10,801 Forum Posts by "Light"
At 6/18/14 08:26 PM, Feoric wrote:
Well maybe they should just not believe the name is racist and grow a pair. It really is that easy. Checkmate, libtard.
Well, my argument has fallen like a house of cards.
At 6/18/14 07:25 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh jesus what a bunch of whiny bitches. OHHH THAT HURTS MY FEELINGS! OH IM OFFENDED! jesus grow up and grow a pair.
Did you even try to understand why they're offended? They believe the name is racist, and to be honest, they're completely right. Can you show to us today how and why the team's name isn't racist? Please, put some effort into your post this time.
To echo what Camarohusky and others have said in this thread, a football team called the "Washington Redskins" is really no different, really, than having a team(if it existed) called the "Dallas Coons" with a person in blackface as their mascot. Black people everywhere would be offended, as well as others.
You don't really have strong argument that those who are offended are being oversensitive here, Korriken. If you think you do, you're going to have to demonstrate to me that "Washington Redskins" isn't comparable, with regards to its offensiveness, to the hypothetical name of a team called the "Dallas Coons."
I don't think you can do that, though.
At 6/18/14 06:21 PM, orangebomb wrote: I'm curious though, there are still a lot of other Native American nicknames (Florida State Seminoles, and numerous high school) for sports teams that are still allowed, what makes them any different than the Redskins? (aside from money of course) Not to mention the fact that it took 80 years or so to address the name makes me a little disingenuous about the whole thing. If nothing else, it would be weird to hear about John Riggins being a Washington legend, but non-NFL fans might be confused on what team he actually played for when they white-wash the Redskins name (Unless the go as a generic nickname, i.e. Skins)
"Florida State seminoles" isn't offensive because it doesn't contain a racial slur in the name. "Washington Redskins" does. It's that simple.
And the length of time it has taken to address this issue is irrelevant to whether or not the name should be changed. To argue otherwise really doesn't make sense.
Somehow, I've got to imagine that the name Vikings would soon be on the chopping block, it's kind of obvious that their logo is a stereotype of Scandinavians, and they weren't exactly the friendliest folks to Christians or Christian culture.
But "Vikings" isn't an ethnic slur. It's a historical term that refers to a real group of people that is entirely devoid of racism.
At 6/17/14 11:01 PM, TheMason wrote: I can't wait for RCP to put up their House polling section. It'll be interesting to see how the Econ prof (Brat) does against the Sociology prof (the other guy).
I almost wonder if the Tea Party brand isn't played out on both sides. I think it's become a cliche.
At 6/10/14 11:35 PM, Light wrote:Not to turn this into another gun topic, but just need to point out a few factual errors (if you want to respond, let's take it to the gun control thread)...
We've just gotten so desensitized to these numerous school shootings. We just expect to hear about them every other week now. I remember when the Virginia Tech shooting got massive press coverage because in those days, school shootings were still relatively uncommon.School shootings have not increased significantly. They've remained stable for the most part (that is to say, rare). Of the 74(?) that Obama referenced, very few were actual mass shootings. Most were run of the mill criminal activity rather than some nut on a mass killing rampage.
I'll admit right upfront that I'm not as knowledgeable about the gun control debate and related issues as I'd like to be.
So, I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the subject and concede that I may be wrong. I am still inclined towards gun control versus gun rights, but yeah.
I blame the NRA and their ilk for blocking congressional action to stop these school shootings and persuading so many people to think that passing gun control legislation to stop these murders from happening is "politicizing" these tragedies.Yet another falsehood. The proposed legislation would not stop school shootings.
It could lessen them, or make them less severe. But again, I haven't invested much time in studying this issue, but I am certain that something should be done.
* The vast majority of schools are gun free zones (less than 1% of all schools allow any sort of concealed carry by teachers or college students). All schools that have suffered mass shootings are gun free zones.
*
Also, avoid looking for corp/special interest boogey-men who block things you're ideologically married to.
Why shouldn't I? Or, for that matter, why shouldn't anyone on either side of any political debate take up this advice?
Special interests on both sides of the political aisle have a lot more influence in congress than the public does anyway.
* The Left has corporate interests and special interest groups that block/advance legislation along political lines.
True, as acknowledged earlier.
* Both sides politicize tradgedy/crisis. Before he was Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanual was Obama's Chief of Staff and he famously said: 'never let a crisis go to waste'!
lol, I won't lie, that's a pretty funny quote.
