terms of sheer numbers I am fairly certain that there are more whites in prison than blacks (I even had a racial studies teacher make a point of that fact the first day of class (most people got it wrong, I had already encountered that stat before).

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

In related stats, the majority of people in US prisons are white (given the number of muslims in the United States I would be shocked if they committed even a sizable minority of a terrorists attacks in the country which is a low number to begin with).

You are playing with statistics when all you really need to do is look at the news.

Citation?

The numbers I have in front of me are for 2009 and show blacks as having 120k more in prison than whites (total across both genders)

http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#2

Is it possible the source you are looking at was measuring it proportionally?

Blacks do have a higher than proportional incarceration rate compared with the proportion of the total black population of the USA than any other race does but in terms of sheer numbers I am fairly certain that there are more whites in prison than blacks (I even had a racial studies teacher make a point of that fact the first day of class (most people got it wrong, I had already encountered that stat before).

You're using federal prison data only not the entirety of the justice system.
The data I'm seeing accounts at all levels (county, local, state, federal)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200

Males
Year Total..... White ..Black Hispanic
2009 2,096,300 693,800 841,000 442,000

Females Whites were 20k higher than blacks.

Though I will cede that if you divide Hispanic up by those who put Hispanic-white and those who put Hispanic-black then whites would have it.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Citation?

The numbers I have in front of me are for 2009 and show blacks as having 120k more in prison than whites (total across both genders)

http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#2

Is it possible the source you are looking at was measuring it proportionally?

Blacks do have a higher than proportional incarceration rate compared with the proportion of the total black population of the USA than any other race does but in terms of sheer numbers I am fairly certain that there are more whites in prison than blacks (I even had a racial studies teacher make a point of that fact the first day of class (most people got it wrong, I had already encountered that stat before).

You're using federal prison data only not the entirety of the justice system.
The data I'm seeing accounts at all levels (county, local, state, federal)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200

Males
Year Total..... White ..Black Hispanic
2009 2,096,300 693,800 841,000 442,000

Females Whites were 20k higher than blacks.

Though I will cede that if you divide Hispanic up by those who put Hispanic-white and those who put Hispanic-black then whites would have it.

Hmm you may be right, it depends on who you consider white. If you play around enough you can get the stats you want here. In any case the point is that the percentage of blacks in prison is much much higher than the percentage of blacks in the general population. There are many theories on why this is but most of those offend Al Sharpton who prefers to think its 100% because of racism.

Seekster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Main_religious_preferences_of_Americans

0.6% are Muslim.

1.7% are Jews.

Well color me informed. I thought for sure there were more muslims than that.

Also, for the record: whatshisname is right; the moment an "opinion" contains a factual statement, it can be proven right or wrong, just like any other factual statement. "I like Justin Bieber more than Beethoven" cannot be proven wrong; "In my opinion, Justin Bieber is a more influential musician than Beethoven" can be (as it is, technically, no longer purely an opinion).

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Interesting how he says that fundamentalist muslims are worse than fundamentalist christians and ignores the bombings of women's health clinics by fundamentalist christians, the killing of doctor's that offer abortion services, the Norway bombing last year. That's before we even get to the Christian cults prevalent in the US alone that lead to things such as WACO.

They are just bad as each other and his own bias leaves him unable to see that.

Not just his - our mass media has an annoying habit of calling any Muslim who does anything bad "Terrorists", while white Christians who do anything bad are merely "lone nuts". It's a rather pervasive double-standard.

Bymidew:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Interesting how he says that fundamentalist muslims are worse than fundamentalist christians and ignores the bombings of women's health clinics by fundamentalist christians, the killing of doctor's that offer abortion services, the Norway bombing last year. That's before we even get to the Christian cults prevalent in the US alone that lead to things such as WACO.

They are just bad as each other and his own bias leaves him unable to see that.

