Let's have that political discussion.

[Claeyt]

He and his kinds are parasites, and trying to reason with a tick is generally ineffective.

My kind? You mean reasonable Liberal-Democrats in general? So you're calling Obama and the entire Democratic party ticks and parasites? De-humanizing people who disagree with you is a common way for the right wing to try and legitimize their most extreme ideas.

As to the rest:

How exactly am I supposed to prevent the dev's from expressing their opinions here. The dev's can have whatever opinions they want and express them wherever no matter how wrong they may be. I was simply pointing out that by them expressing them publicly here on their own game's forums they alienated some players.

Wormsca was wrong and lost that argument, and then quit. What you call an echo-chamber is actually the norms of political thought. His and the dev's arguments were beyond that and yes they were borderline racist when they touched on the issues of race, intelligence and violence.

I hope you respond and keep this going Paul. I love a good political debate on the internet.

[Darwoth]

if everybody in the world like claeyt died tomorrow there would be nothing but improvement as a result.

[TeckXKnight]

if everybody in the world like claeyt died tomorrow there would be nothing but improvement as a result.

The implications of roughly 50% of the population of a country dying off would be rather interesting. I'm pretty sure you could review the black death for reference. Not only would there be massive power grabs amongst the survivors but you'd also see things like huge spikes is need for labor, with subsequent spikes in pay as everyone becomes desperate to have you work for them. Societies would become substantially more egalitarian out of necessity, given the shortage of workforce. Politically, the right would become the dominant group and so the party system would have to be absolutely restructured or whoever the party picked would become the new president every time.

[wormcsa]

Wormsca was wrong and lost that argument, and then quit.

Quit? Quit what? You mean I quit responding to your diarrhea of the mouth? Do you think I quit the game because I could not handle being crushed by your irrefutable Marxist logic, just as multiple players supposedly "rage quit" after reading about Jorb's political beliefs? Also feeling the need to prove the point by sending me PMs where you wrote both players quit many weeks after Jorb's post? After you made a (somewhat) conciliatory post, I decided to leave it at that.

What you call an echo-chamber is actually the norms of political thought. His and the dev's arguments were beyond that and yes they were borderline racist when they touched on the issues of race, intelligence and violence.

A couple of points:
1) Your political beliefs, which you aligned to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, are not mainstream. They are far to the left of President Obama.
2) Your consistent misrepresentation of my arguments is "borderline" slander. The argument was over whether IQ was determined primarily by genetics or by environment. You brought up race in nearly every post, and I ignored it to the best of my ability. As to violence, I only made two assertions. One, men are genetically more prone to violence than women. I offered the example of male chimpanzees (our closest relatives) being far more violent than female chimps. It is not only culture that determines that men commit 75%-90% of the violent crime in every country. That you implied disagreement with this is mind blowing. Two, I stated it is not proven that genetics play no role in propensity to violence. If you argued that culture and environment play a more important role than genetics, I probably would agree (I am not nearly as familiar with the relevant evidence here, so can't say for sure.) It is even possible that genetics play no role whatsoever (I doubt it,) but it is not proven. But that is how you argue- you make statements as though they are objective fact when they are indeed either highly subjective or simply objectively false.

Reagan led us into multiple wars including Grenada, Iran, and also bombing Libya. His soft Libyan campaign led to solidifying Quadafi in power for the next 30 years.

Objectively false on two counts. The US did not go to war in Iran under Reagan. Do you mean they armed and encouraged Saddam Hussein to go to war with Iran? If that's what you meant, why didn't you say so? Quadafi did not stay in power for another 30 years. The US bombed Libya in 1986, and Quadafi was killed in 2011. That's about 25 years. Sure, not that big a deal, but it simply illustrates your contempt for facts and accuracy. The subjective part, that bombing Libya probably strengthened Quadafi internally, I would agree with though.

Reagan illegally sold missiles to Iran and secretly funneled the money into several Central-American mercenary groups solely supported by the American Government to support right wing dictatorships throughout the region. These anit-leftist campaigns of Reagan killed over 200,000 people through out these countries.