* There are issues that stir up passions of grassroots on the Right as well as on the Left. Two of the biggest: guns and abortion. It would be a mistake to overestimate the role that industry and the NRA plays in the opposition to further gun control.
I don't believe they're the sole cause of what I believe to be the problem, but I think I'd be remiss to ignore them, considering how much lobbying they do and the financial resources they have.
Ugh.For every complex problem there is a simple answer, and it is usually wrong.
-H.L. Menkin (paraphrased)
Oh, believe me, I'm the last person to advocate simple solutions to complex problems, but I think we could be doing more to address gun crime in this country. What that is, I don't exactly know, other than stricter enforcement of background checks, prohibition of the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, etc. I'm more than knowledgeable about the complexity of gun crimes and the dynamics that drive them, and as I've said before, I don't know too much about gun rights/control debate. There's a reason that I don't post in the gun control thread in the political forum: I consider myself too ignorant about the issue to carry on an argument there. I know a little about this stuff, at best, really.
I'll let Camarohusky, Feoric, Korriken, you, and all those other guys carry on the real debate about gun crimes. Just leave me out of this, lol
I too appreciate that you were nice enough to share this information with us. Thanks, man!
At 6/13/14 10:45 AM, WahyahRanger wrote:At 6/13/14 10:24 AM, Light wrote: Well, thought to move faster and known to move faster are two different claims.Yeah, but you're making it sound like there is as absolutely no chance that it can happen, and that all scientists are lying.
And that's what I was getting at. It's still a possibility.
Sorry if I came off that way. That wasn't my intention. I'm just stating that, at the moment, there is no known particle that travels faster than the speed of light. That's all.
At 6/13/14 09:48 AM, WahyahRanger wrote:At 6/13/14 07:53 AM, Light wrote: No, that's not true. No particle is known to travel at or faster than the speed of light. You're probably thinking of those physicists who claimed to have discovered particles that traveled faster than the speed of light.Aaaactually the Higgs Boson is a proven particle that is thought to move faster than the speed of light, but it's very hard to absolutely say right now because they're so erratic it's hard to measure their movements.
Well, thought to move faster and known to move faster are two different claims.
At 6/13/14 12:58 AM, Bit wrote:
But we already know of particles which travel faster than the speed of light. There is no law of physics which claims that things cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
No, that's not true. No particle is known to travel at or faster than the speed of light. You're probably thinking of those physicists who claimed to have discovered particles that traveled faster than the speed of light. The scientific community was naturally incredulous and decided to try and replicate their work. They couldn't, and discovered that the scientists who made such claims made flaws in their analysis of their experiments.
By the way, the theory of relativity claims that nothing can travel at or faster than the speed of light. So far, this hasn't been disproved and has been supported by numerous experiments, so it appears to be true. Lern 2 science
At 6/10/14 11:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Sad side note, I am annoyed at how this has gotten more play that this morning's fatal school shooting. Shows where our priorities lay...
I agree.
We've just gotten so desensitized to these numerous school shootings. We just expect to hear about them every other week now. I remember when the Virginia Tech shooting got massive press coverage because in those days, school shootings were still relatively uncommon.
I blame the NRA and their ilk for blocking congressional action to stop these school shootings and persuading so many people to think that passing gun control legislation to stop these murders from happening is "politicizing" these tragedies.
Ugh.
At 6/10/14 09:50 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:At 6/10/14 09:26 PM, Light wrote: Considering that the U.S. already spends much, much less on its poor population as a percentage of GDP than just about every other 1st world nation,and like we give a shit about what other 1st world countries do?
Well, other 1st world countries generally do a better job of taking care of their poor population, so it would be advisable, in the name of human decency, to try to emulate them, even if we disagree about how to go a
it would be very cruel to enact the policy changes you're suggesting. People are struggling enough as it is. Why make life harder for them?it would hardly, it would teach responsibility and keep a transparent record that my taz money is being misused. and no one is putting a gun to their heads, go to a technical college uses FAFSA scholarships and loans, or go to your local union hall and see if they have apprentice programs for skilled labor and those pay far more than minimum wage.
Give them money so they can afford to go to school and to increase their human capital in general. Poor people need help in accessing these resources.
either adapt or perish.
OK, you're either a troll or a stereotypically evil Republican. "Adapt or perish"? Really? OK.
I mean, if you want to save money, I'd cut military spending, oil subsidies, and corporate tax breaks. Cutting food stamps is just fucked up and you know it is.we shouldn't be cutting military spending. we need oil subsidies because of all the programs attached to them. I could care less it doesn't effect me.
lol, OK then.
