13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 4/22/13 08:07 AM, Memorize wrote:At 4/22/13 04:42 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:The UK has lower crime overall even with those numbers you provided which aren't being portrayed accurately. Did you even look up the numbers and how the UK documents crime before you posted?
And the whole point of the video was to show you that even by US measurements, Britain still has at least double the violent crime rate of the US.
Emphasis on crime RATE
And did you even watch the video?
It addresses your entire concern about differing methodologies.
Under the British methodology, they're crime rate is around 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000.
But when using the US methodology, they're crime rate is around 800 per 100,000 compared to the US 386 per 100,000.
At 4/22/13 04:42 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
The UK has lower crime overall even with those numbers you provided which aren't being portrayed accurately. Did you even look up the numbers and how the UK documents crime before you posted?
Do you have any idea what percentages mean?
Of course a more populated country is going to have more incidents of crime... they have a fucking higher population, moron.
That's why we break them down by percentages.
Would you rather live in a town of 100,000 with 500 violent crimes?
Or a city of 1,000,000 with 1,000 violent crimes?
In this very simple case, the city of 1,000,000 may have more crime, but they have a lower crime rate ( 100 per 100,000).
And the whole point of the video was to show you that even by US measurements, Britain still has at least double the violent crime rate of the US.
At 4/21/13 07:24 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
Their actual violent crimes or what would be considered violent by the United states is possibly one of the lowest in the entire world.
The US is around 400 per 100k in violent crimes.
Britain (using US measures) is around 800 per 100k.
You're an idiot.
At 4/20/13 06:31 PM, Warforger wrote:
I highly doubt that if you posted your opinion in a non-inflammatory way that was offensive you'll find more "intolerant" liberals.
I've tested that before with a few of my liberal friends on Facebook.
I didn't use names, I didn't call them idiots or use any insults whatsoever.
For example: A friend of mine was touting an article written by a major abortion rights proponent, and all I did was say the the author of the article was contradictory because she both denounced religious pro-lifers as being unscientific while then going on to say unscientific things such as claiming to be able to have an abortion at any time during 9 months of pregnancy, which completely ignores fetal development.
I didn't mention one instance about being pro-life or pro-choice. I didn't use any inflammatory rhetoric.
Her response? Saying the conversation was over and unfriending me for 2 weeks.
The same thing happened with another liberal friend of mine who though it would be funny posting an anti-religion poster on his wall (most of which included things I agreed with), but the moment his sister posted an anti-atheist poster, he flew into a frenzy whining about how "unfair" it was.
And when I pointed this out to him, he got pissed.
In the vast majority of my experiences, conservatives will continue to debate while liberals will yell something nonsensical while leaving the conversation by plugging their ears.
But then again, what would I expect from the same group of people who merely only pretended to give a damn about war under Bush's presidency, and who used the lives and deaths of people's loved ones so they could get a guy in office who would only get more of our soldiers needlessly killed.
That said your track record of that is very little and most of your posts insight massive flame wars. You've outright called people idiots because they don't agree with your opinions.
And as I've said before... I like showing liberals what it's like to deal with their asshole attitude, but one that won't run away.
As an example: John Stossel is a libertarian who is pro-free market, pro-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug, pro-choice, anti-war, and against the death penalty.
So IF liberals truly cared more about social issues and IF liberal claims of conservatives only caring about social issues are true... then why do liberals hate his guts while all those "fanatical" conservatives invite him to speak at events?
Liberals don't hate him and Conservatives don't love him because he is an obscure figure who neither have ever heard of.
And you're really proving that point... by knowing exactly who he is.
At 4/17/13 12:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 4/17/13 12:22 AM, Kel-chan wrote: Liberals....If I spent ten minutes on google, I could find conservatives who do that shit too. Like republicans who blow up abortion clinics and such. The mudslinging is just asinine.
The issue isn't that all liberals are intolerant or that all conservatives aren't.
It's that you'll run into a far higher ratio of intolerant liberals despite conservatives outnumbering them 2 to 1.
As an example: John Stossel is a libertarian who is pro-free market, pro-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug, pro-choice, anti-war, and against the death penalty.
So IF liberals truly cared more about social issues and IF liberal claims of conservatives only caring about social issues are true... then why do liberals hate his guts while all those "fanatical" conservatives invite him to speak at events?
At 4/1/13 12:22 PM, Warforger wrote:
.....Right so it was started under Bush.
It's a separate operation with a similar set up.
These operations have been going on for decades, the difference is that these are usually in conjunction with another Government... nor do they complete the sale by allowing the buyers to walk away.
Eric Holder was cleared of all charges and he had no connection to it.
Executive privileges do that.
Dictator-like power.
The country which rivals Somalia in its support for Al-Qaeda is definitely a hot zone, especially one where the US withdrew its embassy due to fears of security.
So we can kill whoever, regardless of whether or not we're at war with the country or any war time violence in the area.
Pst: Way to ignore the killing of his son.
Again Drone strikes are horrible, but better than the alternative.
Because that collateral damage and double tapping doesn't create more enemies, does it?
If sucking Obama's dick makes me not full of shit then great.
You're full of both shit and his jizz.
You said deficit you didn't say debt. Yes the debt almost doubled, but the DEFICIT has been lowered. I know those two are used interchangeably but they're not the same thing.
Bush (2007): $9.23 Trillion
Bush (2008): $10.7 Trillion
Difference: $1.47 Trillion
Obama (2009): 12.31 $Trillion
Difference: $1.61 Trillion
Obama (2010): $14 Trillion
Difference: $1.69 Trillion
Obama also voted for all the spending like TARP and Auto Bailout in 2008 (spending he supported and voted for).
Once again: You're both full of shit AND his jizz!
At 3/31/13 11:11 PM, Warforger wrote:
That was the ATF's doing and it was done without the advice or the command of the President. It also started under Bush.
The operation that begun under Bush wasn't Fast And Furious.
Also, unlike F&F, it was done in conjunction with the Mexican Government.
Yah bullshit. It was controversial when he killed a US citizen....who had sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda and who was in Yemen. The hotbed of Al-Qaeda activity is definitely not a "Green zone".
1) Not every part of Yemen is a war zone.
2) We could've easily captured him as we had people following him for an extended period of time.
3) You can't assassinate someone because of their opinions.
4) We also assassinated his underage son, where upon the excuse given was "He picked the wrong father."
That's not his fault, that's the fault of the American public. As soon as he started to try to move enemy combatants to be tried in the United States there was a huge uproar to keep them from getting in US soil. So it's quite obvious that this is the only choice he has.
I'm just wondering... how does Obama's seamen taste?
He didn't, in fact he lowered it.
He didn't; Congress did.
Even though several of his staff indicated that it originated from the whitehouse and that Obama was on board... after all, he's still the one who signed it.
At 3/29/13 11:21 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
& what do we have to show in North America from this 30 + year experiment.
HEart disease way up
Obesity way , way up
Diabete's from 6% of the population moving to almost 25% of the population ! ! ! ! !
And yet life expectancy is up...
How horrible.
At 3/28/13 10:33 PM, Warforger wrote:
The link you posted didn't say they caused cancer in humans but rather in rats. Humans have not been shown to exhibit this kind of effect,
It also didn't mention the fact that the species of rats used were just as likely to develop cancer/tumors from food that wasn't genetically modified.
At 3/9/13 09:17 AM, poxpower wrote:
She demanded 15 000$ instead of the already generous 10 000$ offered just so SHE WOULD FOLLOW THE CONTRACT.
When they said no to the 15k, she got into a car and bolted.
Because getting a lawyer to force a surrogate mother to undergo an abortion is... fine.
Well the end result is that the baby will cost other people tons of money. Congratulations.
Only thanks to the policies people like you forcibly put in place.
New law: All people against abortion automatically enter themselves into a random draw to adopt unwanted children who's abortion they prevented. You want babies in the world? Well, you take care of them. Enjoy.
I see that despite being a dumbass moderator for years now... you're still a dumbass moderator.
At 3/9/13 02:19 PM, poxpower wrote:
Yeah just let the kid use whatever bathroom anyway, who gives a fuck?
Apparently you and the parents because using a stall in the girl's restroom is like... so totahlly different than using a stall in the boy's.
I love how all of the dumbass atheists on here seem to believe that there are no such things as deists or religious atheists.
But what are to do with such idiots who are really only just as retarded as the people who demanded it be put on money?
At 3/3/13 10:42 PM, Warforger wrote:
The comments are flooded with Conservatives crying about how it's bullshit.
The Irony being that it's Liberal economic policy that causes a greater gap between rich and poor.
How's that Dodd-Frank regulatory bill doing?
Oh right, now the banks (most heavily regulated industry in the US) have even more money than ever.
