Right, they're huge fans of free speech on/r/HillaryClinton.
The candidate subs should be hugboxes for the candidates, but the "neutral" ground should be open. Otherwise the sub where you're trying to organize your people gets spammed, or distracted with "questions" like "Gosh I'd love to vote for Clinton but do you think she's too corrupt to be elected?" and "I'm really worried she's going to crap her pants on stage tell me she can make it through?"
And what prompted the pre-planned withdrawal to be planned? Pretty sure it was the illiterate sand people who made the prospect of the US staying in Iraq untenable from a public relations standpoint.
I just don't care about "racism" as a political topic anymore. I'm not saying either of them are or aren't racist, but unless one of them is planning on bringing back slavery, neither could possibly be racist enough for it to matter compared to the other problems facing our country.
I care about increasing jobs, eliminating H1-B visas, restoring law and order, crushing ISIS and then beating feet out of the middle east. Oh, and keeping internet oversight in US hands.
So, unless he comes out and says "gas the kikes, race war now" he can't possibly be racist enough for it to matter in deciding my vote.
1. The birther thing wasn't inherently racist. Obama's publicist listed on his bio that he was born in Kenya for 16 years, and he was advertised as the first Kenyan-born editor of the Harvard Law Review, and PBS ran stories about how exciting and diverse it was that a Kenyan-born man became a senator. Obama never bothered to correct them until he ran for president, and which point he was suddenly born in Hawaii. It's not a racist accusation to ask if he was mistaken or lying for those 16 years or if he's mistaken or lying now. That's also why people wanted to see his college records that he had sealed. Did he claim Kenyan birth on his application forms? We don't know.
2. Hillary's campaign absolutely started the birther thing. They even sent investigators to Kenya to try to track down proof of his birth there. The "Party Unity My Ass" pro-Hillary forums were abuzz with the prospect of winning the nomination if they could prove Obama was ineligible.
3. There's nothing racist about any of that. However it's good PR for Obama to be able to accuse his opposition of racial motivation. It seems to have worked on you. This is why he didn't just release his damn birth certificate and prove everybody wrong. When your enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt them.
4. Trump said nothing about it for 3 years, and then started talking about it and two weeks later Obama produced the birth certificate. Trump didn't start the birther thing, he ended it.
You're looking at all of this very two-dimensionally instead of thinking from a political messaging point of view. You're smarter than this Bruce. Don't look at what the media says, look at what people do, and what the results are.
Personally the problem I see is that the law is that it is futile. The people who it targets are, to put it bluntly, mentally defective. A law is not going to stop them.
It's not about stopping anyone. It's about being able to criminalize everyone and then selectively enforce the laws only against your political opposition. No one is ever going to arrest a Jewish opinion columnist for droning on about how white people are evil and hateful, but you can bet your ass they'll come down on people who condemn Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
What's funny is that the "Great America" that the Donald aspires to was built on immigrants
European immigrants from compatible cultures, and some very compliant "model immigrant" east asians. And when people came here, we treated them like shit until they adapted to the American way of life, we didn't give them welfare, so a third of them skedaddled right back where they came from if they couldn't hack it. Today we're trying to change America to accommodate every backwards POS culture on the planet and failing.
and slavery
Bullshit. The slaves didn't build crap. They picked cotton providing cheap labor for the 2-4% of Americans who owned slaves. It didn't help anybody else and the south was destroyed in the Civil War and took 100 years to recover. That "Great America" was built by white northerners.
What Donald really means by making America great is do things that sound great to rednecks, but in practice throw the country down the toilet.
You're right, the real way America's going to colonize Mars is to import illiterate inbred 85 IQ religious fundamentalists from the 3rd world by the millions. Anything else would be throwing the country right down the toilet.
And if that's your true motivation then it's the argument we should be having.
Why can't it be both? I don't want terrorism, nor do I want the balkanization of multiculturalism. Our social fabric is already coming apart. Every racial and religious group has their own interests and is screaming at each other and we've got race riots in the street. Ya know what we should add to the mix? More people from a xenocidal culture that has proven over and over again through history that it cannot coexist with any other culture for long periods of time, even itself.
The Democrats want more immigrants because votes, the Republican establishment donors want cheap labor, and the interests of American citizens who just want happy comfy little lives in familiar communities that aren't ripped apart by ethnic or religious conflict be damned.
All I said, is that you can't use a handle to uniquely identify someone.
Are you talking metaphysically or legally? Legally of course you can. But if you're trying to be some "well, how can we really know anything?" pedant, then pffft.
Not really. If there were actually a serious uprising in the US, about half the military would immediately defect to the insurgents, and part of the force remaining would include saboteurs and spies. Many of the rest would be demoralized fighting against their own citizens. And sure the military has tanks and planes, but so what when militias are popping out of the woods to raid supply conveys, or ambushing drone pilots on their way to work, etc. The PR battle would be a nightmare as the military kills insurgents (their own citizens) and spies on and grows distrustful of everyone else.
