Let's have that political discussion.

[Thor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faU-lqGWgiM

Okay that was my daily dose of WTF.

Who am I kidding I loved it.

[colesie]

There's already a thread for this TL;DR talk thanks

[wormcsa]

Haven't heard from you in a while. Thought you quit.

Yes, you were wrong.

You referenced 'The Bell Curve' and defended it's flawed analysis and research concerning race and intelligence. I simply stated that your ideas about race, genetics and intelligence are wrong and borderline racist.

Wrong. You referenced the "Bell Curve," and made some false statements about it, which I then objected to. Here I have an idea, I will say something false about "The Communist Manifesto," and then if you correct me I can then say you referenced "The Communist Manifesto." And what ideas about race? Where did I mention race anywhere? You seriously have an unnatural fixation on race.

You can tip-toe around the argument all you want but you're siding with Darwoth's and the white right wing parties of Europe and America when you try and defend the idea that racial superiotity is a factor in either intelligence, violence or culture.

Wrong. I did not defend the idea of racial "superiotity (sic)" anywhere. The communists used to say "those who say A must mean B." What you are doing is "those who say A must mean B which implies C, therefore he must be D." D is usually "a racist."

Okay, 25 years then.

Yes, wrong again. When I write a fact, especially one that can be easily googled, I damn well make sure it is correct. It might seem like nitpicking 25 or 30 years, but it just highlights how you can never get anything right.

[The Sandinistas] were banned from running by the peace treaty immediately after the war ended.

Wrong, yet again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan ... tion,_1990 And it is moot anyway, since I merely stated that the Contras having "no domestic support," is demonstrably false. Seriously, doesn't it get embarrassing to be wrong so often about verifiable facts? And before you accuse me, I am not arguing that funding right wing groups in Central America was a good idea- just showing why your original sentence was ridiculous.

As for El Salvador and the rest of Central America (Hell, let's throw in Chile and Argentina) who knows what would have happened if those right wing governments hadn't been supported by Reagan and the Republican Party.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore your attempts to broaden the topic by including Chile and Argentina, although I do find it amusing that you used two of the wealthiest countries in Latin America as your examples. I don't know what would have happened if the US (and Cuba and the Soviet Union) didn't meddle in the internal affairs of Central America. Apparently you do- 200,000 people would not have died. That you don't see the problem with your original sentence shows a general weakness in logic.

As for Reagan's personal involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, he was the president of the United States of America. Are you really arguing that he didn't know about it?

The history books say it is unknown- I don't pretend to be an expert here. Also, doesn't it logically follow to ask do you really believe Obama didn't know about the IRS targeting conservative nonprofits?

You're right,

I know, you don't have to tell me

I should have said: Reagan had the largest growth within the budgets that he signed and created of the American national debt in both the total amount in dollars and also as a % of GDP of any American President since WWII. Number two are the budgets that were created and signed by George W. Bush.

Congratulations, you have managed to correctly state a fact now that you added qualifiers "after WWII," "budget" and "signed." Of course the latter of which makes it rather meaningless when making a comparison to President Obama.

Free Trade without equal labor and workplace rights has destroyed the American working middle class. We've given most favored nation status to China which has none of those, and we're seeing the results of that free trade right now in this country and in much of Western Europe.

Do you think this is mainstream thought amongst economists who analyze this for a living? Or are you just an ignoramus who thinks he's entitled to opinions about which he knows nothing? Also nice to ignore the over a billion people who have been lifted out of third world poverty. If I apply Claeyt logic that means you don't care about them, which implies you don't because most of them are not of your race, thus you are a proven racist.

PS I am still waiting for an explicit answer to whether you think males have a greater genetic propensity to commit violent crimes than females, or if that's entirely culture.

[Claeyt]

Wrong. You referenced the "Bell Curve," and made some false statements about it, which I then objected to. Here I have an idea, I will say something false about "The Communist Manifesto," and then if you correct me I can then say you referenced "The Communist Manifesto." And what ideas about race? Where did I mention race anywhere? You seriously have an unnatural fixation on race.

Right, the initial argument was about you posting about intelligence and genetics and quoting research related to the Bell Curve. Are you saying that you no longer believe that genetics and race affect intelligence?

Wrong. I did not defend the idea of racial "superiotity (sic)" anywhere. The communists used to say "those who say A must mean B." What you are doing is "those who say A must mean B which implies C, therefore he must be D." D is usually "a racist."

Again, you argued that genetics determine intelligence and quoted me aspects of the research from the Bell Curve which correlated that to race and intelligence. You then went on to talk about the country you live in as I remember as well.

Wrong, yet again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan ... tion,_1990 And it is moot anyway, since I merely stated that the Contras having "no domestic support," is demonstrably false. Seriously, doesn't it get embarrassing to be wrong so often about verifiable facts? And before you accuse me, I am not arguing that funding right wing groups in Central America was a good idea- just showing why your original sentence was ridiculous.

Ortega is president of Nicaragua now. He wasn't allowed to campaign throughout the country in 1990. Either way, Reagan funded right wing militia's in Central America illegally and many, many people died.

As for El Salvador and the rest of Central America (Hell, let's throw in Chile and Argentina) who knows what would have happened if those right wing governments hadn't been supported by Reagan and the Republican Party.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore your attempts to broaden the topic by including Chile and Argentina, although I do find it amusing that you used two of the wealthiest countries in Latin America as your examples. I don't know what would have happened if the US (and Cuba and the Soviet Union) didn't meddle in the internal affairs of Central America. Apparently you do- 200,000 people would not have died. That you don't see the problem with your original sentence shows a general weakness in logic.

There's no weakness in logic. Cuba and Russia's support of Central American factions was much, much less than ours, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that if Reagan hadn't illegally funded right wing mercenaries and supported crypto-fascist right wing oligarchies in Central America then less people would have died in those movements.

As for Reagan's personal involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, he was the president of the United States of America. Are you really arguing that he didn't know about it?

The history books say it is unknown- I don't pretend to be an expert here. Also, doesn't it logically follow to ask do you really believe Obama didn't know about the IRS targeting conservative nonprofits?

The Republican congressional committee proved that the White House had no knowledge or influence over the stupid little tax inquiries into Tea Party groups. The Republican director of that Cleveland IRS division said that he ordered it because of their sketchy applications and that the White House had no contact with him about it. Every one of those Tea Party groups eventually got their tax exemption even though they technically fall outside of it, and they got it long before there was ever an investigation. All of this is Congressman's Issa's lies and misinformation to the point that a good chunk of the remaining non-delusional Republican politicians left in your party have told him and the media that he has no basis for the committee and that's it's a waste of political capitol and time.

I should have said: Reagan had the largest growth within the budgets that he signed and created of the American national debt in both the total amount in dollars and also as a % of GDP of any American President since WWII. Number two are the budgets that were created and signed by George W. Bush.

Congratulations, you have managed to correctly state a fact now that you added qualifiers "after WWII," "budget" and "signed." Of course the latter of which makes it rather meaningless when making a comparison to President Obama.

We won't be able to compare Obama's deficits to Bush's deficits until we get an actual budget out of congress. All they've been doing is continuing Bush's budgets with massive changes and problems. You can compare Obama's deficits to Bush's and Reagan's a couple of years after he's out of office.

Free Trade without equal labor and workplace rights has destroyed the American working middle class. We've given most favored nation status to China which has none of those, and we're seeing the results of that free trade right now in this country and in much of Western Europe.

Do you think this is mainstream thought amongst economists who analyze this for a living? Or are you just an ignoramus who thinks he's entitled to opinions about which he knows nothing? Also nice to ignore the over a billion people who have been lifted out of third world poverty. If I apply Claeyt logic that means you don't care about them, which implies you don't because most of them are not of your race, thus you are a proven racist.

Yes it's a mainstream political and economic thought of those that analyze this for a living. We're finally attaching labor rights and wage laws to free trade agreements under Obama as seen by the free trade agreement with Columbia, against the wishes of the Corporations that lobbied for it. Free trade is a good and decent tool to use but only with an equal footing or movement towards an equal footing regarding the 3rd world nation's laws regarding Labor Unions, working conditions, work place laws, and corporate and banking regulations. Without those we have what we have now: Massive loss of blue collar jobs to non-democratic 3rd world nations. The rise of the "billions" out of poverty in China and India is a direct result of globalization, not free trade. We don't have free trade agreements with either of them. An EU style of free trade would be better for the American worker, unfortunately we have none of the protections or workforce development that the EU has implemented because over here Corporations have lobbied their way to the most anti-labor agreements possible within our Free Trade Agreements.

Violence=Genetics

To your final point, are we really going to rehash the whole learned behavior versus genetic box that you put violence into. Yes, I believe that most violent behavior is learned and is environmental more so than fully genetic. I also believe that environmental disabilities such as fetal alcohol syndrome, lead poisoning and other nutritional aspects to pregnancy affect the bio-chemical functions of the male child and their impulse control throughout their life. Yes, testosterone does affect impulse control and violent behavior, so yes, there is a small basis for genetic variation between men and women in relation to violent behavior. Violent behavior overall is not mostly genetic. It's mostly a learned aspect to culture and environment alongside environmental bio-chemical distortions within the person.