At 2/28/13 10:27 AM, Feoric wrote:
You really have no idea how marginal tax rates work, don't you?
And you're a fucking idiot, aren't you.
I also like how you completely ignored every aspect of Obama being exactly like Bush.
At 2/28/13 02:03 AM, Feoric wrote:
You seem to think that the GOP is going to be unjustly criticized for it's role in the sequester cuts, but I think you're pretty much right other than that. Obama is just not a good negotiator, at all. He's better off just flat out refusing to negotiate at this point, honestly.
Translation: "When Republicans refuse to negotiate, it's obstructionism. When Obama refuses to negotiate, he's standing on principal."
Can you stop calling "it" The Media(TM) as if it's this massive monolithic entity that hates Republicans but LOVES Obama? At least call it the liberal media or something that isn't completely dishonest.
Expanded Wars.
More Soldier deaths.
Extending Patriot Act.
More Drug Raids (3x as many in just 1 term)
Assassination of American citizens (including a 16 year old kid in a green zone which killed him and relatives during a barbecue).
Considering the incredible lack of caring about any of these by the Media under Obama unlike the extensive, never ending coverage under Bush... if that doesn't qualify it as a monolithic entity, I don't know what does.
"But the economy!" You're probably thinking.
Well, according to that same media, the economy is on the uptick! Our problems are soon over under our Messiah!
Keep in mind that you're defending a President who not only is the exact same as Bush, but is also responsible for the direct murder of a 16 year old minor. But you're still sucking his dick so hard, you can barely walk around without people noticing Obama's crusted seamen hanging from the corner of your mouth.
At 2/27/13 11:56 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 2/27/13 11:07 PM, Memorize wrote: Meaning people like the CEO of General Electric, who despite operating a multi-billion dollar company, has paid 0 in income taxes for the last two years will continue to pay nothing, while smaller competitors continue to get soaked.Yeah, the federal income tax rate is totally the same thing as the corporate tax rate.
And you don't seem to understand that rich people know how to hide and make money in a way that avoids taxes.
Case and point:
Obama paid a smaller PERCENTAGE than his own secretary.
Same with Warren Buffet.
At 2/27/13 10:43 PM, Feoric wrote:At 2/27/13 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote: The absurdity is thinking soaking the rich is a good idea.What's absurd is pointing to the luxury tax as an example of why not raising the top marginal rates on the wealthiest Americans is not a good idea. Nobody here has called for it.
What's absurd is believing that rich people who were able to pay almost 0% in taxes thanks to all the loopholes, deductions, and lobbying will suddenly start paying 39.6% when all those loopholes, deductions, and lobbying are still in place.
All you've ensured is a system where:
Non-Politically connected: Up to 35%
Politically connected: 0%
To a system where:
Non-Politically connected: Up to 39.6%
Politically Connected: 0%
Meaning people like the CEO of General Electric, who despite operating a multi-billion dollar company, has paid 0 in income taxes for the last two years will continue to pay nothing, while smaller competitors continue to get soaked.
Excellent strategy.
At 2/25/13 09:57 PM, Warforger wrote:
Did you think that pre-2006 however?
I thought that since 2003.
At 2/25/13 02:51 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Now, if I'm reading you correctly, you are making the claim (or you are at least implying) that Bush benefitted from people voting several times for Bush in the name of deceased voters, and that this was a significant factor in him being elected. Now, I ask you to provide evidence for THIS claim.
I never claimed that.
Personally, I don't see THAT as a widespread voter problem.
Only that I had to constantly hear liberals whine about it for 8 straight years, only for it to suddenly "not be a big deal" when liberal backing organizations get raided for registration fraud.
Imagine listening to a liberal complain about voter fraud in Florida 7 years later only for them to not realize that most of the voting irregularities were in Democrat run stations.
At 2/24/13 10:07 PM, Warforger wrote:At 2/24/13 09:14 PM, Memorize wrote: Translation: "This was only a problem when it benefited Bush."Um no you're taking two unrelated issues. One is making it harder to vote,
*Translation validated*
Of course this is assuming that when Bush was President you also bombarded him with criticism....oh lol probably not.
I was 11.
And Bush is a fucking idiot.
At 2/20/13 12:52 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Also, let's not forget that this is a solution to A NON-EXISTENT PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.
Translation: "This was only a problem when it benefited Bush."
At 2/15/13 06:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Tell that to the people that can hardly feed there kids because the Auto plant shut their doors and moved to Mexico for cheaper labor, materials and little to no Union intervention for things like worker health and safety, medical benefits and guaranteed pay rates. Or you could also talk to the Millions of Chinese factory workers that earn less in a year than a Halliburton construction labor makes in a week.
Maybe if the workers who were already making more than the national average in just wages (not including benefits) didn't complain about "not being paid enough", on top of mandated benefits some people didn't ask for because they didn't need them (medical/dental), then costs wouldn't have been so high as to shut down the factory.
I like how you people pretend that shutting down factories and setting them up in other countries is cheap.
Only regulation and mandates will ensure that the transaction is fair and legal otherwise you get what we have now which is massive corporate monopolies getting rich of other people backs.
I never knew those bailouts were voluntary.
Or that I gave the Government permission to write checks to the oil industry.
Well blow me down!
Well being how apathetic consumers are I don't think they will be keeping anything in check otherwise they already would be practicing boycott. There is not competition only collusion and the illusion of completion. The free market will not empower anybody like you try to claim as people will still be apathetic.
Question: Do you support the bailout of a multi-billion dollar auto industry?
The Government offered protection as a last resort because people and corporations were miss behaving. Take General Motors corp as an example.
Oh, there's the answer.
Funny how your solution is exactly what you're bitching about.
Once a monopoly is attained there is little to keep it from falling.
Count up the biggest and most wealthy industries and tell us how many of them get Government assistance vs those who don't.
They are all symptoms of a failing economic system.
Corporatism is a form of Socialism. It's just a type of system that's redistributed to the wealthy.
Let me demonstrate.
You're blaming this on Capitalism by calling it Crony Capitalism.
But Crony Capitalism is also called Corporatism.
Corporatism is the economic side of Fascism.
Who did we call Fascists during World War II? The Nazis.
But what did the Nazis call themselves? National SOCIALISTS.
So Jewish people are saying the stereotypes are... true?
At 1/30/13 05:02 PM, theburningliberal wrote:
This is a good thing. Bipartisan consensus usually leads to good policy.
That certainly explains:
-CRA
-Patriot Act
-Drug War
-Bank/Auto bailout
-Iraq
-Afghanistan
-Drone Strikes
-Secret Kill list
As far as "trying to skip past securing the border," see the attached image at the bottom of this post. What is the first major point listed? And what office is sponsoring the message presented on the image? Now, tell me, how is Obama trying to skip past securing the border? More importantly, why can't we do both at once?
He's been deporting more people than Bush.
Not that you liberals would ever call Obama on that.
It amuses me to watch the atheists on this forum having this psychotic need to evangelize while simultaneously complaining when others do it.
Funnier still when you realize the total irrationality of it considering, to them, whether you believe in fantasy or not, everyone ends up with the same result while the passing of time guarantees that all of their actions result in nothing.
At least with those incompetent religious people it makes some sense that they do what they do. After all, it makes sense that they preach because they believe those things.
That's why I find it so cute, in a rather pathetic sort of way, when atheist go out evangelizing. Since, logically speaking, in their view it won't change anything.
At 11/5/12 11:07 PM, Osyris wrote: why should there be a debate, the woman who spawns it should decide it's fate and her only
making abortion illegal because of "god" is bullshit.
Stop bringing up religion, you worthless morons.
At 11/2/12 08:53 PM, poxpower wrote:At 11/1/12 09:46 PM, Saen wrote:And the fact is, there are tons of journal articles on the subject matter, but he won't find one discussing a species problem of the human species.
I don't understand why this is hard for you to grasp.
What I find, personally, hard to grasp is why people like you still exist.
At 10/28/12 04:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Guess what, I already have a terminal disease so watch what you say. I know it's passe on the Conservative side of the spectrum to actually care about others, but seriously, give it a try sometime.
You know what the funny thing is?
Most of those religious people you mock, will still pray for you and wish for your recovery.
But since I'm not one of those people, I have to say: It must be wonderful have a sooner/more accurate time of death to look forward to.
Which brings me to my question for you: Who would you rather there be more of in your life?
The evangelizing, religious creationist who prays for your recovery?
Or someone like me who rejects those types of religious people, believing instead in evolution and not promoting values by government, and who would actually mock your sickness instead?
At 10/28/12 11:35 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is a big difference between a cluster of cells that is an independent life and a cluster of cells.
Except that even a fetus is genetically independent life.
So? The purpose is not important. The status is.
Really, so you believe context and purpose don't matter.
That's as stupid as you people labeling something that's necessary for the survival of entire species as a disease, with the irony being that curing it would mean humanity would die out in 100 years time.
Until the baby can survive of its own outside of the womb (whether that be Mom's womb or a mechanical womb) it is merely an appendage of Mother. Whether it is destined for something else is not of importance.
Except for the whole genetic separation thing you like to ignore.
Tumors have developed miniature organs and teeth before.
Would you call it a fetus?
And so is a tumor. Your definition alone is not enough.
Which is why I used structure, programming, and purpose.
Someone doesn't like reality, does he?
It's not my fault evolution turned out this way.
And so is a steak, and you wouldn't claim a steak is a life, would you? You definition is far too broad and nowhere near specific enough to be the sole decider in what is a life or not.
Life has already been determined as living cells being the smallest unit.
No matter what it is, if it is a living cell, it's life.
This isn't new information. Why would you bring up common knowledge?
I mean just sit there and think about how much of a pathetic argument you just made is. You denied the fetus as being human life. I demonstrate that all living things comprised of cells are all considered life because the cell is the smallest unit of life. I tell you about structural, programming, and purposeful differences certain life/cells over others, and that because a fetus is made up of cells with a human genetic code, that by extension it makes the fetus fall under the category of human life.
And the best fucking counter argument you have to that is.... steak.
All it really is, is you being being proven to be scientifically inept and are now just grasping at whatever you can to save face.
Which, quite frankly is very disappointing, since it's so predictable of you.
Until the fetus is old enough to survive on its own, it is a part of mother.
But you're basing that on ever changing technology, not on biological development.
You clearly aren't listening. I explicitly said that viability (before the average age of viability) must not be supported by womb surrogate machines.
That's not what the law you claim to support says.
I was under the impression, due to your lack of facts, that the 23 wk fetus was just behind and the 22 wk fetus was more advanced. If that is not the case and it takes an artificial womb to keep the 22 alive, than the 23 is more important.
But since the 23 isn't really "viable" without support (according to you in this scenario), then how can you claim it's "more important" when, according to you again, they are both only a cluster of cells.
You calling one more important than the other under your own logic (where neither has any worth), is nothing more than a contradiction.
Still a mechanical womb. That fetus isn't viable.
So what would you tell those people who are alive today who were born "before viability?"
Oh, right. You wouldn't say anything to them. You're a coward.
Provide a source.
I'm going to give you this 1 chance to take 1 minute to google something this easy.
If not. I'll be more than happy to provide multiple sources all while mocking you, not only on your complete scientific illiteracy, but on also your shear and utter laziness on never taking that 1 minute ever in your life to confirm your beliefs on an issue you "care" about.
You actually created that story by adding facts after the answer was given.
It's funny how it doesn't make it any less true, now does it?
At 10/28/12 06:40 PM, Profanity wrote:
No, you just don't get it. There is no actual barrier between the living and the dead, it's just a convenient way to describe things to people based upon their interests.
Just because death happens in life, does not mean that death is life.
The reasoning behind a Pro-Choice stance is self explanatory. Legislating against abortion forces women to bear children against their will. Rather than forfeit the rights of women to satisfy the religious or biology-supported-emotional-interpretations-of-science, we allow each woman the freedom to choose whether or not to continue with the pregnancy.
Then explain me.
I put idiots like you on par with those religious whack jobs.
I support legalizing all drugs, prostitution, gambling; i'm anti-war and against the death penalty.
But i'm here taking you people to task. Why? Because your only defense is calling something a "right" without proving it to either A) Be a right or B) Why it should be considered a right.
Unwanted pregnancy is a real world problem which needs real world solutions. And you have my sincerest apology if I'm the first person to inform you that the real world can be a cruel place where adults make the decision to end lives.
The irony being that most of those "real world" life endings are subject to an arrest and jail time.
At 10/28/12 01:56 AM, Profanity wrote:
My point is that American Pro-Life Legislators cause much more harm than good along the way, acting with religious fervor against abortion, stem cell research, genetic editing, cloning, in vitro fertilization, contraception, and even cesarean sections... yes, really.
Then explain me.
An anti-war
Anti-death Penalty
Pro-legalizing all drugs
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Pro-stem cell research, genetic editing, cloning ect..
Tell me what my reason for my positions are.
