Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Political empathy

Political empathy (Page 2)
Thread Tools
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2016, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I am highly dependent upon government for is them upholding the principle of not intruding on how I live my life.
Im not sure I understand this: Isn't government failing at this already? I mean it's already so bad you cant eat or drink water without their permission. Try hunting your own food or capturing you own water without excessive taxes and permits and see what happens. Nothing protecting some of the most basic things. You're only allowed to do things if it's through the dependency system they created.

If Trump gets more than one Supreme Court appointment, Federally protected civil liberties are in danger of reverting to state control.

Depending upon the state, this could quite easily have a significant effect upon me as an individual.
Doesn't that give you more power? Doesn't it make sense as our nation surpasses 300 million to not have blanket rules trying to cover everybody; but let states decided and peeps can go to the state that most represents them? Easier to control state governments than the feds. In any case while this might be a legit complaint does it justify crying? Do we need to provide the proverbial shoulder and head pat while telling people "it's gonna be ok, you're still a special unique flower etc etc."

besson3c How on Earth can anybody think that a country where black people are routinely shot by the police, our politicians support cruel gay conversion therapy, women still don't have access to many of the same opportunities, and the amount of hate crimes towards Muslims and all sorts of other populations is as high as it is that we have too much empathy?
I'll tell you how on earth ... Many of us dont believe in any of the 'everybody's oppressed' stuff to begin with. Of course it happens, but it's such a fringe thing we dont believe in turning everything upside down to fix it. There are far more important problems we need to put our resources into. Liberals have kinda shot themselves in the foot here. When people everywhere are being accused of racism or sexism every time they dont hire someone... even every time they dont smile at someone in the hallway... and people know they werent being kjdfdsfnwhatevercist, then it loses all merit. It makes you think that maybe all the accusations are fake. All stats stating such things are done by professor types who clearly have a political agenda. Not to mention no stats can read people's minds.

You shouldn't be picking politicians based on policies that only affect fringe 'groups' anyway. It's a democracy. Politicians should be picked based on policies that affect everybody, or at the very least, the majority.

Waragainstsleep

Firstly, conservatives do not have a monopoly on being productive. Nor re they all rough, tough cowboys.
Whoa whoa hold up there buckaroo! Nobody said anything about being rough 'n tough cowboys. Remember when grown adults who didnt throw a hissy fit over everything little thing were considered normal? Why cant people just be adults, take responsibility for their situation in life, not cry just because someone makes fun of them, or because someone they never met made fun of someone else they never met who happens to be the same gender as them, or because someone elses version of kardashian won the popularity contest over their version of kardashian? Not crying over a politician doesnt make someone a tough cowgirl.

Its pretty clear a lot of them have a whole raft of their own issues around their feelings. Leaving your stereotypical conservatives alone typically means leaving them to oppress, exploit and mistreat anyone they deem opposable, exploitable or different from themselves. So lets abandon the stereotypes shall we because your heroic conservatives do not come out looking good under such conditions.
It's not about "looking good". It's about reality, and being honest with ourselves. We live in a reality where exploitation exists, and has to exists. It's nature. It can't be changed. How do we know it can't be changed? Because liberals do it even more than conservatives. So sure liberals think they look good since they go around saying they dont believe in exploitation (when referring to themselves mostly) all the while taking every opportunity they can to exploit. The only thing thats changed between slave times and now is now most our slavery is in another country, something we could easily fix... if we wanted to. So far nobody has every proven by example that we can make exploitation a thing of the past. Hell it's not even anywhere near the top of our political debates/priorities.

"Oh look 102 unarmed people of the same race were killed by cops in a sea of 300 million this year" Whats the problem? "the only problem is they should have killed 1000 unarmed white people to make the numbers even... Then there'd be no problem 'cause it wouldnt be prejudice". An example of the argument for modern oppression...

You're going too far past the happy medium which is exactly what the people you are moaning about have done. Not everyone needs an emotional support animal, but some people find them very helpful.
It's quickly becoming a thing in the US. When I go to the airport it looks like 1 out of every 30 has an emotional support dog, or bird, or rabbit, or turtle (seriously). It used to be a health code violation to have animals in food establishments. Now we're seeing them everywhere. A step backwards in society all in the name of protecting people's emotions.

Just because you don't doesn't make you a well adjusted tough guy and them a pussy.
lol interesting way of putting it, it doesnt make me a tough guy, but it certainly makes them a wuss & so much more

I don't think liberals claim their lifestyle to be superior at all, just their attitude to the lifestyles of others.
They do all over the net, but one doesnt need look any further than macnn. R's are Uneducated uneducated uneducated NASCAR-watching creationist shit-kickers who dont realize how much more money and happiness they'd have if only they'd move to the big city and acquire a government approved 4 year collectivist indoctrination certificate which may or may not get them an office job shuffling paper. "B-but just follow your dreams!" we tell them in the name of stroking thy ego.

By which I mean people with different sexual preferences, social groups, etc,
Yes many are hypocrites in this way. But you have to admit the dems are worse when it comes to hypocrisy & they seem to eat up everything their party projects, where as republican constituents are always hammering away at their party at least trying to keep them in line. This is what dems call "the republicans imploding".

not people who choose to sponge off the state rather than work. It was my understanding that there are plenty of conservatives who do that in the white trash trailer parks, but perhaps you believe they are all good honest folk who just can't find a job? That would be selectively charitable of you.
This is likely rumor. As much as liberals would like to believe that there's these republican trailer trash on welfare somewhere; it doesnt add up. And it's definitely not the norm. Why would welfare trailer-trash vote against their own free handouts? Most Trailer trash folk in red districts are a-political not showing up to vote one way or the other. It's well established that democrat is the party of free handouts, there's no sense in even debating this. Obama even tried giving out free cars to the poor while crushing the used cars, which upset the auto industry all the way to central america since many those cars would have made their way to other countries where they'd have been restored & resold.