I'm convinced. Oil subsidies and military spending > poor people's problems.
I have a friend who works at a gas station next to all a subisidized apartment section in its own little area in town you wouldnt believe all the people that come in whacked out on drugs or who shouldnt be on it, there was this one guy who came in in a new chevy SUV didnt speak a lick of English (probably a immigrant), business casual puts a bunch of shit on the counter rings it up uses his EBT card whips out a wad of 50 and 100s and asks for 100 in change.
Yeah, most welfare recipients do that
and this kind of shit is a nightly occurrence for him.
Hmm.
I guess I shouldn't care too much about your despicable views. It's not like people who share your views are going to take over Congress and maintain control over the long term, let alone the presidency.
I don't even really have a problem with people who think welfare/food stamps should be regulated better to prevent fraud, like @Korriken, but when you say that welfare should be cut and families that can't adapt to those cuts will just have to suffer and possibly die, it makes me believe that you're a pretty awful human being. I doubt you care, but yeah, selfishness isn't a virtue.
I'm glad most people aren't like you.
I really hope the Tea Party takes over the Republican Party soon. It'll make it a lot easier for the Democrats to win.
The Democrats suck a lot, but not nearly as much as the Republicans.
At 6/10/14 07:31 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: cut it. last year congress cut food stamps by 8 Billion another 4 Billion provide random drug tests, and provide documentation of expenses of said public assistance.
Considering that the U.S. already spends much, much less on its poor population as a percentage of GDP than just about every other 1st world nation, it would be very cruel to enact the policy changes you're suggesting. People are struggling enough as it is. Why make life harder for them?
I mean, if you want to save money, I'd cut military spending, oil subsidies, and corporate tax breaks. Cutting food stamps is just fucked up and you know it is.
Oh, and contrary to what people like you think, most beneficiaries of food stamps don't do drugs.
At 6/10/14 07:43 AM, Korriken wrote:At 6/10/14 01:05 AM, Light wrote:I'll partially concede here that poor people can make imprudent financial choices, but if it were as easy to escape the clutches of poverty as you seem to imply, I strongly doubt there'd be many poor people in the U.S. today.I don't imply anything. I'm merely stating the most common reason why a working person stays dirt poor. Well between that and doing the epic screw up of making babies and having to pay child support. You also have to factor in laziness and lack of ambition. Some people simply want to stay stoned and useless. Some people are comfortable enough to sit on their asses and wait for that welfare check to come in. Some people are also happy with their life they have and don't want to even try to become crazy rich. Some people are mentally and/or physically disabled and are forced to live off the government/their low paying job.
Are you saying that this is why most people are poor/stay poor?
People don't really like being poor and will generally do everything they can to elevate their economic status.My experiences say otherwise. Most people are content to whine about being poor. Some people try but go about it the complete wrong way and end up screwing things up royally. For example, some kid goes to college and take up philosophy and then realizes that they paid $100k for a piece of paper that is pretty much worthless because a philosophy major doesn't land a job. Philosophy is great.... for something.
Ouch.
As a philosophy major(Who technically does live in poverty), that hurts, lol. In my defense, and in the defense of all philosophy majors, studying philosophy pays a lot better than most people think. I'll provide sources if you wish.
But yeah, spending $100K on a bachelor's degree isn't conducive to getting into the middle class(It doesn't really matter what program, actually. I wouldn't even spend $100K on an electrical engineering degree). College should be made more affordable for the poor people and for everyone. High tuition prices is actually one of the reasons poor people stay poor in my opinion.
Thankfully, I've saved a lot of money by going to a community college before transferring to a top-ranked public school. I expect to have less than $30K of debt, which I believe is manageable.
I'm not saying it's impossible for them to do so, but trying to save money by refusing to get the occasional pack of cigarettes and beer isn't going to be the ticket to the middle class.You mean daily pack of cigarettes and beer. But then again, if you can afford to waste your money on such, and still have money to cover your bills/food/etc are you really poor?
Probably not. But that begs the question: are the poor people you speak of largely smoking cigarettes and buying lots of beer? When I think of poor people, I think of those who live on like $8 a day and really struggle to make feasible budgets and stick by them because they have so little.
The kinds of people you're talking about who can easily afford the small luxuries of life probably aren't poor, but are slightly higher on the socioeconomic ladder and would be considered "working class." I'm talking about the genuinely poor: those who get paid minimum wage and/or collect welfare and struggle to make ends meet. These people aren't exactly rare; there are millions of people like them in this country and for many, it's almost impossible to get out of their situation because they have to stretch their dollars to avoid homelessness and to eat 3 times a day. These people definitely can't save more money and afford to go to a trade school or community college to improve their lot in life without substantial assistance.
