Soxbadger

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 04:35 PM) SB your form of discourse is insufferable. How many times do you have to say you're right? Haven't you convinced yourself of that? What does saying you're right all the time do for your argument? You remind me of the POTUS. He has the greatest memory and you're always right on the internet. Both of you are the best. You have the best points and character traits. Plus the whole each sentence is a paragraph hurts my eyes. I think we've gone back and forth enough and I am going to move on. I am sure that makes me wrong and you're right again, etc. and you're the champ. That's okay with me. You crack me up. As for the paragraph thing, thats because in the olden days message boards didnt do page breaks as well. That is why you may notice many of the older posters post in a similar fashion. On different devices its hard to see how big of a block of text it will be, so to make it easier people break it up on the internet. And you should move on, you should have done that when you misrepresented my argument the first time.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 04:21 PM) but I don't think we should open the floodgates for refugees who will inevitably be accompanied by terrorists. To circle back. I disagree. And do you have any evidence that refugees are "inevitably be accompanied by terrorists." http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-t...trnd/index.html As of January the answer was 0, now it may have changed but I still think its closer to 0.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 04:11 PM) Congrats. Despite me sticking to the topic at hand and you patting yourself on the back and proclaiming victory multiple times as you engendered a broader, less coherent discussion, I still lose. What's hilarious is your accusing me of avoidance and obfuscating but you're the one who is broadening the subject from your initial argument that was impossible to follow in the first place. As for the rest, you've yet to classify who you are talking about so your point is still rendered incomprehensible and I am confused as to how you think I am wrong on violence rates as I didn't post any. I am also confused as to how you agree with the violence rates NSS posted, because he posted murder rates. But continue you on with your victory lap. You knew you were right before our exchanged even started. Seriously? This all started because you tried to swap PEOPLE for COUNTRIES. I said "I dont believe people from the Middle East are more dangerous." This explicitly relates to the question of whether we should accept more/less/fewer immigrants. You responded that there is more violence in the countries that Middle Eastern people live in. In what world is that sticking to the topic? I mean really, do you actually go back and read what you write and how you jump around to suit your conclusions? The initial discussion was whether the US should restrict immigrants. How is discussing whether middle eastern people are more dangerous not "sticking to the argument." As for NSS, I asked you to source the evidence where you said that certain people in other countries are more violent. I said the only information I could find was similar to NSS (the homicide rates) and I could not find anything I considered legitimate enough to repost for violence rates. You were the one who said that there was evidence, I merely asked you to provide it. Again, you completely misunderstand. The only thing I will agree with, is that I knew I was right. I knew that people from the Middle East arent more dangerous. But if you want to believe that feel free. QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 04:19 PM) This may or may not have been said. Sure it probably was. Only 8 people are dead because the terrorist was able to get a truck far more easily than a gun in NY/NJ/CT. This is why he had paintball and pellet guns instead of real ones. Have a nice day. Gun control works. Stick to the topic at hand, which is the Middle East is more dangerous than America.

As the Champion of the keyboard warriors I already destroyed your argument and made your stance look horrific in the process. Last I checked you dont get to make the rules about what is "okay" or "not okay", in the context of this discussion. Perhaps your avoidance and trying to obfuscate the topic works in your circle of friends or other places, but it wont work with me. So please, if you want to play keyboard warriors, Im up for the challenge any day of the week (except for weekends and when im not at work because I only play keyboard warrior when im being paid). And Im not agreeing with you. I never said "American Muslims" in fact I dont believe I ever used the word "Muslim." Which is ironic since you went all "you should be more specific" then use a term that I never used. But I digress. I am not agreeing that Middle Eastern people are more dangerous. I would agree that the AREA where many Middle Eastern people live have DIFFERENT dangers than the US. (edit) Can you source these "violence" rates? Because most of what I find comes up with the same stuff NSS posted.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 03:10 PM) I said there's a thread for gun talk. The reason we have different threads for difference topics is for coherence. Sometimes you broaden your arguments to include so many extraneous points they become hard to follow and respond to. You say there are more murders in the US than all of those countries other than India. There are more people in the USA in all of those countries other than India. I am more concerned with the rate of violence. That's usually an indicator with more relevance and faithful representation. If you really believe the middle east is safer than the US I don't know what to tell you. PEOPLE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. Do I need caps so you wont completely misconstrue my argument? (edit) I mean seriously, it clearly states "People from the Middle East." Not once have I said "its safer in other countries", let alone said "its safer in the Middle East." Last I checked people are not countries. If you want to believe that PEOPLE from the Middle East are more dangerous, that is your choice. (final edit) And the reason we have a "Democratic" thread is a place for ideas to be discussed that are more general. I get that you dont want to answer the questions because you dont like the answer. That is the point of me asking. Its not extraneous or hard to follow, it just erodes the entire basis for your argument. So you will do whatever you can to avoid and evade.

