6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
the narrative has fallen apart and only the hysterical are still trying to defend it
At 8/22/14 01:10 PM, Light wrote: Why would it be a good idea to secede?
Avoiding the fiscal nightmare of the federal government, avoiding continual encroachments upon rights by the federal government.
They get federal tax revenues and the other benefits of being part of the U.S. Secession puts an end to all of that.
Their businesses and citizens would also no longer be paying federal taxes, which means the government would need to spend less money, or they can take over those taxes themselves.
There's a reason Texas hasn't seriously considered seceding since the Civil War, and it's not just because the U.S. military would obliterate them if they tried to leave.
What do you mean by Texas? Texan politicians, texan residents?
That Texan politicians by and large oppose it does by no means prove that it would be bad for texas, given the competing interests at play.
At 8/19/14 04:26 PM, orangebomb wrote: Texas by itself has one the biggest economies in the world by GDP (ahead of countries like South Korea, Netherlands and Brazil to name a few) thanks to a very diverse array of companies who are headquartered there from electronics, oil/energy, medical research and even manufacturing. Losing Texas means that America would lose a huge chunk of their economy in which it can't fully recover from. It would be even worse for Texas, as they would suffer even bigger losses, losing out on federal tax money, tourism dollars and having to get everything that a country needs would not be worth it at all.
Texas in MUCH better fiscal standing than the federal government, so even if there were substantial economic harm to begin with it would be worth it in the long-run.
a global currency gives virtually unlimited power to the issuer. And no, it doesn't matter if the issuer was "neutral" like the UN or the IMF, lmao.
At 8/20/14 01:03 PM, JTBr0wn wrote: If you care about the vets, then do something about it (vote, give, teach).
Pitting two groups against each other solves nothing.
The government is seeking to spend money on one group when they are unwilling or unable to cover spending on a group they are already supposed to.
So given the fiscal consequences of ""immigration reform"", then yeah, it makes sense.
It's like adopting a dog when your family is already struggling to make ends meet. Not strictly the dog's fault, but you still really oughtn't be adopting a dog.
At 8/20/14 11:35 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: How about let's poke a hole in all that defense budget as it's nearly 5% of our annual GDPand also because outside contracting done by the DoD is about 35% of their budgetor 650 billion dollars.
yeah i dont disagree
Cause you know, I'm pretty sure that's government waste right there, pork spending, you call it? And with that money, one could potentially invest
"invest"
you mean spend money that will lead to more immigration and more immigrant births which result in...more spending? I don't think you understand what an 'investment' is.
Or do you not want to invest in the future?
Opening the doors to millions of poor people and giving them free food, healthcare and schooling is not an "investment". It's idiotic. The government has to borrow hundreds of billions to cover current spending and will not have sufficient funds to meet future obligations. So no, this is the opposite of investing.
Oh that's right, you're too busy predicting the next general economic meltdown, which is like being a traffic reporter in LA and always saying, "Tomorrow there's gonna be no traffic": Yes, you may be right one day (out of like, ten years) but pretty much all the time you're wrong.
Lmao, you are one of those idiots who thought that there was no housing bubble and the geniuses at the fed had finally worked everything out. No housing bubble, just a great, strong economy that will never collapse, yay!
i mean, there's been 2 major economic crashes since 2000, with the second one much worse and in many ways the american economy has not truly recovered from the last one. How on earth is this remotely comparable to 'one day in ten years'. More live, every few years most cars in LA are involved in a pileup which hurts millions of people and fucks up the roads for years to come.
But do you honestly not think there is a stock market bubble? Do you think a bunch of bankers funneling their cheap money into the stock market = healthy economy?
Do you think this is sustainable given that is is entirely dependent on the federal reserve's monetary policy? Even if it lasts another decade, that's still pretty disastrous. Boom, bust, stimulate and repeat is not a sustainable way to operate an economy.
And what happens when things eventually do crash? It won't just be another housing collapse with a slow, shitty recovery. The federal funds rate is already close to zero percent. The dial is already set to 'stimulate the economy'. The recovery from both crashes has been cheap money being used to inflate an asset class (i.e. not a genuine recovery). What happens next time?
Wow, and you consider yourself economically versed? Oh my indeed. The Fed doesn't print money, the Treasury does.
I was obviously not being literal.
Unless, of course, you're implying that any influx of immigrants, no matter where they be or where they came from, have negative effects on the economy. If you were, I'd be laughing my ass off, because the notion is ridiculous in itself.
No, I'm saying that mass immigration of poor mexicans and central/south americans is bad for the economy. Which it is, considering america's enormous fiscal problems. If mexicans were good the economy mexico would have a good economy.
The majoirty of new jobs since the crash have gone to immigrants. Which means great for corporations who get cheap labor, but shitty for non-immigrant americans. But as long as the corporations are happy I guess that's all that matters. Who needs a job when "the economy is good".
Accounting for those who have stopped looking for work etc., unemployment is still above 10%, and while the S&P nears record highs. Thank goodness for a "good economy".
We get it, conservatives have a black guy fetish. Let's move on here.
Democrats are the ones with a black guy fetish, considering obama would never have become preisdent if he weren't black, and liberals are letting him get away with shit they would have lambasted Bush for.
At 8/20/14 05:34 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what exactly happened a cop shot a dude right? thats pretty fucked up regardless.
Well if his version of events is true, then not really.
At 8/20/14 12:51 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: If we cut the defense budget down some, it'd be easier to fix our broken, complex, frustrating, and flumuxing immigration system and provide a clearer path to citizenship, instead of simply trying to punish "illegals" and combat the telling of lies about them and their status and all that.
So let's cut the defense budget so we can spend money on an immigration system that...will lead to more money being spent on immgirants when more of the become citizens. What a great idea!
Get through printing presses warmed up Ms Yellen!
But of course, we can't cut the defense budget, because then we would be slightly less OP, and not able to fight all those pointless foreign wars and "police" the rest of the world. Whatever could my crazy ass be thinking?
Yeah, Obama sucks.
My prediction: Within the coming week, Ferguson will steadily transition from an authentic racial resentment rampage into a fruity Occupy farce as the original rioters are replaced by white hipster types from out of state.
The smarmy white liberal "leaders" will achieve by accident what the federal government was powerless to achieve: Compelling the rioters to give up and go home.
At 8/18/14 10:04 AM, Feoric wrote: As far as the autopsy report itself, it looks like he was shot on the underside of his arms, which seems more likely to occur if he was facing Wilson with his arms up to surrender. None of the shots are logically consistent with the claim that Brown hulked out and charged Wilson; they are, however, consistent with someone with their hands up having bullets sprayed at his body.
Okay the completely wrong version of events that you claimed "weren't up for debate" turned out to be dead wrong, so I really don't think you should start making authoritative interpretations of an autopsy report.
And this also doesn't explain why the officer was injured.
At 8/16/14 11:58 PM, Feoric wrote: Sure they do. An unarmed teen was shot dead in the street. Remember: he was shot in the back 35 feet away from the police cruiser. That's not up for debate.
LMAO, wrong.
"Late Sunday, The New York Times reported that a private autopsy requested by Brown's family found that he was shot at least six times, including four times in the right arm and twice in the head. All of the shots, the Times reported, were fired from Brown's front — a finding that could contradict a witness statement indicating that Brown was hit as he ran away from police."
Oh and the police officer was injured during the incident...so unless you want to want to claim that he did the same thing as Zimmerman and injured himself on purpose, its clear that it wasn't just crazy cop shooting at teens for no reason. The police might have started the fight, to be sure, but we don't know. And neither do the people rioting.
That strikes me as highly unlikely since there are plenty of people closer to home who would be much easier for them to enslave, and mass kidnappings of europeans will greatly raise support for governments launching a full-scale strike on ISIS.
At 8/15/14 08:14 PM, Feoric wrote: Is that happening to him now?
The officer has been moved out the city, but if you think that these rioters would have left him in peace if knew where he was then you need your head checked.
What's the difference between releasing his name on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday and today? Can you give me a rundown on the calculus that determines when's a good time to release the guy's name who created the situation in the first place?
I'm not saying it was/wasn't a good time to release the name, I'm simply contesting the claim that the rioting could have been prevented by releasing the name early.
Perhaps nobody is saying the rules don't apply, but they sure as hell acted like it.
How? There's investigations into the incident.
Nobody is certain what happened yet, least of all the people rioting and looting.
At 8/15/14 05:16 PM, Feoric wrote: Even if he was a suspect and stopped for such, that does not give the police carte blanche to just shoot him for no reason. The rules that govern normal use of force still apply.
Nobody of any authority is saying that the rules don't apply. Which is precisely why there are investigations into the incident.
At 8/13/14 01:54 AM, Feoric wrote: Anyway, this whole thing could have (most likely) been avoided if they had simply arrested the officer who shot Brown and released his name to the public
Right, so then they could have the killed the police officer or burnt down his house, hurt his family, made death threats against him etc. and then their would be peace, right?
There's three separate investigations into the case, so its not as if the police officer is going to walk away from this.
The rioters just made things worse for themselves.
At 8/15/14 10:45 AM, Feoric wrote: You know what, see me in 2016 and let me know how your plan is working out for you.
So democrats get their way and there is mass immigration and access to welfare/social services for these immigrants.
So now the budget is even more fucked than before, and when the stock market bubble finally burst, the resulting economic depression will all the more worse for it. So now that bottom has fallen out of the government's revenue and they have no money, they will either have to cut welfare spending which millions of poor immigrants depend on (I wonder how they'll react to that?), or they inflate the crap out of the currency (which they are already going to have to do to stop the entire financial system from collapsing).
yay, what a bright future. You certainly showed me!
At 8/12/14 11:50 PM, Feoric wrote: The GOP outreach to Latino immigrants makes the party platform look extremely attractive and does not need to be changed.
If republicans try the pro-immigrant angle, guess what?
Democrats get license to be hyper-pro-immigrant and republican voters get pissed off.
R: "hey guys, guess what! We're letting you come to america now, yay!!!"
D: "yeah us too, plus free healthcare! yayyyyyyy!"
Mexicans: "Oh cool, democrats"
Do people like you not actually get this, or do you just hope that conservatives will be dumb enough to fall for it?
At 8/13/14 10:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, a certain political group thinks the budget is more important than veterans, and also thinks immigration is a problem. If they didn't have their way, the VA would be heavily funded and we wouldn't be focusing much on immigration.
If they didn't have their way..implying they do have their way?
And if they have their way, why is so much money being spent on immigrants?
At 8/11/14 06:33 PM, Feoric wrote: If the GOP was spearheading the immigration reform talks we'd have a lot more Republican Latinos.
hahah what a load of shit that is
At 8/10/14 09:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: We can easily handle 50,000 more children.
What is this based on? The national debt is approaching $18 trillion and the government will not be able to cover spending on existing social programs over the coming decades.
If the government can feed, clothe, house, educate and provide healthcare to tens of thousands of foreigners, what can't it spend money on? Anything?
And I mean, it's not like it will stop at 50,000. The number is rising and rising, and the more receptive the government to them, the more will come.
I mean, if we were having 50,000 new white babies, you wouldn't blink an eye. Make them brown and foreign and you act like a demon being doused with holy water.
Look at that, a stupid liberal hysterically straw-manning over race. What's new. I literally joked about not being about to pay for everything. Where the fuck did you get ""act like a demon being doused with holy water" from?
If people were having white babies and the parents were raising and supporting the kids themselves then it wouldn't be an issue.
If 50,000 poor white kids entered illegally and expected the government (read: the taxpayer) to pay for everything for them, then of course I'd be opposed to it.
Just more prove that diversity is a strength. We need more of these people in the western world.
At 8/6/14 12:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Matriculate them. Why not? Make them Americans. It's not like they'll be taking anyone's jobs at this age.
Agreed. America has unlimited money and can provide housing, food, clothing, education and healthcare to everyone in the world.
Obama administration seeking $500m to train 'moderate' Syrian rebels.
The Obama administration has proposed escalating US involvement in the Syrian civil war, asking Congress for $500m for the US military to train and equip "moderate" Syrian rebels.
The request to Congress on Thursday, heralded by Barack Obama's vow, made during a speech at West Point military academy, to step up assistance to a beleaguered Syrian force, comes as the administration searches for effective alternatives to the jihadist army that has carved out massive swaths of Syria and Iraq for an Islamic state.
Previously, US aid to the Syrian opposition that is fighting dictator Bashar al-Assad focused on non-lethal provisioning, while the Central Intelligence Agency focused on sending small arms and missiles to what the US calls the "vetted" Syrian moderates. Yet the Gulf Arab states have established an arms pipeline giving a substantive military edge to jihadist groups fighting Assad and one another.
Caitlin Hayden, the National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement that the requested aid would "help defend the Syrian people, stabilize areas under opposition control, facilitate the provision of essential services, counter terrorist threats, and promote conditions for a negotiated settlement."
US military training for the Syrians, three-and-a-half years into a conflict that has killed more than 150,000 people and recast the boundaries of the Middle East, is likely to take place in Jordan, where the US military already trains its Iraqi counterparts. It is also in line with Obama's desired template for counterterrorism, as unveiled at West Point, in which the US trains foreign security forces to assault terrorists themselves.
Accordingly, a long-delayed war funding package, known for years as the Overseas Contingency Fund and before that a "supplemental", includes $5bn for the administration's heavily promoted Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund.
Some $1.5bn of that would go into a "regional stabilization initiative" for Syrian neighbors Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq.
The overall size of the wartime funding package, distinct from the half-trillion annual defense budget, is $65.8bn, down from $79.4bn. Much of that money will go to funding the Afghanistan war now that Obama announced that 2014 will not mark its end but rather the end of most US combat.
Yet the White House cautioned that despite a reduction in US troops, funding for the Afghanistan war will not "decline precipitously." Instead, according to a White House statement, "significant costs" will remain, both for the logistically complex and expensive process of removing personnel and equipment from Afghanistan and bolstering the Afghan security forces – a project with new salience after the US-trained Iraqi military was routed in Nineveh Province by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis).
So after toppling (or facilitating the toppling of) middle eastern governments likes Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Egypt which saw a rise in the power of islamic extremism, Obama wants to do the exact same fucking thing to Syria, despite Syria being a moderate state that has actively fought islamic extremism.
Oh, but don't worry, he only wants to give money to """moderates""". And if and when the Assad regime falls, I'm sure all the extremist muslims will respect this and let teh moderates govern in peace. It's almost as if the US government wants excuses to keep fighting in the middle east forever...
Seriously, if you still support Obama as anything other than an entirely marginal lesser of two evils then you are absolutely beyond redemption.
"islamophobia" is a propaganda term.
It's amazing how progressive retards like yourself will give a free pass to the most hateful, violent and bigoted force in the world today but will lose your shit over mean words on the fucking internet.
Ron Paul interviews Julian Assange on Syria’s use of chemical weapons
“Haven’t you touched on this subject, of somebody looking for an incident with Syria that would justify all of the countries to come in and the United States government to come in and the British government to come in and do something in Syria?” Paul asks.
Assange replied in the affirmative, citing a leaked report from Stratfor that allegedly revealed US, French and British military officials were hoping for an event that would allow them to intervene. The officials reportedly believed that there needed to be “some humanitarian outrage to hook it all on to, and we have seen that,” Assange said.
At 5/11/13 08:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You going to complain a violation of rights when the police are paying extra attention to a group that openly claims to support crime?
You don't seem like you would support racial profiling...
At 3/6/13 02:46 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I have refrained from posting in this topic because I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you are simply being redundant in saying people who aren't educated by Western standards score lower by Western standards?
Chinese, Japanese and Korean people score higher...by western standards!
There goes that theory.
If you are somehow suggesting that intelligence is based on "race", you would be so inexplicably wrong it almost makes your entire argument an extremely humorous satirical theory (albeit nine decades too late).
Your incredulity is not a valid argument.
To believe something along these lines would require complete exclusion of more significant factors - particularly of the environments and cultures in question - in addition to the dismissal of a century's-worth contradicting evidence. Your total lack of knowledge of even the most elementary forms of anthropology, biology, and history would be blatantly obvious under this premise.
Wow that sounds impressive and all but you're not really explaining anything concretely beyond "africa is a shitty place ot live".
As depicted by the graphs below, many African countries are on par with, or just slightly below east-asian ones.
The majority of them are well below, and the fact there are so many SS-African countries makes those with comparable survival rates entirely marginal.
And its an entirely stupid argument, because there are a number of factors that influence survival rate, IQ not necessarily being a particularly important one (and no one here claimed it was).
If you would like a little more information on why the areas you listed are in such dire situations (no, not their skin color)
Nobody has ever said that skin color CAUSES low IQs. Skin color is a proxy for racial ancestry, which undeniably impacts race.
I would invite you to do 10 minutes worth of research; unless, of course, you have no intention of learning about the world and would much rather retain your idiotic views:
1. Casue and effect: Why is it that low IQ countries all just happen to be plagued by these terrible problems? Could it be possible that the cause and effect works in reverse? Maybe part of the reason there's so much political turmoil and violence is related to the reason they have low IQs.
2. Chinese are overwhelmingly poorer than the average white American and yet score higher IQs. Poor white kids score higher than rich black kids. Thanks for playing, have a safe drive home.
IQ, in addition to anything beyond pure, biological attributes have absolutely nothing to do with "race", and anyone who believes the contrary is still living in pre-WWII ideologies.
Ideologies. The fact that there are ideological differences between now and a century does nothing to invalidate racial explanations of IQ differences.
Moreover, the term "race" is a highly inadequate description of humans due to its scientific ambiguity. A simple learning on genetics should make this obvious.
Not really, especially considering how well things align within racial boundaries such as income, crime, IQ, academic achievement etc
Oh and geneticists are able to determine people's self-identified race with almost perfect precision on the basis of a DNA sample.
Thus, its use is very much discouraged in the educated anthropologic and biologic world. Simply utilizing "race" as a variable in any serious discussion automatically discredits your position.
Uh, no, it doesn't. If race is taken to mean ethnic ancestry, then its an entirely useful concept considering how IQ is distributed differently on the basis of race.
At 3/16/13 04:16 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: I think the main reason these countries are "mentally retarded" are because they have very poor education if any education at all, plus, even if they do, these people live in places where they have to worry about food, clean water, etc., they're more concerned with trying to survive and pass on their genes rather than teaching themselves how to do advanced algorrhythms.
This doesn't explain the high IQs of the Chinese, nor the fact that poor whites perform better academically than rich blacks.
Of course if they had a better environment they would be more intelligent, but you're only looking at the causal relationship one way: maybe they have a shitty environment in the first place due to their low IQs. How could a low-IQ create a wealthy country in the first place?
At 3/6/13 03:48 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Pretty sad when you have to dig deep to find places that are dumber per capita than America LOL.
Americans aren't that dumb when you control for race. Non-asian minorities drag it down a bit; white Americans score around eighth for PISA reading scores, whereas Americans overall score around 20th.
Said places you listed are of the third world because they have been oppressed and subjugated by USA.
Erm...no. Those places have always been absolutely poor, with the exception of Zimbabwe, which was by african historical standards fantastically wealthy when it was known as Rhodesia and run by white people. Of course, when the blacks took over and it became Zimbabwe, it took a dramatic turn for the worse.