As for the effect Trump might have as one guy? What if he starts a war through his stubbornness or ignorance? I'd love for you to dismiss that as unthinkable, because as a stereotypical tough guy conservative, you must surely believe you might realistically one day need your guns to overthrow a tyrannical government (if not repel an invading force) no?
We are actually always closer to being on the verge of war than people think regardless of which party is in power.
We probably wont have to worry about having to overthrow the government with Trumps feds trying to give up federal power to the states. In all honesty, the thing many of us do fear when it comes to usefulness of 2nd amendment is what many call the zombie apocalypse. Zombies being the inner city riff-raff which in the event of localized infrastructure collapse will join in gang like mobs to rob and loot from the homes and businesses of the productive class. Those who responsibly saved food and what not will be attacked by those who lived hedonistically moment to moment completely unprepared for any misfortune in their life. These inner city poor people are dangerous, very physically fit due to the fact they dont have a regular job much, no stress, they mostly sleep, workout, eat, down protein shakes, play sports etc. If not on the government's dime then on their parent's. Come a hurricane, flood, EMP, or nuke, these people will be ready to attack us; and we need to be forever vigilant & ready
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2016, 10:10 PM
 
I want to see you actually throw down with the "suck it up, pussy" routine on a woman who's crying over something not worth crying about.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2016, 10:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I'll tell you how on earth ... Many of us dont believe in any of the 'everybody's oppressed' stuff to begin with. Of course it happens, but it's such a fringe thing we dont believe in turning everything upside down to fix it. There are far more important problems we need to put our resources into. Liberals have kinda shot themselves in the foot here. When people everywhere are being accused of racism or sexism every time they dont hire someone... even every time they dont smile at someone in the hallway... and people know they werent being kjdfdsfnwhatevercist, then it loses all merit. It makes you think that maybe all the accusations are fake. All stats stating such things are done by professor types who clearly have a political agenda. Not to mention no stats can read people's minds.

Unfortunately, people often seem to need rules to know how to be nice to each other, which is sad.

Of course people manipulate our sensibilities and emotions to be overly politically correct, but just because this happens doesn't mean that we should just trample over other human beings and not attempt to be decent human beings.

Whether you or not you want to use words like "fringe", human beings are no question cruel to each other. Racism exists, sexism exists, homophobia exists, triggering exists, micro-aggressions exist, and the solution to none of these clearly apparent problems is being less empathetic.

I do get your point about people being overly manipulative with the PC card (I could use the word "fringe" to label this, but this, like your label, is a matter of perception). However, just taking this to the extreme as you have done here is overcompensating, and it quite frankly makes you seem like a dick. I'm assuming you are also a white male?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2016, 10:44 PM
 
@ subego, I can assure you on the internet Im far far more politically correct and diplomatic than IRL. You just cant get away with online what you can get away with IRL. While I dont use the word 'pussy' I have laughed at, and made fun of a woman before when she was crying after Obama won in 2008, other people (all black liberals for what it's worth) even joined me in the fun. She always voted R, but I never recognized her conservativeship due to her being one of those hypocritical republican types... and well the fact that she cried based on a presidential election. And yes she was being a stupid baby, it works the same on both sides. And after this election now she's one whos telling everyone to suck it up.

If these crybabies aren't being straight up losers, then they're using people's empathy as a means of manipulative control. It really is a powerful thing, just like crying your way out of speeding tickets. There's people who successfully do that for everything in life.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2016, 10:49 PM
 
el chupacabra, would you tell OAW to his face that racism is just a fringe thing, or andi pandi that sexism is a fringe thing too if they both claimed to have experienced it personally?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2016, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
@ subego, I can assure you on the internet Im far far more politically correct and diplomatic than IRL. You just cant get away with online what you can get away with IRL. While I dont use the word 'pussy' I have laughed at, and made fun of a woman before when she was crying after Obama won in 2008, other people (all black liberals for what it's worth) even joined me in the fun. She always voted R, but I never recognized her conservativeship due to her being one of those hypocritical republican types... and well the fact that she cried based on a presidential election. And yes she was being a stupid baby, it works the same on both sides. And after this election now she's one whos telling everyone to suck it up.

If these crybabies aren't being straight up losers, then they're using people's empathy as a means of manipulative control. It really is a powerful thing, just like crying your way out of speeding tickets. There's people who successfully do that for everything in life.

Maybe a sensitive person cannot help being sensitive any more than you can't help being (I'm presuming) a white male?

You really do seem like an asshole.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 12:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
While I dont use the word 'pussy'
Why not?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Unfortunately, people often seem to need rules to know how to be nice to each other, which is sad.
I'm being completely honest here when I say this sounds totally crazy to me. What people need is to be socialized and disciplined starting when their young. The kids who are told "stop crying before I give you something to cry about" are the ones becoming most successful in life. They become humble - learn how to solve problems, how to roll with an insult & turn it into a positive. The issue isnt with the "mean" people, its with the people who are so easily offended by words. They cant deal with life. We have this whole conservative movement against political correctness not because people have become less PC, but because the "sensitive people" have slid the bar now defining everything conservatives say as offensive.