Caulfield, Its an uphill battle. Its easy to believe "others" are more dangerous than we are.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 01:41 PM) When I said about 70 years in my post, I was focused on the Middle East. To me, the even that really swung western chess play into full gear in the Middle East was the creation of the Israeli state in the late 1940's. That's when the US went from small regional players to a substantially controlling stake, which rode through the Cold War and continues today. Israel was just a piece. Prior to WWII, US did not really have the military clout nor respect of European nations. US was completely left out when Africa was split etc. Most of the US foreign holdings were a result of the Spanish American war. Countries like Germany, France, GB, etc really did not respect the US as a world military power. WWII spun everything on its head. 2 countries that were on the outside looking in previously (Russia/US) then became the only players. (edit) Rabbit, Interesting way to spin my words. But if you want to talk about facts, the US has more murders than any of the countries you have listed besides for India (which isnt in the Middle East). And if you want to go by percentage of population, South America is far more dangerous than any Middle East country. That being said, if you want to believe people from the Middle East are inherently more dangerous, feel free, it is just not supported by facts. https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/20...DE_BOOK_web.pdf Not sure how "less civil rights" has to do with dangerous, that would seem to be the govt. Same with "more war", how is that an implication on regular civilians? (Second edit) And guns are not at all a "tangent". We are talking about security and safety of American citizens, and what the govt can do to ensure American citizen safety. Im going to go out on a limb here, but since this is the "Democratic Thread" I think that many "Democrats" would find that discussing gun safety is germane to this thread. So no, I dont think I need to start a new thread when Im in the Democratic catch all thread. But I find it ironic that one of the most vocal anti-Democrats would want to silence (pun intended) the discussion.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 12:42 PM) My initial point was that we don't have a muslim extremism problem in America so not sure how your point fits in. We have seen Muslim extremism in the USA like yesterday, but right now the the issues of extremism are in the Middle East, Russia and more recently Europe where the extremists are immigrating. The countries with the most terrorist incidents are the following: Iraq (99%), Afghanistan (99.8%), India (14.2%), Pakistan (96.4%), the Phillipines (6%), Somalia (98.9%) and Turkey (98.6%). The percentages are the % of muslims in those countries. If you think you are just as safe there as you are at home so be it, but the numbers say you are wrong. The numbers tell us the vast majority of terrorism in the world comes from the middle east. US foreign policy plays a pretty significant role in that. Not sure what the relevance of other countries terrorist statistics are. We are talking about terrorism in the US, not in any of the other countries listed. It would be like arguing that other countries shouldnt allow Christians to immigrate because the US has a lot of gun deaths and the majority of American's are Christian. I dont think Ive ever said its "safer" in any other country, so no idea how that relates to this at all.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 12:08 PM) I don't think we should be in the middle east at all. I understand your argument but if I am an official right now in charge of dealing with this issue, I don't opt to put Americans security in jeopardy because of the past two administrations disruptive foreign policy ripping apart stability in the middle east. As Im not a fortune teller I cant predict whether more immigrants or less immigrants will put Americans' security in jeopardy. For all I know more immigrants will make the US more sympathetic in the region and thus Americans will be safer. I dont believe that people from the middle east are anymore dangerous than anyone else. And factually speaking I am much more likely to die at the hands of an American than an immigrant. So if my security is such a concern, and we shouldnt be bound by past mistakes, should we perhaps ban guns? More Americans die due to gun violence per year than if you added up all terrorist attacks against the US.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) How is the US not the problem? They topple stable regimes to create unrest. They are responsible for ISIS. They drone whoever they want. It's a racket. Im not saying that the US is or is not the problem, just if you believe that the US is, then the US should be accepting more immigrants from that area.