There's a good reason that poor people in the U.S. are much less likely to move up the economic ladder than in other 1st world countries and it isn't because they drink too much Heineken and love getting Marlboro's.
At 6/9/14 06:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 6/9/14 05:51 PM, MrApophis wrote: If gay people had to suffer the romance us straight people live, then they wouldn't be happy anymore, and I cannot let that happen. They are too precious.If only this joke wasn't 40 years past being original...
herp derp if gay people want to be as miserable as straight married couples are, that's fine by me!!!1111"
You're right.
Although to be fair, a lot of groups, such as the NRA, really are nonpartisan. Take, for example, the rare breed of Democrat who's staunchly pro gun rights. As few of them as there are in progress, they still receive substantial support from the NRA.
In fact, a couple of years ago, the NRA backed 14 House Democrats over their Republican challengers. As despicable as the NRA is, I do have give them and other activist groups credit for supporting politicians who advance their causes, regardless of party affiliation.
At 6/9/14 08:50 AM, Korriken wrote:At 6/8/14 04:03 AM, Light wrote:Yeah, I don't think there's a determined causal relationship between smoking and poverty level. Only correlative.
THIS is why poor people tend to stay poor. $100 a week on unnecessary excess adds up to about $4,800 a year. That could be used to attend a trade school to make more money.
I'll partially concede here that poor people can make imprudent financial choices, but if it were as easy to escape the clutches of poverty as you seem to imply, I strongly doubt there'd be many poor people in the U.S. today. People don't really like being poor and will generally do everything they can to elevate their economic status. I'm not saying it's impossible for them to do so, but trying to save money by refusing to get the occasional pack of cigarettes and beer isn't going to be the ticket to the middle class.
At 6/9/14 01:44 AM, fmn335 wrote:At 6/8/14 04:03 AM, Light wrote:At 6/7/14 05:36 PM, Korriken wrote:Yeah, I don't think there's a determined causal relationship between smoking and poverty level. Only correlative.I read that then I think of Morgan Freeman asking if poverty is genetic... wth?
If he didn't have that sexy voice, he would have gotten into some pretty big trouble for saying that.
At 6/7/14 05:36 PM, Korriken wrote:
Because in the end it's not a money problem. It's much like how more 'poor' people tend to smoke than the 'rich'. You don't smoke because you're poor, more often than not the poor because you find the need the spend $1,500-3,000 a year on something that is of no benefit to you.
Yeah, I don't think there's a determined causal relationship between smoking and poverty level. Only correlative.
At 6/7/14 06:46 PM, InsectGadget wrote:
There is a very, very small group of people who think gays are 'Abnormal' and for one, if a gay person could discriminate against me by mocking my religious views (Which happens, all the fucking time) then why should I not be allowed discriminate against them? If a gay person insults my religion and I counter by Insulting his beliefs/sexuality I'm a bigot and he's 'Standing up against the man' Bullshit, my friend.
Being Gay is not normal, it's an adaptive trait, like Paedophilia or the likes.
So tell me this, if Gays are to be tolerated and treated 'Normally' can I treat a man who Molested a young boy Normally?
I mean, it's against my religion to do so, and he's part of the LGBT community so insulting him is 'Bigoted'
Right?
I'd respond to the argument you've put forth, but I've looked through your post history and you seem like a troll.
Either that, or you're just really ignorant.
lol, loving how you guys are calling Obama "dumb fuck."
I mean, I know politics is a visceral thing to talk about, but dayuuumn, you guys need to control yourselves.
At 6/7/14 06:14 PM, InsectGadget wrote: I'll just leave this here.
Yeah, I'm just going to have to say right now that gay people want the right to gay marriage so that society will not treat them as second-class citizens anymore (Well, that and changing the social attitudes towards gay people and passing anti-discrimination laws but it's a very good step to take). It's about normalizing them so that they are not treated differently than everyone else, which is just as important, I dare say, as attacking poverty and preventing war. What these all have in common is that they are rooted in injustice, something that all people have a moral obligation to oppose and eradicate. In that regard, legalizing gay marriage is about fighting and eliminating injustice and is no less worthy a cause than fighting poverty and preventing war.
But hey, why think critically about the issues when you can lazily post an image designed by someone who was under the delusion that they were being witty and intelligent? By the way, the logic that the image you posted uses can be applied to the concept of interracial marriage bans. After all, why do you have to get married to a person of another race and have that marriage validated by the government? Why not just love them and leave it at that? It's not like getting married to someone of another race will change your lifestyle much for the better or anything(By the way, marriage comes with a lot of rights and benefits, so it's absolutely not true that getting married doesn't change much).
Either make intelligent, thoughtful posts or don't make any posts at all here. Take that shit back to the general forum, son.
At 5/31/14 09:04 PM, Korriken wrote: Looks like I'm job hunting again. My job is literally, slowly killing me.
I began suffering some mild chest pains about a month ago so I went to see a doctor. He said I'm under some rather extreme stress and if I don't relieve it, it could lead to heart complications.
Needless to say, I'm on the lookout for a more relaxed job. I can handle hard work, but the constant negative social interactions I have where I'm at now is causing me to have health issues.
Smoking weed always helps with stress. ;)
But of course, if you're not into that, you can try mild aerobic exercise—walking or jogging will do the trick. Exercise has been shown to mitigate stress and I must say that from personal experience, it's true.
At 6/1/14 06:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Actually, I would posit the old methods are better. By old methods, I mean digging through his past and finding people he knows. The NSA might be able to find some bad sentences or soundbites here and there, but the unearthing of an old enemy can brin gup entire bad stories and bad chapters in a life.
Just look at Wehby in Oregon. She may have said some dumb shit in the past, but the most damning things against here were the fights she had with her exes, and that was found the old fashioned way.
I'm willing to concede that it might work better in some cases to do things the old-fashioned way, but looking toward the future, it'll be far more damaging to look into a politician's digital past, unless he/she decided years and years in advance not to leave a trace of him/herself on the Internet. An awful lot of millenials will be entering the world of politics and some will have wished that they didn't post pictures of themselves doing stupid shit on Facebook/Instagram, even if they had those photos deleted.
Of course, my concern is more theoretical than anything. Maybe this won't be a problem in the future, but I feel that it would be imprudent to dismiss this as wild speculation, given the kind of surveillance state that America has become now.
At 6/1/14 07:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 6/1/14 06:21 PM, Light wrote: Definition of democracy.If you would read that same website's definition of Republic, it would fit far more with the US than the definition of Democracy. Which makes part # of the Democracy definition a lazy fact at best.
de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
Yep, America is a democracy, Camaro.
Here's a quick defintion: Democracy is direct vote. Republic is voting for representatives to vote on your behalf.
Which of those two is more like the American Federal system?
Admittedly, the definition of Republic.
But remember this definition that I cited?
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
That part of the definition applies to the U.S., Camaro. You'll have to keep in mind that there are different kinds of democracy. Direct democracy is one of them, and representative democracy is another. For all intents and purposes, "republic" is a synonym for "representative democracy."The dictionary is on my side on this one, man. :-)
de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
Yep, America is a democracy, Camaro.
At 6/1/14 01:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
First off, no it doesn't. Second, America is not a Democracy. Never has been.
I really don't want to sound like a smart ass, but yes, America is a democracy.
You might retort by saying that it's a "republic," but according to the dictionary, republics are a kind of democracy.
At 5/31/14 10:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 5/31/14 09:09 PM, Korriken wrote: If you don't think government officials would not use this data against political rivals, think again.Yeh, but why spend hundred of millions using the NSA when you can spend far less and with a ton more legaility the old fashioned way?
Because the NSA-route is more effective and comprehensive?
It's possible that Barack Obama, for example, has some genuine demons in his past that should remain secret, but might not if he was subjected to this 1984-style surveillance his whole life.
Of course, it remains to be seen if future politicians will have to worry about this kind of stuff.
At 5/31/14 10:18 PM, kazumazkan wrote: At 5/31/14 10:15 PM, Light wrote: It's also worth noting that all feminists oppose the double standards that harm men but benefit women. Technically speaking, they wouldn't be feminists if they supported the superiority of women over men; rather, feminists support the equality of the sexes. Talk to most feminists, and I'm sure you'll find that they oppose these double standards too.
avoid tumblr and parts of youtube if you want to achieve this
Well, anyone who advocates those double-standards is, as I've said before, not a feminist. Anyone who claims to be a feminist but supports them is nothing more than an impostor.
It's also worth noting that all feminists oppose the double standards that harm men but benefit women. Technically speaking, they wouldn't be feminists if they supported the superiority of women over men; rather, feminists support the equality of the sexes. Talk to most feminists, and I'm sure you'll find that they oppose these double standards too.