Of course people manipulate our sensibilities and emotions to be overly politically correct, but just because this happens doesn't mean that we should just trample over other human beings and not attempt to be decent human beings.
I didnt say we should trample on people. I simply pointed out that thats what everyone supports doing so why pretend y'all care anymore? Liberals love slavery, and everything inbetween as much as everyone they criticize, admit it. Im the only one on this forum who's gone apeshit over outsourced slavery while other people think going apeshit over gender & bathrooms in 1st world high society is more important for human rights. The top issues for the sensitive hypocrite crowd are legalized pot and a worthless piece of paper that says government approved gay marriage. People actually think that that added something that wasnt already available.

Whether you or not you want to use words like "fringe", human beings are no question cruel to each other. Racism exists, sexism exists, homophobia exists, triggering exists, micro-aggressions exist,
Exactly!! People are cruel!!!! ALL of them. You're starting to get it. As soon as some poor, sensitive, democrat, cry-baby gets power, they are the 1st to unleash 10x the cruelty they experienced themselves. You'd think they'd learn & not want to do unto others what they said was wrong when it was done unto them, but I have yet to ever see this happen. If just 1 in 5 people was a good person the world would be perfect utopia bliss. 'Cause those 20% could easily clean up the mess of everyone else. A primary problem in society is everyone thinking they're good, when in fact, most are the bad guy. All people have done is manage to distance themselves from destruction they create.

and the solution to none of these clearly apparent problems is being less empathetic.
In this case it is. 1st world problems here. In this case people are taking PC to such an extreme society; industries; are all bending to an extreme. This isnt sustainable.
It's not like we're dealing with genocide in the Congo here. That would be deserving of empathy, if only Americans gave 2 effs about it as much as they do the comfort level of trans people as they enter the bathroom.

I do get your point about people being overly manipulative with the PC card (I could use the word "fringe" to label this, but this, like your label, is a matter of perception). However, just taking this to the extreme as you have done here is overcompensating, and it quite frankly makes you seem like a dick. I'm assuming you are also a white male?
First of all, should I now cry that you just unempathetically called me a dick/asshole, or just admit it? Fact is I am dick. So I see no problem in seeming like a dick. I mean thats a good thing right? Would you rather my personality be more fake like all these big talking liberals who's actions show they dont care about anyone but themselves? I'd just like everyone else to admit they're not so awesome themselves. Never gonna happen though. Everyone needs to feel like they're so goood. It's not talent to be PC or fake. It's just stupid & dishonest.

2nd Im not being extreme. 98% of people are manipulative selfish scammers (I think Im being very generous at 98%). MOST accusations of racism & sexism really are lies. Most people's personality is a lie, and their job is a scam. The 1st step is to admit it before calling out everyone else. Otherwise society will continue down the path it's going. I reckon liberals have the biggest problem with that. They seem so unhappy. They're incompatible with the world only because they dont understand it. They refuse to listen to reason.

would you tell OAW to his face that racism is just a fringe thing, or andi pandi that sexism is a fringe thing too if they both claimed to have experienced it personally?
I've already told OAW that over and over again.
But lets see... whenever I mention something I've experienced, you peeps wright it off as useless 'cause anecdotal. I dont believe in doing that people myself. But I would do it to anyone who believes in it, such as every liberal on this board. As far as what I'd say to OAW's face that depends on how well I got to know him and what he was willing to talk about. I have more black friends and colleagues than the average black person. I dont hold anything back with most of them and they dont hold anything back with me. If people think what I say here is wacist they'd wet their pants if they heard the "discussions" these people get into with me. We all think each other is racist (and we probably are) & yet we're like family. We've been there for each other in life or death situations. At the end of the day we're successful because we roll with the punches and are far tighter, happier than white liberals & their pretentious "sensitive" relationships. The whole country could be like that, but only if they back off from this PC empathetic overly-sensitive movement.
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Nov 27, 2016 at 12:57 AM. )
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why not?
Funny.
I used the word once in my life. I was fighting with some kids and called one a pussy. I got the shit beat out of me for that (Not for the fight though). I dont recall thinking about it much. Simply never called anyone that again and didnt really grow up hearing other people calling each other that often. Doesn't seem like an accurate way to describe weak minded people anyway. Here in Texas the term liberal is a very effective insult which I've gotten accustomed to using when you wanna make someone's blood boil. Even Texas liberals often dont like it since they know it's an insult directed at people when you hear them whining childishly about their 1st world problems.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 01:09 AM
 
I'm glad you're not that frequent a poster here, el chupacabra.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 02:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Your wife's lunch might be your future children. Do you propose arresting her every time she drops a deuce instead of another kid?

Early term abortions are not immoral. Forcing women to carry, bear and raise kids they don't want is.
That the consequences of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term is a valid concern does not invalidate being morally repulsed by abortion (and vice-versa).

If the question of the impact on legality is taken off the table, do we not want society to be repulsed by it?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 02:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm glad you're not that frequent a poster here, el chupacabra.
Though we often disagree, I very much appreciate his viewpoint, and wish he posted more.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That the consequences of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term is a valid concern does not invalidate being morally repulsed by abortion (and vice-versa).

If the question of the impact on legality is taken off the table, do we not want society to be repulsed by it?
A certain length into the pregnancy maybe. But Trump & co and many many conservatives want all abortions outlawed from 1 day to 9 months. I don't know where the line should be precisely because I'm not a biologist or a doctor, but they should be allowed for some period of time after conception. I sense no hint being dropped here that any such compromise is on the cards.

As long as we insist on making such a big deal of very early term abortions it will have needlessly traumatic effects on the women who get them but maybe some degree of repulsion is ok. Its better to prevent than terminate a pregnancy. Of course there are sizeable sections of society who are against that as well...
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Doesn't it make sense as our nation surpasses 300 million to not have blanket rules trying to cover everybody; but let states decided and peeps can go to the state that most represents them?
Those blanket rules are things we like to call rights and as you go on to mention, its much easier to corrupt control a state government than the fed. This makes it much easier to impose a lifestyle on people who would prefer you didn't. It seems to me this happens far more often in conservative states than in liberal ones. I guess you could complain at California forcing people to use renewable energy and clean up after themselves but look at the mess thats made of their economy. And there are still plenty of productive gun-toting conservative farmers there too IIUC.

Should people be forced to move state, abandoning their homes, families, friends etc just to get fair rights? You think everyone who would need to move could afford to?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
All stats stating such things are done by professor types who clearly have a political agenda.
The fun thing about this is that we can use stats to talk about how reliable stats might be. Stats should and often do speak for themselves and point to certain specific conclusions. If you don't like those conclusions you can look to see if there are stats that contradict them and then we can all discuss and analyse all the stats to try to explain which are right or wrong and draw some final conclusion. What you choose to do instead is assume that any stat pointing to a conclusion you don't like must be a conspiratorial lie (because your opinions and impressions are completely infallible). I confess, I am often tempted to do the same. Now there is a small chance that we are both correct and both our statistically supported conclusions are somehow right. There is a larger chance that we are both wrong, and that neither of our championed stats or conclusions are telling the whole story. That will likely forever be the case.
Where its interesting is if one of us is right, and the other is wrong and whether the chances are equal as to which of us is which. When my stats come from professors at Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford or Berkely and yours come from billy-joe-bobs-leftiewatch.org, I know where my money is going.


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
You shouldn't be picking politicians based on policies that only affect fringe 'groups' anyway. It's a democracy. Politicians should be picked based on policies that affect everybody, or at the very least, the majority.
Sounds like a great way to ensure things like racial and religious homogeniety. Or put another way, 'purity'.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Whoa whoa hold up there buckaroo! Nobody said anything about being rough 'n tough cowboys.
No you didn't say it, but I'm sick of being on the side who is inexplicably banned from making thinly veiled insinuations and sweeping blanket generalisations and is instead almost always held to to a legal standard of debate here. This is an internet forum, not a court of law and you very strongly implied that all conservatives are tough and emotionally resilient, and all liberals are girly cry-babies. We both know better.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Remember when grown adults who didnt throw a hissy fit over everything little thing were considered normal? Why cant people just be adults, take responsibility for their situation in life, not cry just because someone makes fun of them, or because someone they never met made fun of someone else they never met who happens to be the same gender as them, or because someone elses version of kardashian won the popularity contest over their version of kardashian? Not crying over a politician doesnt make someone a tough cowgirl.
Conservatives have been crying for the past 8 years because the president was black and they are always crying the second anyone threatens to to make the tiniest dent in their privilege. War on Christmas? Christian oppression? All lives matter? Cry, cry, cry.


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
It's not about "looking good". It's about reality, and being honest with ourselves. We live in a reality where exploitation exists, and has to exists.
Its rather depressing that you feel that way. Perhaps you'd like to explain why exploitation must exist and some kind of fair exchange system can never take its place?


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
It's nature. It can't be changed.
We change it all the time. I'm pretty sure you mention airports in a minute. You know what those are for right?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
How do we know it can't be changed? Because liberals do it even more than conservatives. So sure liberals think they look good since they go around saying they dont believe in exploitation (when referring to themselves mostly) all the while taking every opportunity they can to exploit. The only thing thats changed between slave times and now is now most our slavery is in another country, something we could easily fix... if we wanted to. So far nobody has every proven by example that we can make exploitation a thing of the past. Hell it's not even anywhere near the top of our political debates/priorities.
Lots to address here.
We know that nature can be changed;
You make several claims about liberals being more exploitative but give no examples which I find telling;
You think that because something hasn't happened yet its impossible? No wonder you conservatives don't like progress. You don't even get it;
Its not near the top of your priorities clearly;

Maybe we would have had some more success eliminating exploitation if there were fewer conservatives fighting to maintain their ability to do it all the time?


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
"Oh look 102 unarmed people of the same race were killed by cops in a sea of 300 million this year" Whats the problem? "the only problem is they should have killed 1000 unarmed white people to make the numbers even... Then there'd be no problem 'cause it wouldnt be prejudice". An example of the argument for modern oppression...
This is just a lack of understanding. If there were 1000 unarmed white people killed by cops it would indicate that there wasn't a race problem at work. There would still be a problem of cops oppressing citizens, quite clearly. Or just being generally incompetent perhaps. Still a big problem, but not a racially slanted one.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
It's quickly becoming a thing in the US. When I go to the airport it looks like 1 out of every 30 has an emotional support dog, or bird, or rabbit, or turtle (seriously). It used to be a health code violation to have animals in food establishments. Now we're seeing them everywhere. A step backwards in society all in the name of protecting people's emotions.
I can't really argue with what you're seeing over there because I'm not there to see any different, but 1 in 30 sounds like it has the potential to be a huge exaggeration. Did you ever wonder if any of those people were conservative veterans suffering from PTSD?
I'm not going to claim there aren't a few overindulged individuals exploiting a system that actually would do better to kick them up the ass, but that has as much to with lawsuit culture as political correctness and surely thats a non-partisan problem at its root?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
lol interesting way of putting it, it doesnt make me a tough guy, but it certainly makes them a wuss & so much more
Everyone has a breaking point. Just because you never got close to yours doesn't give you any right to criticise people who did. I'm lucky enough to say I never got close to mine yet either but we all have one and we're kidding ourselves if we believe otherwise. You never know what someone else goes through and while some are clearly much more feeble than they should and could be, and some others are just lying to game the system, writing everyone off as weak isn't going to fix it for anyone.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
They do all over the net, but one doesnt need look any further than macnn. R's are Uneducated uneducated uneducated NASCAR-watching creationist shit-kickers who dont realize how much more money and happiness they'd have if only they'd move to the big city and acquire a government approved 4 year collectivist indoctrination certificate which may or may not get them an office job shuffling paper. "B-but just follow your dreams!" we tell them in the name of stroking thy ego.
I've always thought the liberals here were pretty heavily outnumbered. Maybe this is another example of conservatives not being as robust as you imply. Even when they are the majority, one or two opposing voices is enough to rattle them. I like to think its because deep down they know they're wrong.