Not just his - our mass media has an annoying habit of calling any Muslim who does anything bad "Terrorists", while white Christians who do anything bad are merely "lone nuts". It's a rather pervasive double-standard.

Yeah they should call terrorist cells lone nuts...a group of lone nuts...a large group of nuts is a terrorist organization...sorry the sarcasm speaks for itself.

Seekster:

Bymidew:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Interesting how he says that fundamentalist muslims are worse than fundamentalist christians and ignores the bombings of women's health clinics by fundamentalist christians, the killing of doctor's that offer abortion services, the Norway bombing last year. That's before we even get to the Christian cults prevalent in the US alone that lead to things such as WACO.

They are just bad as each other and his own bias leaves him unable to see that.

Not just his - our mass media has an annoying habit of calling any Muslim who does anything bad "Terrorists", while white Christians who do anything bad are merely "lone nuts". It's a rather pervasive double-standard.

Yeah they should call terrorist cells lone nuts...a group of lone nuts...a large group of nuts is a terrorist organization...sorry the sarcasm speaks for itself.

Or we could call white Christians who kill people "terrorists". Like the guy who murdered a doctor in church. Or the one who tried to build a dirty bomb. Or the one who flew his plane into an IRS office. Or...

Bymidew:

Seekster:

Bymidew:

Not just his - our mass media has an annoying habit of calling any Muslim who does anything bad "Terrorists", while white Christians who do anything bad are merely "lone nuts". It's a rather pervasive double-standard.

Yeah they should call terrorist cells lone nuts...a group of lone nuts...a large group of nuts is a terrorist organization...sorry the sarcasm speaks for itself.

Or we could call white Christians who kill people "terrorists". Like the guy who murdered a doctor in church. Or the one who tried to build a dirty bomb. Or the one who flew his plane into an IRS office. Or...

A single person who directly targets civilians and tries to maximize the amount of damage he or she does is a terrorist (though in conversational terms a person usually isnt called a terrorists unless they are actually linked with a terror organization somehow). It doesnt matter what their race or religion is.

All seriousness aside, how is flying a plane into the IRS office terrorism...its the IRS...if anything that should be considered self defense.

For those who have people who've been camping out my original post waiting for the final Maine results, they have held the last caucuses that were delayed due to weather. The overall net gain by Paul was around 80 votes, not enough to overtake Romney's first place finish. Still waiting for a final tally to be posted by the AP.

I'm now going to comment briefly on the political news of the last week: Rick Santorum, please get a communications director and stop sending out whoever says they'll speak on your behalf. Please get someone to go over your speeches and say "yeah, this might not be a good idea to put into words, or at least these words." Finally, please stay on social issues; Romney can't fight you on that ground and you help save the US some money on movers by not having the current guy in office have to move out.

Seekster:

A single person who directly targets civilians and tries to maximize the amount of damage he or she does is a terrorist (though in conversational terms a person usually isnt called a terrorists unless they are actually linked with a terror organization somehow). It doesnt matter what their race or religion is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Bymidew:

Seekster:

A single person who directly targets civilians and tries to maximize the amount of damage he or she does is a terrorist (though in conversational terms a person usually isnt called a terrorists unless they are actually linked with a terror organization somehow). It doesnt matter what their race or religion is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Yes I know it exists...what about it? Its wrong I condemn it. What is your point (assuming you have one)?

Bymidew:

Seekster:

Bymidew:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Yes I know it exists...what about it? Its wrong I condemn it. What is your point (assuming you have one)?

It's terrorism. I DARE you to call it that, you rightwing drone.

Ok first off, say that the people eco people causing problems and rioting and causing violence at the G-20 in Pittsburgh were terrorists before you start attacking Seekster with FLAMES.

BTW, they are terrorists.

Bymidew:
It's terrorism. I DARE you to call it that

Yeah of course its terrorism, I never denied that it was. Recruit also made valid points too so I will just refer to what he said.

recruit00:

Bymidew:

Seekster:

Yes I know it exists...what about it? Its wrong I condemn it. What is your point (assuming you have one)?