A bunch of illiterate sand people kicked the US out of Iraq. American patriots with guns (a lot of whom are ex-military) would have no problem. If it ever comes to open rebellion the government has already lost.
Almost all the gun deaths in the US are suicides or inner city drug gangs. Nobody cares about these things and more gun control laws won't stop either.
What interest would anyone have in impersonating him two years ago when the posts were made? And for the lifetime of his account prior to the email questions?
Apparently from his reddit account he was in to furry shit. I really want the House Oversight Committee to ask him "sir, could you explain to the Committee what you meant by 'yiffing' in some of your comments?"
It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black. One only needs see the relative disinterest with which the birthers treated the fact that the exact scenario they were speculating about applied directly to Cruz.
That's retarded, it's an extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is your political opponent.
Nobody was saying "hur dur he must have been born in Kenya because he's black!" They asked the question because for 16 years his book publicist had "born in Kenya" on his bio, and then all of a sudden he's running for president and it's "oh, whoops, we meant Hawaii." That's a reasonable question.
I would agree with that. It all sounds good: sexual liberation and feminism and gays and porn! Yaaaaahhh!!! And then people stop getting married, stop fucking, stop producing more kids and the civilization dies out and is replaced by a civilization that has tighter social controls.
I understand the moral, pro-liberty arguments for all of these things. But what good is that if the society dies out? Evolution selects against the non-productive. Principle is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, they're huge fans of free speech on /r/HillaryClinton.
The candidate subs should be hugboxes for the candidates, but the "neutral" ground should be open. Otherwise the sub where you're trying to organize your people gets spammed, or distracted with "questions" like "Gosh I'd love to vote for Clinton but do you think she's too corrupt to be elected?" and "I'm really worried she's going to crap her pants on stage tell me she can make it through?"
There are also plausible maps by which they both get 269.
Have you ever heard of the First Transcontinental Railway? Jesus, stop digging....
You mean that thing built entirely after the emancipation proclamation on which absolutely zero slaves worked?
Yes, using slave labour, just like Donald Trump wants to bring back,
Whoa, really, Trump is going to bring back slavery?! How much will they cost?! I'll buy two!
Oh wait you're pulling shit out of your ass.
And what prompted the pre-planned withdrawal to be planned? Pretty sure it was the illiterate sand people who made the prospect of the US staying in Iraq untenable from a public relations standpoint.
When a report comes in the driver has the options to respond:
1. "Yes, I was making scary faces and I'll stop now."
2. "I'm just really ugly."
Then they can get a star on their profile that says "driver fugly, not actual zombie."
The notion that this is about criminalizing everyone is paranoia.
The selective enforcement issue is a serious concern, however, with any futile law.
The two go hand-in-hand. You criminalize everyone who makes political speech, and then only enforce on whoever you disagree with.
"We need more immigrants because this country is too white!" -- anti-white hate speech.
"We need to keep out immigrants because they don't fit our culture!" -- anti-immigrant hate speech.
Everybody's criminal, but the only one who'll get slapped down is whoever is currently "on the wrong side of history."
I just don't care about "racism" as a political topic anymore. I'm not saying either of them are or aren't racist, but unless one of them is planning on bringing back slavery, neither could possibly be racist enough for it to matter compared to the other problems facing our country.
I care about increasing jobs, eliminating H1-B visas, restoring law and order, crushing ISIS and then beating feet out of the middle east. Oh, and keeping internet oversight in US hands.
So, unless he comes out and says "gas the kikes, race war now" he can't possibly be racist enough for it to matter in deciding my vote.
That's not how bookies work.
PLEASE tell me of a single Trump supporter who even knows what ICANN is or does!
Hi.
1. The birther thing wasn't inherently racist. Obama's publicist listed on his bio that he was born in Kenya for 16 years, and he was advertised as the first Kenyan-born editor of the Harvard Law Review, and PBS ran stories about how exciting and diverse it was that a Kenyan-born man became a senator. Obama never bothered to correct them until he ran for president, and which point he was suddenly born in Hawaii. It's not a racist accusation to ask if he was mistaken or lying for those 16 years or if he's mistaken or lying now. That's also why people wanted to see his college records that he had sealed. Did he claim Kenyan birth on his application forms? We don't know.
2. Hillary's campaign absolutely started the birther thing. They even sent investigators to Kenya to try to track down proof of his birth there. The "Party Unity My Ass" pro-Hillary forums were abuzz with the prospect of winning the nomination if they could prove Obama was ineligible.
3. There's nothing racist about any of that. However it's good PR for Obama to be able to accuse his opposition of racial motivation. It seems to have worked on you. This is why he didn't just release his damn birth certificate and prove everybody wrong. When your enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt them.