I've never told anyone they'd be happier and richer pushing paper in the city. Theres a lot to be said for fresh air, peace and quiet and a tighter-knit community.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Yes many are hypocrites in this way. But you have to admit the dems are worse when it comes to hypocrisy & they seem to eat up everything their party projects, where as republican constituents are always hammering away at their party at least trying to keep them in line. This is what dems call "the republicans imploding".
Yeah, there is no way in hell I'll admit that I'm afraid. Look at the way the Republicans who called Trump all sorts of unpleasant names eventually backed down, bent over and drank the cooled while they were spreading their cheeks. Pretty much every single one of them.
Then there is the fact that Trump was actually guilty of most of the things Republicans have been falsely accusing Hillary (and Bill) of for years. Dodgy middle eastern friends, business corruption, sexual predator, mismanaging a charity etc. More hypocrisy in the outrage at her email being a security issue while he won't disclose his conflicts of interest even now, had treasonous dealings with Iran and Cuba while under embargo. Most conservatives aren't that fond of the Russians after a lifetime of anti-communism and look at him suck up to Putin.
This only covers the last 12 months of conservative hypocrisy. Its on an epic scale. Liberals will never come close to catching up.


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
This is likely rumor. As much as liberals would like to believe that there's these republican trailer trash on welfare somewhere; it doesnt add up. And it's definitely not the norm. Why would welfare trailer-trash vote against their own free handouts?
Like you said, uneducated, creationist NASCAR fans?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
We are actually always closer to being on the verge of war than people think regardless of which party is in power.
We probably wont have to worry about having to overthrow the government with Trumps feds trying to give up federal power to the states. In all honesty, the thing many of us do fear when it comes to usefulness of 2nd amendment is what many call the zombie apocalypse. Zombies being the inner city riff-raff which in the event of localized infrastructure collapse will join in gang like mobs to rob and loot from the homes and businesses of the productive class. Those who responsibly saved food and what not will be attacked by those who lived hedonistically moment to moment completely unprepared for any misfortune in their life. These inner city poor people are dangerous, very physically fit due to the fact they dont have a regular job much, no stress, they mostly sleep, workout, eat, down protein shakes, play sports etc. If not on the government's dime then on their parent's. Come a hurricane, flood, EMP, or nuke, these people will be ready to attack us; and we need to be forever vigilant & ready
I dunno, I figure the rural conservatives are more likely to revert to warring tribalism over food stores while the urban populations die out fast because the poor can't find any pop tarts and the rich can't find anything organic. And neither group can open tins because you guys have all the ammo.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm sick of being on the side who is inexplicably banned from making thinly veiled insinuations and sweeping blanket generalisations and is instead almost always held to to a legal standard of debate here.
As someone I consider an intellectual (a label intended as complimentary) I find the above impassioned plea in favor of sweeping generalizations to be disturbing.

Being banned from weak arguments is far from inexplicable, it's precisely what gives intellectualism authority.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm glad you're not that frequent a poster here, el chupacabra.
oh bessy bessy bessy, well unfortunately for you I like your threads. But you do take yourself too seriously. And you should say the same next time you see someone balling about da president. He's not gonna do anything to ruin anyone's life. He's a flake. He's already pulled a 180 on his stance on climate change & has made pretty clear the abortion thing isnt a priority for him. All signs are pointing to Trump being reduced to a puppet of the party. At worst he'll be a Bush repeat.

the largest problem for Americans today is they eat too much food and dont have enough work to do to keep their heart healthy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You make several claims about liberals being more exploitative but give no examples which I find telling;
More explorative than one would presume from their ideology.

Exhibit A: Tim Cook and Apple's shitty Chinese labor practices.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As someone I consider an intellectual (a label intended as complimentary) I find the above impassioned plea in favor of sweeping generalizations to be disturbing.

Being banned from weak arguments is far from inexplicable, it's precisely what gives intellectualism authority.
And I'm fine with it when both sides are under the same ban. But its part of the classic double standard. Liberals have to be calm, measured and 100% reasonable, conservatives for some reason have carte blanche to call us names, ignore truths, make baseless accusations, quote garbage sources and for some reason don't suffer any loss of credibility when they do so.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2016, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
More explorative than one would presume from their ideology.

Exhibit A: Tim Cook and Apple's shitty Chinese labor practices.
OK, except Apple has implemented a pretty rigorous inspection process and a code of ethics for its suppliers. That was despite the fact that most of the fuss that was raised had to do with a reportedly high suicide rate that was in truth well below the national average. Apple can hardly be blamed for the Chinese government.

I'm sure there are better examples than Apple. I'm even more sure there are conservative corporations doing much worse things abroad.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2016, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
And I'm fine with it when both sides are under the same ban. But its part of the classic double standard. Liberals have to be calm, measured and 100% reasonable, conservatives for some reason have carte blanche to call us names, ignore truths, make baseless accusations, quote garbage sources and for some reason don't suffer any loss of credibility when they do so.
I don't understand the desire to adopt the strategies of the opponent.