Fairly close to being objectively false. The extent of Reagan's personal involvement in Iran Contra is up to historical debate. Your figure of it causing over 200,000 deaths, assumes there would have been no deaths if the US had not financed "anti-leftist campaigns," and exculpates the Central American leftists (along with Cuba and the Soviet Union,) of any responsibility. If you think these anti leftist had no popular domestic support, I suggest you take at a look at the elections after peace deals were signed. Notice, I am not defending the Contras as great defenders of liberty or something, merely pointing out that your representation is willfully inaccurate. For someone who accuses Larry Summers of being "simplistic"....

Reagan had the largest growth in the American national debt in both the total amount in dollars and also as a % of GDP of any American President before or since. Number two is George W. Bush.

Objectively false on all counts. The easiest refutation is the debt when FDR left office. Sure, with WWII to fight, it makes sense that he would run up the debt, but again you make blanket statements that are simply not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ublic_debt

Reaganomics and free-trade has gutted 1/3 of the American Middle Class since 1980.

Marxist drivel, not supported by evidence. Reaganomics was far less radical than you have been led to believe- go google liberal Paul Krugman and Reaganomics for his take to see how over the top your statement is. As to free trade, I suggest you and all your Occupy friends sign up for an economics class at your local community college, before spouting nonsense. I am not going to explain it here, but suffice it to say that globalization, free(r) trade, and increased economic liberalism in the developing world, ie everything Occupy is against, have lifted over a billion people out of crushing third world poverty in the last 25 or so years. I suppose you don't care about these people though, because a lot of them are brown/yellow. You're a racist.

if everybody in the world like claeyt died tomorrow there would be nothing but improvement as a result.

It would suffice for me that such ideas were met with the same derision and ridicule as when a "right winger" says something not supported by scientific evidence. Like when Todd Akin stated that a woman could not get pregnant from rape, he was (rightfully) publicly ridiculed for making a scientific claim that was demonstrably false. Similarly, when lefties claim that there are no differences between men and women in abilities, interests, and propensity to commit crime, they should be ridiculed.

[Khaztropix]

stuff

Do you think the 8 years under Bush were better than the last 5 years under Obama? Please explain your answer.

[MagicManICT]

stuff

Do you think the 8 years under Bush were better than the last 5 years under Obama? Please explain your answer.

Yeah, because we weren't in a "recession" for 7 of those years.

Lets not forget the billions the military contractors made then and has trickled down the the rest of us plebes.

[Ikpeip]

Do you think the 8 years under Bush were better than the last 5 years under Obama? Please explain your answer.

Well, it depends on what metrics you want to consider, and how much weight you want to give them. I would consider Bush to have been a below-average president - however, I consider Obama to be significantly worse.

Quantitatively, Obama has performed worse in a few areas:
-Labor force participation

-The national deficit

-The economy, in general
[table at link, no graph]

The scandals under the Obama administration are concerning as well, and don't get as much coverage as they ought to:
-The Fast and Furious scandal, in which the U.S. Government armed Mexican cartels. These weapons have been used to murder both American and Mexican citizens.
-The Benghazi incident, in which requests made by a U.S. ambassador were denied, and then the embassy was attacked by terrorists and several Americans (including the ambassador) were killed. The attack was then falsely framed as the result of an impromptu protest over an anti-Islamic YouTube video, and the creator of that video was then arrested and imprisoned for a parole violation. No actions has been taken in response to the attack.
-The IRS targeting specific non-profits for political reasons, a horrible abuse of power which erodes trust in government institutions
-The Snowden leaks, which revealed the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens

Foreign policy under the current administration has also been shoddy, alienating allies and emboldening enemies.

Finally, the whole Obamacare situation is pretty dismal.

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[Darwoth]

let us not forget that the fast and furious operation (who the ***** comes up with these names? a bunch of buzzcut swat wannabes that got done watching vin diesel?) was conducted with the purpose of establishing a "connection" between american gun retailers and the narco war in mexico thus drumming up fervor for their failed attempt at reinstating draconian gun bans, i point it out because most people are to stupid to realize that was the actual agenda and seem to think it was just a ***** up instead of a deliberate act to cause carnage and seize weapons that could be traced to border state gun stores with the purpose of crafting legislation to deny americans their rights.

holder and the rest involved should be in a mexican prison right now.


i am sure claeyt does not mind, as it goes without saying that guns are bad and murdered border patrol agents were just "racist" anyway in his world view

[Darwoth]

as always, pictures are worth a thousand words.




vs

[Thor]