4. Trump said nothing about it for 3 years, and then started talking about it and two weeks later Obama produced the birth certificate. Trump didn't start the birther thing, he ended it.
You're looking at all of this very two-dimensionally instead of thinking from a political messaging point of view. You're smarter than this Bruce. Don't look at what the media says, look at what people do, and what the results are.
Personally the problem I see is that the law is that it is futile. The people who it targets are, to put it bluntly, mentally defective. A law is not going to stop them.
It's not about stopping anyone. It's about being able to criminalize everyone and then selectively enforce the laws only against your political opposition. No one is ever going to arrest a Jewish opinion columnist for droning on about how white people are evil and hateful, but you can bet your ass they'll come down on people who condemn Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
What's funny is that the "Great America" that the Donald aspires to was built on immigrants
European immigrants from compatible cultures, and some very compliant "model immigrant" east asians. And when people came here, we treated them like shit until they adapted to the American way of life, we didn't give them welfare, so a third of them skedaddled right back where they came from if they couldn't hack it. Today we're trying to change America to accommodate every backwards POS culture on the planet and failing.
and slavery
Bullshit. The slaves didn't build crap. They picked cotton providing cheap labor for the 2-4% of Americans who owned slaves. It didn't help anybody else and the south was destroyed in the Civil War and took 100 years to recover. That "Great America" was built by white northerners.
What Donald really means by making America great is do things that sound great to rednecks, but in practice throw the country down the toilet.
You're right, the real way America's going to colonize Mars is to import illiterate inbred 85 IQ religious fundamentalists from the 3rd world by the millions. Anything else would be throwing the country right down the toilet.
And if that's your true motivation then it's the argument we should be having.
Why can't it be both? I don't want terrorism, nor do I want the balkanization of multiculturalism. Our social fabric is already coming apart. Every racial and religious group has their own interests and is screaming at each other and we've got race riots in the street. Ya know what we should add to the mix? More people from a xenocidal culture that has proven over and over again through history that it cannot coexist with any other culture for long periods of time, even itself.
The Democrats want more immigrants because votes, the Republican establishment donors want cheap labor, and the interests of American citizens who just want happy comfy little lives in familiar communities that aren't ripped apart by ethnic or religious conflict be damned.
All I said, is that you can't use a handle to uniquely identify someone.
Are you talking metaphysically or legally? Legally of course you can. But if you're trying to be some "well, how can we really know anything?" pedant, then pffft.
/. ain't what it used to be. Now it's called the "reddit hug of death."
Not really. If there were actually a serious uprising in the US, about half the military would immediately defect to the insurgents, and part of the force remaining would include saboteurs and spies. Many of the rest would be demoralized fighting against their own citizens. And sure the military has tanks and planes, but so what when militias are popping out of the woods to raid supply conveys, or ambushing drone pilots on their way to work, etc. The PR battle would be a nightmare as the military kills insurgents (their own citizens) and spies on and grows distrustful of everyone else.
A bunch of illiterate sand people kicked the US out of Iraq. American patriots with guns (a lot of whom are ex-military) would have no problem. If it ever comes to open rebellion the government has already lost.
Almost all the gun deaths in the US are suicides or inner city drug gangs. Nobody cares about these things and more gun control laws won't stop either.
What interest would anyone have in impersonating him two years ago when the posts were made? And for the lifetime of his account prior to the email questions?
Apparently from his reddit account he was in to furry shit. I really want the House Oversight Committee to ask him "sir, could you explain to the Committee what you meant by 'yiffing' in some of your comments?"
who can field more armchair revolutionaries and opinion dictators.
So will it be Vladimir Putin or George Soros deciding what's "inappropriate" for American YouTube viewers? Stay tuned to find out!!
It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black. One only needs see the relative disinterest with which the birthers treated the fact that the exact scenario they were speculating about applied directly to Cruz.
That's retarded, it's an extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is your political opponent.
Nobody was saying "hur dur he must have been born in Kenya because he's black!" They asked the question because for 16 years his book publicist had "born in Kenya" on his bio, and then all of a sudden he's running for president and it's "oh, whoops, we meant Hawaii." That's a reasonable question.
Meaning you'd like atheists more if they agreed with you politically.
Yes.
Atheism, gender dysphoria and feminism are all symptoms of mental illness.
I would agree with that. It all sounds good: sexual liberation and feminism and gays and porn! Yaaaaahhh!!! And then people stop getting married, stop fucking, stop producing more kids and the civilization dies out and is replaced by a civilization that has tighter social controls.
I understand the moral, pro-liberty arguments for all of these things. But what good is that if the society dies out? Evolution selects against the non-productive. Principle is irrelevant.
Pandora's box can't be closed.
Slut.