At best it will serve as a vent for frustration, which strikes me as a poor rationale upon which to base abandonment of one's principles.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2016, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
OK, except Apple has implemented a pretty rigorous inspection process and a code of ethics for its suppliers. That was despite the fact that most of the fuss that was raised had to do with a reportedly high suicide rate that was in truth well below the national average. Apple can hardly be blamed for the Chinese government.

I'm sure there are better examples than Apple. I'm even more sure there are conservative corporations doing much worse things abroad.
What makes Cook and Apple more responsible than an equivalent conservative corporation are their respective ideologies.

The conservative mantra is "profit über alles", so their ideology isn't in conflict with prioritization of profit over treatment of labor.

The liberal mantra is "fair wages and a safety net", which is in conflict with paying a fraction of what they'd need to pay an American worker, and then stashing their pot-o-gold in Ireland.

If the mantra is "throw out the illegals", this is in conflict with hiring them to save on labor costs.

If the mantra is "sanctity of family and marriage", this is in conflict with having a secret gay life.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2016, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't understand the desire to adopt the strategies of the opponent.

At best it will serve as a vent for frustration, which strikes me as a poor rationale upon which to base abandonment of one's principles.
I just don't like the unfair double standard. I understand there is absolutely a good reason why conservatives are 'allowed' to behave like assholes and morons when they 'debate' liberals but you can't really get anywhere in a discussion when one side is effectively bound by rules of fair play and the other is not. So maybe you may as well just call them names.


They used to work harder to come up with arguments that sounded vaguely plausible in debate. Thats where intelligent design came from. Now they've just given up.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2016, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

Sorry for this post being touchy feely, but hey, it's Thanksgiving, and... I love you Chongo, BadKosh, and CTP. It must be hard being a white Christian male
Let me address this.
White: hmm Latinos fall into the cracks of demographics. We don't get to benefit from "white privilege". Even though my ancestors are almost all Spaniards (a great grandmother who was German) from the Sante Fe settlement who became US citizens as a result of the Mexican Cession, having Chavez for a last name cancels out any "white privilege"

Another kicker is I'm not Mexican enough because I barely speak Spanish.

Male: (checks pants) yep.

Christian. I get the double whammy. I'm Catholic, so I have to deal with the animus of both non believers and Protestants.

Empathy: My dad died when I was 15. He was 45 and died of cirrhosis of the liver. I drove my mother daily to the VA hospitol and watched my father waste away. He left a wife and seven kids. We went on to have addiction problems of our own.

One of nephews was born with Spina Bifida
I lost a niece to miscarriage at 5 months.
Another niece is SMI.
One of my brothers spent time as guest of Sherriff Joe Arpio.
One of my cousins committed suicide not far from my house.
By the grace of God I have managed to stay out of jail, rehab and the grave.

I could go on,but I will bore you more than I already have.
( Last edited by Chongo; Nov 28, 2016 at 07:10 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2016, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What makes Cook and Apple more responsible than an equivalent conservative corporation are their respective ideologies.


I'm not going to pretend that Apple are somehow angelic. They are still a business, they still have pressure to grow and to profit from shareholders (Many of who will be conservative I suspect).
As a business you take a good deal when you get one. You are directly responsible for your own employees, if you choose to take steps to safeguard the employees of your contractors than thats above and beyond IMO. Its also skewed by the media to suit their purpose. No one in the west will give a shit if they call for a boycott or criticism of Foxconn because no-one knows who Foxconn are. It won't sell ad space or page clicks.
Foxconn is making a buttload of money too though, why not go after them? Then you what? Apple is to blame for all the poverty in China? You have to draw the line somewhere. And most of the journalists who draw these lines for us are using MacBook Pros and iPhone 7s they queued up to be first to pay big money for. No hint of blame for themselves of course.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
The conservative mantra is "profit über alles", so their ideology isn't in conflict with prioritization of profit over treatment of labor.

The liberal mantra is "fair wages and a safety net", which is in conflict with paying a fraction of what they'd need to pay an American worker, and then stashing their pot-o-gold in Ireland.

If the mantra is "throw out the illegals", this is in conflict with hiring them to save on labor costs.

If the mantra is "sanctity of family and marriage", this is in conflict with having a secret gay life.
Apple is guilty of one of these and the other two are standard conservative hypocrisy. Moving their pot of gold to the US will cost them what? $50 billion in tax? I'd be fairly pissed at the idea of throwing away $50B, and thats what it is really. Governments waste money, the US especially so. Apple certainly won't see much benefit from handing it over. Certainly £50B worth of gratitude or goodwill.
Its easy for us to moan about them not paying their fair share, but they are already generating and paying billions in tax. They pay income tax for every employee for a start. Then theres the sales taxes on their products.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2016, 01:11 AM
 
Ok this part first....
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No you didn't say it, but I'm sick of being on the side who is inexplicably banned from making thinly veiled insinuations and sweeping blanket generalisations and is instead almost always held to to a legal standard of debate here. This is an internet forum, not a court of law and you very strongly implied that all conservatives are tough and emotionally resilient, and all liberals are girly cry-babies. We both know better.
See even in a statement where you think you're banned from be hyperbolic you make such statements. I didnt realize my defense of the cowboy statement would be so upsetting. Im not holding you to court of law legal standard. Im all for generalizations. Some are true. If they're not true say it anyway and peeps can argue it out to solve it. I dont know why people pretend that a generalization means "ALL", it means most.... Now you may have become one of the more reasonable people here in the past years, but you are hardly guiltless of making jabs and over the top statements. Not that I have a problem with that. My philosophy is, if you can dish it, you can take it, So I engage in the same thing to small extent. Apparently ya'll cant take what you dish though.