I think it is completely unreasonable, and if you think the US is the cause of the problem, then we should absolutely be doing everything we can to help more people escape from that area. So if anything we should accept responsibility and increase the amount of immigrants we accept. At some point people need to accept responsibility for what they do.

http://amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/201...lawyer_dog.html Police are trying to argue when defendant asked for "attorney, dog" he meant "attorney dog" as in an actual dog that was an attorney.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 30, 2017 -> 03:22 PM) looks like the unnamed "high ranking campaign official" who Papadopolous kept talking to about Russian contacts is Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager before Manafort. https://twitter.com/maxbergmann/status/925089186117570560 Actually its Hilary Clinton. Manafort was working for her, thats why this is all connected to Clinton.

QUOTE (South Sider @ Oct 27, 2017 -> 09:36 AM) Had to login to drop a big thank you to you for mentioning this. Additionally, I'm glad I even checked this thread in the first place. Those games dont usually ever drop much in value so $47 is a killer deal with free next day shipping. I picked up a copy for myself and a buddy at 1 AM last night, logged in this morning to see that the deal is gone now. Thank you Soxbadger. Of course! This thread has been really helpful and one of the main reasons I got the switch. Figured I could try and pass the savings on because $47 is what made me decide to get the game right away instead of waiting. Also mine has been delivered so should get to check it out soon.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 26, 2017 -> 10:55 AM) Supposedly Trump is to address the opioid crisis today. Obviously that would seem like a good thing as it is a major problem in America. I just worry about Sessions with anything related to drugs. Such an archaic POV on these matters. I dont even know who the people are that support some of the inane way drugs are criminalized in this country.

New Mario is $47 if youre a prime member.

At least no one that Trump knows is trying to fight cyber bullying. That would be ironic, dont ya think?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2017 -> 04:36 PM) "Bernie woulda won" is still a big deal on the left fwiw. There's still plenty of fighting between the more centrist and more left wing factions. Thats an entirely different argument.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2017 -> 04:24 PM) Cool. But frankly this is Bernie's party now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpo...m=.e07bbeb85fb5 How can it be "his party" if he doesnt want to be a part of it?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2017 -> 04:29 PM) The Democratic establishment didn't treat the outsider running against the establishment very friendly. I don't know why anyone was ever shocked about this. But ultimately the primary wasn't all that close and Clinton won by a comfortable margin. The RNC tried stacking the deck in favor of a couple of specific candidates, too, but that didn't work out for them. One unfortunate side affect of Bernie's run was a lot of people thinking the DNC is a lot more powerful and important than it really is. Only people who bring it up are people who werent voting for Sanders/Clinton in the first place. Its purely political noise to try and hurt their political opponent. Why do you think Trump wanted Bernie to run as an independent? Because he liked Bernie? Or maybe it was because he thought it would hurt Clinton's chances? Hmm hard question.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2017 -> 04:12 PM) 2016, not so much. Bernie lost. It wasnt even close. I accidentally went to a "Burn" rally because we were looking for a bar and it was completely empty. When we got inside they said it was a rally for Bernie, not 1 person was there. Its strange, but most people who think Bernie was treated unfairly are Republicans... (edit) And not sure what the relevance of those links are. People say things like that all the time, its the nature of the election business. I cant imagine Clinton writing "Well, maybe if I wasnt being stupid and trying to win states like Texas, id have actually visited Wisconsin, MN, PA etc. What the f*** was I thinking?' Would be shocking to read a politician being honest about their shortcomings.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2017 -> 03:19 PM) He probably got sick of being demonized by the party of acceptance as if he was responsible for what happened in 2016. Not sure where this "demonizing" is happening. Last I checked Sanders was appointed as the Chair of Outreach of the Democratic party after the election. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11...reach/93960822/ Seems like Democrats worked in good faith to set Bernie up for a potentially successful run in 2020, but Bernie is deciding to burn those bridges.

QUOTE (Nokona @ Oct 23, 2017 -> 02:07 PM) He's running as an independent in Vermont. Thats why I dont understand his angle. Almost nothing to be gained by labeling himself an "independent" and he loses a lot of influence in the Democratic party.

Rumors Sanders will run as independent. Hard to figure out his angle.

https://gop.com/stand-for-anthem-petition/ Official "Stand for the national anthem petition."