You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#121 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 457 weeks ago
And they are savages. Look at their literacy rates and beliefs compared to the west. I don't want them in my back yard, but I take it since you're no savage you're willing to open your home to them.
Haji might not be a racist term (although I doubt you're using it to distinguish from other Muslims that haven't been on a pilgrimage to Mekka), but calling an entire group of people savages just because of where they were born definitely is racism. No point in sugar coating it. Every time you make an assumption about an individual's character because of their ethnicity, you're being a racist. Sure, statistically there might be more savages amongst muslims (I agree... there are; but statistically there are more savages amongst Christians as well, compared to Atheists, Buddhists, ...), but that says jack shit about the individuals that are actually living in and trying to flee a fucking war zone. You assuming it does, is racist.
Always someone else has to sacrifice for your morals. Never require anything on your part.
Just. Fucking. Stop.... Why do you assume that we aren't willing to support our own ideas? I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes to support refugee programs over here. And what sacrifices are you making when someone gives shelter to a fucking refugee huh? That you feel slightly less safe than before? That you see more muslims in your neighborhood? Oh woe is you... You know that in the US you don't prosecute people before they've actually committed a crime, right?
#122 Re: Guns N' Roses » Chris Pitman suing Axl Rose for unpaid 2011 wages » 458 weeks ago
So, being on a salary in Axl's band only pays $100k per year? Damn, and I thought these guys all were on huge retainers...
#123 Re: Guns N' Roses » Conspiracy Theory Time - Has Axl had a stroke? » 458 weeks ago
I'm thinking social awkwardness, shyness, nerves and a healthy dose of liquid courage go a long way towards explaining his demeanor.
#124 Re: Guns N' Roses » Izzy tweet about Axl and Duff interview » 459 weeks ago
No, Izzy was n`t a principal songwriter, I find his songs to be bland and mediocre , for me his songs are fillers, at the bottom of band`s discography. They did n`t release anything without Izzy because Axl and Slash were at each other`s throats, neither compromised not because Izzy was n`t there to write songs for them.
This! Also, Izzy's discography post-GNR is by far the worst of all former core members of the original band. I do think Izzy's presence was important to the band in a very big way, but I'm thinking he was more of a factor in balancing out some of the other personalities in the band.
#125 Re: Guns N' Roses » Axl and Duff interview » 459 weeks ago
At times this interview felt kinda awkward. I guess they just need to do more of these to find their groove again, get a little more comfortable with it (mostly Axl, Duff came across more at ease and natural). But it was great to see them give an interview to begin with, more of that please!
I liked the joke about the many, many layers on Chinese Democracy. At least Axl seems to be aware of it, which gives me hope that the next album will have a more stripped-down production style. I also had the impression that any new material will likely be actual new material, not left-over CD stuff with Duff and Slash added on top of what's already there (of course, song ideas, riffs and the likes will probably be reused, but not the actual recordings I think).
#126 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 461 weeks ago
Either you really do something about Buzz's name calling or I'm out of this thread. It's four times now, not counting his snarky, calling eveyone idiots posts. It's a waste of time responding to him at this point anyway. Nobody is calling anyone else, no matter how heated things get, from people who actually know what they're talking about, stupid motherfuckers.
+1!
#127 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 462 weeks ago
On economics he takes the anti globalist stance. Like Bernie he offers more than empty phrases about creating more jobs. He points out the problem, industry moving abroad for the cheap labor. In contrast to Bernie he doesn't blame it all on "the rich". I despise this polarization between rich and poor. It's not all or nothing.
But doesn't it bother you that he says one thing, and then does another? That he preaches 'Americanism', but makes his Trump branded ties in China? Doesn't it bother you that his tax plan, vague as it was, has had to be revised significantly by outsiders to minimize the disastrous costs associated with the original? Doesn't it bother you that his whole 'business accumen' shtick is completely fabricated out of thin air?
On immigration he points out what I consider an obvious truth, the mass importation of low skilled labor is devastating to the working and middle class. The west have spent centuries building up a relatively fair labor market, and now people come here to work a third world job earning a third world wage. It's not sustainable and it's not moral.
But doesn't it bother you that he says one thing, and then does another? That he preaches 'Americanism', but has his buildings built by undocumented Polish immigrant workers? That he's fine with Western immigrants under the current regime? That he fails to recognize that the US has by far the strictest immigration policies and longest, most thorough review system of any Western country in place already? That his minimum wage stance basically changes with the direction of the wind?
The reason I don't care at all about his crazy rhetoric is the uniform opposition to him from the establishment. One hand I recognize he has to do it that way to get publicity, see Ron and Rand Paul for what happens if you just stick to intelligent, sensible phrases (they ignore you into oblivion), on the other the opposition proves he is the real deal. That trumps any lack of consistency and intelligent plans, because what good are those if you'll never follow through?
You might think that the opposition to his presidency is an indication that he is 'the real deal' (proof is too big a word for that, but I'll give you that it could be an 'indicator'), but isn't the simpler explanation that they just fear that a big part of the electorate might actually be dumb enough to vote for him and that's why they fight him so vehemently?
Do I trust him? No, don't know him personally. Do I think he can get all this shit done? Maybe not. But it's a shot, with Hillary or any other regular candidate, I know 100% what I'm going to get. It's why I have never voted in my life. It's pointless. With Trump however I have regained faith, because they fear him. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Yeah, that has worked well in the past... like the US supporting Saddam Hussein in the 80's simply because he was the enemy of their enemy.
People like Johnson can't win, nor do they have the benefit of a defiant media giving me faith they are the real deal. That last part will sell me on any candidate. So far only Trump and the Paul's meet those criteria.
This whole media conspiracy theory is confusing me. The mainstream media in the US is all owned by prominent right wingers, it has a demonstrably right wing bias. Isn't the simpler explanation that they know Trump's behavior is the old-people equivalent of click-bait, and they know putting a negative, faux-outrage spin on Trump stories is going to give them the best ratings? It draws in both the Trump lovers (because they love it when Trump gets airtime), and the Trump haters (because the pundits mock/challenge him).I'm not denying the media has genuine power, but when they truly want to diminish a candidate's chances they just freeze him/her out (see Gary Johnson/Jill Stein and the silly debate threshold thingy they have going on).
Now, to be fair, I'm not saying that I'm not buying your reasoning at all. I do believe Trump is different from the GOP candidates of yore, and I'm sure that does worry the right wing establishment. I'm sure the Kochs' really do feel more aligned with Hillary, and that is genuine cause for concern for the country if she gets elected. But besides being 'not Hillary' there seems to be nothing good about Trump, and a lot of things seem a whole lot worse to me.
Most Trump supporters seem to recognize his 'crazy rhetoric' (to use your words), but brush it off as posturing/campaign tactics. That is insane to me! It basically confirms that they know he's lying and/or exaggerating, but they'll vote for him anyway. They're saying that they'll vote for someone that they recognize is lying to their face!
If you're really that curious to find out what a country run by an insecure, shady, power-hungry business man looks like, have a look at what Italy was like when Berlusconi was in charge. The only difference being that Berlusconi is actually more intelligent than a sack of potatoes.
#128 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 462 weeks ago
I liked Trump the minute I saw how much the establishment hated him, but I had to watch one of his speeches to find out that his policies are actually quite good. If he can do half of what he says it will be great for America.
I don't think it makes much sense for the two of us to debate the merits of a given policy, since we're obviously not going to convince each other anyway on most of those. What I do keep wondering though, is how smart people like yourself talk about Trumps 'policies' as if that's actually a thing. The man has been nothing but inconsistent on any real policy except for "'Muricahns Good, Mexicans Bad!" and other variants on the immigration theme... (and even there he's been showing inconsistency, with his muslim ban going from outright banning every single muslim indefinitely 'until we know what's going on', to now being reduced to just muslims from certain regions, but definitely not Europe).
Then there's the so-called "truth speaking", while he's continuously caught in lies, having to correct himself often within days of making a statement. His harsh tone supposedly makes people like him 'cause he's not a "regular politician" like Hillary, but he speaks like a friggin' insecure stereotype of a mob boss. Both are types can definitely be considered power hungry, and some might say there's not that much difference between the two, but how does that make him any better?
It seems like his supporters spend most of their time coming up with explanations as to why his lies aren't really lies, how his policies are actually well thought out if you dig deep enough, how his crass behavior is just an act to get more votes and he'll be all presidential-like once in office (really? so you're voting for a guy that's basically conning you into voting for him, and you're ok with that), and how the media is all in cahoots lying to us... It all just seems so... I dunno... desperate?
If you hate Hillary so much (I get it, there's plenty wrong with her as well), support Gary Johnson. I might not agree with all of them, but that man at least has actual policy positions, he's at least consistent within his own logic.
#129 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 462 weeks ago
You already have a dumbass in this election! You know what to do.
FTFY 
#130 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 463 weeks ago
She is clearly reacting to something yes, but I don't see any threats. I see a woman that looks almost hypnotized, I see what appears to be a medical professional coaching her back to reality.
Of course you don't see things that happen off camera, but you can clearly see in that clip that others see it too. She also clearly and immediately identifies what she's seen as protestors. If she had a seizure, she comes across as incredibly lucent in that clip.
But if you see nothing odd about her behavior here, there is nothing I can do for you. I assume you think "nothing's going on" here as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMHOcmDVBP0
[/embed]
Yeah, that was a strange episode, and it didn't need a doctored video (with added loops/rewinds) to make it look worse. If the people pushing this 'mentally ill' agenda were intellectually honest, they would post an unedited video. But again, there are so much more straightforward explanations for this than the 'mental illness' angle you've latched on to. If anything, she's just a socially awkward geek that doesn't know how to respond in certain situations. She flinches (probably due to the microphone popping up in her peripheral vision), knows it looks stupid and decides to make an awkward exaggerated joke out of it. Or, perhaps she is indeed epileptic, but epilepsy is not considered a mental illness, and is not considered a life threatening or debilitating condition. As a matter of fact, epilepsy is characterized by having no symptoms between episodes at all.
I say again, if Trump did either of these you'd hear about nothing else.
I disagree, Trump does enough stupid and strange stuff to make videos like the two you showed seem trivial in comparison.
This shit angers me, because it takes away from actual policy issues that are worth discussing so much more than this bullshit. There's plenty of reasons to dislike her, you know I dislike her as well, but peddling these conspiracy theories is just... ugh...