[MagicManICT]

Let me put my stance this way: I really don't care how this country is run as long as it runs. It will never be smooth, and it will never be unanimous. That's a truth that is ingrained to human nature because we're not a hive mind. I've seriously sat and thought about better places I could go and live, and I can't think of a single one. I am certainly more than willing to uproot myself and my children for a better place to live if someone can prove that wherever they are is better than where I am.

they at least tried to get something done and backed up the President when the time came.

"backing up the president" in this administration would mean the complete and utter disintegration of the american way of life, thats why.

I wouldn't care if they backed up the President or made their stand. Either way, they need to get off their asses and actually pass something useful. Instead, all they can try to do is pass the same damn bill over and over again, every single time with not enough votes to override a veto or sit and filibuster any proposed legislation that might actually get something accomplished. And that's when they actually do vote on something. Has any had a look over the legislation that has been passed and signed into law during this Congress? I'm all in favor of not wasting money, but doing nothing while the country stagnates is like refusing to go to the doctor when you have a festering wound.

[Darwoth]

I wouldn't care if they backed up the President or made their stand. Either way, they need to get off their asses and actually pass something useful. Instead, all they can try to do is pass the same damn bill over and over again, every single time with not enough votes to override a veto or sit and filibuster any proposed legislation that might actually get something accomplished. And that's when they actually do vote on something. Has any had a look over the legislation that has been passed and signed into law during this Congress? I'm all in favor of not wasting money, but doing nothing while the country stagnates is like refusing to go to the doctor when you have a festering wound.

the only real and permanent way to fix the economy involves ***** and/or severely cutting back on the vast majority of handouts to the 48% of the country made up of freeloading ***** that collect them, nobody wants to commit political suicide for introducing such a bill when it will not be passed anyway. as such everyone stands around with a thumb up their ass talking a lot and doing nothing instead so that they are as far away as they can be when the house of cards finally falls down.

[belgear]

I liked fdr because he had a sweet ride

And clinton because he played the saxophone and knew how to bang

[Claeyt]

the only real and permanent way to fix the economy involves ***** and/or severely cutting back on the vast majority of handouts to the 48% of the country made up of freeloading ***** that collect them, nobody wants to commit political suicide for introducing such a bill when it will not be passed anyway. as such everyone stands around with a thumb up their ass talking a lot and doing nothing instead so that they are as far away as they can be when the house of cards finally falls down.

You do realize that the majority of those 48% are the elderly on social security and medicare, the disabled on medicaid, and veterans in the VA system right?

The only real and permanent way to fix the U.S. economy and government budget is by revamping the tax income tax code, the capital gains tax code, and the corporate tax code while increasing investment in new technologies and labor rights. The supposed "house of cards" isn't about to fall. We've faced tougher problems and we'll get through this too.

I liked fdr because he had a sweet ride

And clinton because he played the saxophone and knew how to bang

FDR knew how to bang also.

[Darwoth]

social security, medicare and medicaid are handouts that need to be eliminated, the country does not have the ability to pay everyones lunch indefinitely without imploding.


medicaid is the refuge of the welfare queen, not even remotely comparable to social security which is a ***** program as well, it is not my responsiblity to pay for some old ***** that did not plan for their life properly. medicaid should be the first to go.

i know several doctors who have to hide their disgust whenever a ***** busts out the medicaid card.

and give me a ***** break do you know how many pieces of **** collect a disability check yet are able to function perfectly normally? the answer is most of them.

the solution is to stop giving away free **** to pieces of ****, not "revamping the tax code" to steal yet more money from those who do something other than sit on their ass to give it to people who should be made into indentured servants for the duration of their free ride.

[Claeyt]

social security, medicare and medicaid are handouts that need to be eliminated, the country does not have the ability to pay everyones lunch indefinitely without imploding.


medicaid is the refuge of the welfare queen, not even remotely comparable to social security which is a ***** program as well, it is not my responsiblity to pay for some old ***** that did not plan for their life properly. medicaid should be the first to go.

i know several doctors who have to hide their disgust whenever a ***** busts out the medicaid card.

and give me a ***** break do you know how many pieces of **** collect a disability check yet are able to function perfectly normally? the answer is most of them.

the solution is to stop giving away free **** to pieces of ****, not "revamping the tax code" to steal yet more money from those who do something other than sit on their ass to give it to people who should be made into indentured servants for the duration of their free ride.

I can't even imagine the disappointment you're going to feel throughout your life as these successful and important programs that help everyone continue. They'll never go away and you'll just keep filling up with ***** and poison. The Democrats are probably going to win back congress in 2014 and are probably going to win the White House in 2016 and you're hate is just going to grow and grow. You've been misled over and over again by the news media of the right and you just don't understand how things are like what they are. Get over it.