What I meant to imply was: Not all liberals are crybabies, but MOST crybabies are liberal. Meanwhile being tough has no bearing on conservative at all. It's kinda built into how we define liberalism. The groups that are so incompatible with reality they need to change everything and whine about how others arent nice enough to them, are a liberal thing. When Obama won twice conservative weren't happy, so they formed a intellectual cooperative in a civilized manner called the tea party. They didnt proceed to the streets burning flags and buildings. Liberals have been bullying conservatives extreme for the past year. Sitting on their high horse making us a laughing stock, gleefully cheering their joy of the destruction of the republican party. Demanding Trump accept the election when he lost. Easy to look reasonable and superior when you're so over confident youre going to win. Now look at them. Underdog David has beat the Goliath, and they're not just whining a little like republicans do, in typical bully fashion they're literally crying and foaming at the mouth, the bullies are demanding empathy for themselves which they never gave to conservatives & never will. They called Trumps supporters violent & stupid, but now they are the one's who're violent. Despite 8 years of Obama giving them free cars, food, subsidized healthcare, energy, housing credits, phone credits etc; They were violent even before Trump, with these pseudo feminist social justice warriors rampaging the streets burning, smashing stuff. If asked why, "Country built on hate!, Hulk Mad...."



And I'm fine with it when both sides are under the same ban. But its part of the classic double standard. Liberals have to be calm, measured and 100% reasonable, conservatives for some reason have carte blanche to call us names, ignore truths, make baseless accusations, quote garbage sources and for some reason don't suffer any loss of credibility when they do so.

I just don't like the unfair double standard. I understand there is absolutely a good reason why conservatives are 'allowed' to behave like assholes and morons when they 'debate' liberals but you can't really get anywhere in a discussion when one side is effectively bound by rules of fair play and the other is not. So maybe you may as well just call them names.
I didnt call you any names & dont think I quoted sources. One time I may have called you a jerk 7 years ago when I kept trying to calmly defend Christianity from you're bullying streak Most people here dont listens to what I say anyway so no need to worry about my credibility. Liberals should be held to a higher standard for the things they believe they have a monopoly on. The constant talk about the lack of college degrees among republicans shows how democrats believe themselves to be smarter & more reasonable. They claim superiority in compansion, human, rights, tolerance, civility, progress. So we expect them to act the way they preach. We conservatives dont make such self righteously bold claims about ourselves to begin with so why would we be held to this standard? I expect liberals to buy less, be less consumerist, buy made in America items when possible, since they preach about human rights, & the environment so much. Anyway nothings going to change. All that happened is Cujo got temporarily defeated by a puppy despite Cujo cheating and trying to rig the election, and now she's being a poor sport like bullies do. But have no fear liberals will be back on their feet in no time bullying conservatives into submission.

Those blanket rules are things we like to call rights and as you go on to mention, its much easier to corrupt control a state government than the fed. This makes it much easier to impose a lifestyle on people who would prefer you didn't.
Europe is made of countries which resemble the size of US states. Would you say this small governance system is more corruptible because of this?

I guess you could complain at California forcing people to use renewable energy and clean up after themselves but look at the mess thats made of their economy. And there are still plenty of productive gun-toting conservative farmers there too IIUC.
Maintaining the environment isn't whats damaged California. Keeping the environment clean, recycling, is profitable & beneficial to the economy in the long run. Government playing god with the economy, manipulating wages, min wages, paying subsidies, is what makes recycling & environmental conservation look like a disaster. Other nations are exporting recycled trash to the US because it's profitable. Wages are too high in the US to do this on a large scale. Plus theres the whole culture of elitism. Try getting all these college grads to sort trash when the whole purpose of going to college was to get a low energy office job. California's problems have to do with the local government being too charitable to "the poor"... and illegal aliens.


Should people be forced to move state, abandoning their homes, families, friends etc just to get fair rights? You think everyone who would need to move could afford to?
Throughout history and even now people move for opportunity all the time. But no... they wont have to with Trump. This idea that Trump is going to overthrow the system, is a prime example of liberal hyperbole; the kind of hyperbole which conservatives cant get away with.

The fun thing about this is that we can use stats to talk about how reliable stats might be. Stats should and often do speak for themselves and point to certain specific conclusions. If you don't like those conclusions you can look to see if there are stats that contradict them and then we can all discuss and analyse all the stats to try to explain which are right or wrong and draw some final conclusion. What you choose to do instead is assume that any stat pointing to a conclusion you don't like must be a conspiratorial lie (because your opinions and impressions are completely infallible). I confess, I am often tempted to do the same. Now there is a small chance that we are both correct and both our statistically supported conclusions are somehow right. There is a larger chance that we are both wrong, and that neither of our championed stats or conclusions are telling the whole story. That will likely forever be the case.
Where its interesting is if one of us is right, and the other is wrong and whether the chances are equal as to which of us is which. When my stats come from professors at Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford or Berkely and yours come from billy-joe-bobs-leftiewatch.org, I know where my money is going.
Here's my issue with stats: There is currently a movement where we're being told we can't trust anything we see. Because our brains are too stupid to see the big picture. The proposed solution is believe some other brand name entity for all our beliefs and conclusions. We shall not believe anything we see with our own eyes because no matter how many times we've seen it, it's not as many as the sample size of the brand name special interest telling us what to believe. These brand name stat producers come in the form of government, school, corporations, and big universities.

What people dont understand is our brains are actually highly efficient at gathering all kinds of information we aren't even aware of, and constructing useful stats of its own which can be used to make judgements. Each individual is ( or should be) interacting with thousands if not 10's of thousands of people in their life. They are absorbing their own experiences and even the experiences of others and making useful information of them. The number of interactions you have throughout your life IS actually statistically significant according to the field of stats... And the majority of brand-name stats cited as credible aren't being done in the quantity that people believe. What Im trying to say is you can make judgements based on your own anecdotal stats and they are credible. This movement to not trust what we see is nothing but a power grab at the psychological level. A country that thinks too freely is not united and risks falling apart.

An error people make is not realizing what stats represent. For example: Say someone you trust has compiled stats showing some "group" or minority isn't represented or employed in a specific industry in equal numbers. Assuming the stats are true which is actually very difficult to show based on just a few studies.... All you have is that... A number stating how it is, not the why. But what people are doing is jumping to solid opinionated conclusions before they have significant research data as to why. Then proceeding to make seriously detrimental accusations against people & fast impulsive political changes based on this incomplete data.

Liberal on here are quick to believe and feed us any stat they find affirming their opinion. So us poor conservatives are forced to reciprocate in kind sometimes being just as hyperbolic.

Conservatives have been crying for the past 8 years because the president was black and they are always crying the second anyone threatens to to make the tiniest dent in their privilege. War on Christmas? Christian oppression? All lives matter? Cry, cry, cry.
Another example of how yall aren't "calm, measured and 100% reasonable" while we make "baseless accusations". C'mon, there's no such thing as conservative privilege

We know that nature can be changed;
Doesnt seem that human nature can be changed. We are built to be exploitative killing machines. We cant help it anymore than a deer can help staring into headlights. Any more than a bear can become a social animal. They are both physically and mentally capable of doing the opposite, but it's not in their nature.

You make several claims about liberals being more exploitative but give no examples which I find telling;
Even during the slave trade a higher percentage of say, whites, were doing manual labor than today. In fact the farther back we go the more you see whites doing physical labor type jobs. There is a correlation, the more liberal we become, the less whites are willing to do manual labor, and it can't be denied that liberal polices are directly to blame, they have caused us to move more in the direction of exploitation than any point in history. Each American, even the poor ones might as well have 20 underpaid slaves in Asia. Companies didnt just move overseas because it was cheaper. With the advent of all this workers rights, safety chairs & keyboards, litigation, min wage, equality nonsense stuff, companies feel they cant do business in the US anymore. It's all but come to a grinding halt thanks to liberal policies consuming the nation. So... Im saying we used to be better in the exploitation department, but only gotten worse. This is what happens when half the nation is self righteous and doesnt understand capitalism. It's also what happens when too many people have college degrees.

You think that because something hasn't happened yet its impossible? No wonder you conservatives don't like progress. You don't even get it;
Its not near the top of your priorities clearly;
It has happened, sort of, the more we go back in time the more conservative we were, and the less we exploited people. In the name of "Progress" the problems it's trying to solve are getting worse. Ironically Trump, a republican, is the one who's into bringing jobs back from overseas. So effectively he's the most anti exploitation candidate thus far, not Hillary the human rights progressive.

This is just a lack of understanding. If there were 1000 unarmed white people killed by cops it would indicate that there wasn't a race problem at work. There would still be a problem of cops oppressing citizens, quite clearly. Or just being generally incompetent perhaps. Still a big problem, but not a racially slanted one.
But thats the problem, the BLM movement has made absolutely clear it's not about incompetent cops; "it's about ME. My group only." A pure living definition of Self Righteousness. Thats humans for you, all a bunch of hypocritical self righteous who's words about what everyone else should do are loud but who's actions are empty. They would be more effective if they could piggy back off another cause. In this case just reword the cause, show videos of everyone being shot, so that maybe everyone can relate.

I've always thought the liberals here were pretty heavily outnumbered. Maybe this is another example of conservatives not being as robust as you imply. Even when they are the majority, one or two opposing voices is enough to rattle them. I like to think its because deep down they know they're wrong.
Nope conservatives are the outnumbered and a bullied group. Fortunately, they can take it, those that are left anyway. Conservatism has a right to defend herself.

Yeah, there is no way in hell I'll admit that I'm afraid. Look at the way the Republicans who called Trump all sorts of unpleasant names eventually backed down, bent over and drank the cooled while they were spreading their cheeks. Pretty much every single one of them.
I'll give them a free pass for sake of this particular discussion because thats politics in general, which makes it a wash. Yes they eventually spread their cheeks for Trump, but it wasnt before putting up a fight; you had Romney, Ted Cruz, a sizable stance against him. Trump sucks, and "R's" tried to tear him down. The same didnt happen with HIllary. It could've happened. Democrats could've pushed their version of Cruz on us but they didnt. Her constituents spread their cheeks right away for her.

Most conservatives aren't that fond of the Russians after a lifetime of anti-communism and look at him suck up to Putin.
This only covers the last 12 months of conservative hypocrisy. Its on an epic scale. Liberals will never come close to catching up.
He didnt kiss up to Putin. This all started when he diverted from scripts during the republican debates where each republican was chest pounding about how they were going to out-tough Russia by igniting another cold war - Hillary took the same stance. Trump said something like, one thing you can say about Putin is he's a stronger leader than Obama, Putin doesnt worry about what other nations think - As someone whos used to business negotiations, I think I'll get along with him. It was a great point in light of the fact that Obama who believes in the good-of-humanity, everyone's good on the inside, all that bs, removed our missile defense system thinking it would improve relations with Russia. Putin wouldnt even be a subject if Obama hadnt gotten us in this mess with him. Psycho as Trump may seem, not wanting another cold war with one of the most military charged nations on earth, is the reasonable stance. The whole Putin thing disseminated from there.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:37 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,