It's terrorism. I DARE you to call it that, you rightwing drone.

Ok first off, say that the people eco people causing problems and rioting and causing violence at the G-20 in Pittsburgh were terrorists before you start attacking Seekster with FLAMES.

BTW, they are terrorists.

Were they? I lost track. Who'd they kill? Who'd they threaten to kill? What buildings did they blow up? What demands did they make?

It takes more than a few broken windows to qualify as 'terrorists'. Actually having a PLAN to rule by fear is kind of important.

"Causing Problems" can mean anything from a MLKjr style sit-in, which only the dumbest of fascists would call 'terrorism' to blowing up dams. Did you have anything specific in mind I need to ritually denounce before I can call the Fetus Freedom Front the religiously-motivated terrorists they are?

Seekster:

Bymidew:
It's terrorism. I DARE you to call it that

Yeah of course its terrorism, I never denied that it was. Recruit also made valid points too so I will just refer to what he said.

Holy ****, you actually admitted the obvious. I SALUTE YOU.

Now, if we can just get the Corporate Media and the FBI to do the same, Homeland Security can start waterboarding Randall Terry, and then we might GET somewhere.

Bymidew:

Seekster:

Bymidew:
It's terrorism. I DARE you to call it that

Yeah of course its terrorism, I never denied that it was. Recruit also made valid points too so I will just refer to what he said.

Holy ****, you actually admitted the obvious. I SALUTE YOU.

Now, if we can just get the Corporate Media and the FBI to do the same, Homeland Security can start waterboarding Randall Terry, and then we might GET somewhere.

Its like admitting that stealing is a crime, no shit.

I am fairly certain Terry didnt kill George Tiller, he just criticized him which he is free to do, a bit tasteless so soon after the guy was killed but yeah he didnt kill him. Scott Roeder was the one who killed George Tiller and that sick nutjob isnt going to be up for Parole for 50 years which is sooner than he deserves.

I am against abortion by any possible means SHORT of a violence.

Bymidew:

recruit00:

Bymidew:

It's terrorism. I DARE you to call it that, you rightwing drone.

Ok first off, say that the people eco people causing problems and rioting and causing violence at the G-20 in Pittsburgh were terrorists before you start attacking Seekster with FLAMES.

BTW, they are terrorists.

Were they? I lost track. Who'd they kill? Who'd they threaten to kill? What buildings did they blow up? What demands did they make?

It takes more than a few broken windows to qualify as 'terrorists'. Actually having a PLAN to rule by fear is kind of important.

"Causing Problems" can mean anything from a MLKjr style sit-in, which only the dumbest of fascists would call 'terrorism' to blowing up dams. Did you have anything specific in mind I need to ritually denounce before I can call the Fetus Freedom Front the religiously-motivated terrorists they are?

So you have to have a plan to be considered a terrorist. I'll let Oxford do some work for me

terrorism

Pronunciation: /ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
[mass noun]
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:

By the way, I am from Pittsburgh so I know what happened. They attacked cops, vandalized property, and blocked streets and caused chaos. They used violence to pursuit political aims (or in the case of some, no government whatsoever because anarchy obviously means people are in charge and act nicely).

If the Fetus Freedom Front is the group placing plastic fetuses in mailboxes, I'd say that is borderline but is still breaking a good amount of laws.

And for someone who proposes to hate the right wing with a passion, you're support of waterboarding (which is stupid) and hatred of the media which tends to be a bit more liberal than being "corporations to den of evil". I am not saying that the corporations are all communists trying to take over the world. Fox pushes that though. Very very VERY rarely do they say anything smart like actually O'Reilly supporting Ellen when she was wrongly fired for being a lesbian or Stossel who usually makes intelligent debates and isn't super libertarian like Ron Paul.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked