even if true
It isn't true. Not even vaguely close to true, so we can stop pretty much everything after that from being taken seriously.
·English·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS aren't morons....today.
SCOTUS aren't morons....today.Follow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I'm still waiting to find out where the people saying we can't spend money on some of these programs are finding money to meddle with all the Middle Eastern *********
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out where the people saying we can't spend money on some of these programs are finding money to meddle with all the Middle Eastern bullsh*t.
You and Rahm both.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
From Big Oil, obviously.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
I entered, "Are private charities better at targeting those in need?" into my search bar and got a Slate article titled, Why Charity Can't Replace the Safety Net.
Next on the list an article titled, The Voluntarism Fantasy in The Democracy Journal.
I'm sure gbaji will let me know how I incorrectly worded the question to get the answer I wanted, but it was still a fun little exercise in google-reinforced bias.
Next on the list an article titled, The Voluntarism Fantasy in The Democracy Journal.
I'm sure gbaji will let me know how I incorrectly worded the question to get the answer I wanted, but it was still a fun little exercise in google-reinforced bias.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
You probably spelled it wrong.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I Googled "Are libertarian ideas about charity as incredibly stupid as I suspect?" and the first hit was an article titled "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid"
So, yeah, there's my research.
So, yeah, there's my research.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
I Googled "Are libertarian ideas about charity as incredibly stupid as I suspect?" and the first hit was an article titled "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid"
So, yeah, there's my research.
So, yeah, there's my research.
There's software out there that attempts to map protein interactions by data-mining different websites and internet search results. 
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
There's software out there that attempts to map protein interactions by data-mining different websites and internet search results.
Is that a mastturbation joke?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
If it was, it would have been about HARDware, not SOFTware!
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
.Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
FTFY
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
.
No, It was going to be like 7
tall, and about 12 acrossUse the .[pre] tag
Just as Planned.
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Helpful image for gbaji:
That's cute, as long as one doesn't realize that the picture labeled as "justice" isn't justice. Justice offsets injustice. Meaning that it only exists within the context of unjust actions. If I take something from you, justice would require (at a minimum) that it be taken from me and returned to you. Justice does not act to offset natural conditions. The tall person did not take height from the short person. Thus, no system of justice would require that his box be taken from him and given to the short person in order to balance out their respective heights.
This, in a nutshell, is where most people go wrong with the concept of rights, liberty, justice, etc. They fail to understand the difference between naturally occurring conditions and those imposed on one by someone else. Government can and should act to adjust for the latter, but while it *may* act to adjust for the former, it is not required, and it's absolutely not "unfair" or "unjust" for it not to.
The image is helpful at illustrating how people apply incorrect labels to things though. So thanks, I guess.
Well, if it wasn't so taboo, almost all of us could be tall, and allocate boxes for the few who weren't. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the only solutions are moving around of the boxes or leaving them where random chance allows them to end up.
Edited, Jul 15th 2014 12:35am by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
xantav wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Libertarian blogger on libertarian site cites her libertarian book's use of libertarian studies from National Center for Policy Analysis and Journal of Libertarian Studies.
Sounds legit.
Sounds legit.
Its totally legit. Sure, the studies are almost 20 years old with 1996 being the most recent thing I've seen, but thats OK. Unlike science, economics is stable enough that it never needs updating.
It does and it doesn't.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
.
No, It was going to be like 7
tall, and about 12 acrossUse the .[pre] tag
But isn't there a limit on the number of smileys? Like 9 [:lol:]'s? Yep, can't have more then 9 [:lol:] 's on a post
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Gbaji wrote:
Of course. The party that is *not* passing legislation that directly targets minority groups for benefits will always appear this way. But that's because the GOP is *not* being racist, not because we are. The problem is that we're being judged by a standard that is itself inherently racist.
Two points:
1. You would have a valid point IF there weren't prior mistreatment. You can't enslave a race, prevent them from learning English, strip their heritage/names, prevent them from going to school, prevent them from living in certain housing, prevent them from voting, etc., then say, "oh, well to make laws to address those wrong doings would be 'inherently racist'.
Gbaji wrote:
To me, racism involves treating people differently primarily based on their skin color. Period.
Racism is defined as the belief that a race is inherently superior or inferior to another race. People on both sides of the argument get this wrong.
Almalieque wrote:
1. You would have a valid point IF there weren't prior mistreatment. You can't enslave a race, prevent them from learning English, strip their heritage/names, prevent them from going to school, prevent them from living in certain housing, prevent them from voting, etc., then say, "oh, well to make laws to address those wrong doings would be 'inherently racist'.
I don't think that the policies to help those races should be targeting them by race though. The legitimate concern is that what happens to these laws as things do get better? You would have benefits coded into law for specific races, when do they disappear? And then what happens when there are people stuck in a similar location, possibly even neighbors, who aren't the right race to get the benefits?
The focus should be on the economic position the people are in. The issue being that the past racist policies have left the a disproportionate number of minorities in these poor conditions. Truly help the poor, you help the minorities, but in a way that could evolve to help anyone stuck in those positions rather than just specific races.
That specific case in Texas, where public colleges set aside enrollment for the top X% of any school, was the right way to go around doing it. Obviously that one was challenged too, but I think it has a solid reasoning behind it and would work well for helping those in poor conditions.
Edited, Jul 15th 2014 7:04am by TirithRR
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1. You would have a valid point IF there weren't prior mistreatment. You can't enslave a race, prevent them from learning English, strip their heritage/names, prevent them from going to school, prevent them from living in certain housing, prevent them from voting, etc., then say, "oh, well to make laws to address those wrong doings would be 'inherently racist'.
I don't think that the policies to help those races should be targeting them by race though. The legitimate concern is that what happens to these laws as things do get better? You would have benefits coded into law for specific races, when do they disappear? And then what happens when there are people stuck in a similar location, possibly even neighbors, who aren't the right race to get the benefits?
The focus should be on the economic position the people are in. The issue being that the past racist policies have left the a disproportionate number of minorities in these poor conditions. Truly help the poor, you help the minorities, but in a way that could evolve to help anyone stuck in those positions rather than just specific races.
That specific case in Texas, where public colleges set aside enrollment for the top X% of any school, was the right way to go around doing it. Obviously that one was challenged too, but I think it has a solid reasoning behind it and would work well for helping those in poor conditions.
Edited, Jul 15th 2014 7:04am by TirithRR
Also focusing on the economic status doesn't address racism at all. It just further pits the haves against the have-nots.
It's a tough call. Affirmative action, while still controversial, has been fairly successful in doing what it was meant to do (which, btw, was not to win over black votes....lawl).
Edited, Jul 15th 2014 2:27pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Recent Visitors: 214
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (214)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS aren't morons....today.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC