• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Liberals, your chickens have come home to roost, now what

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
[snarkyliberal] What? A recovering economy, record high stock market, and cheap oil thanks to a prosperous society full of social safety nets?[/snarkyliberal]
 
Commodus said:
What's frustrating with the "ban them all" strategy (or worse) is that... well, it's childish.
Click to expand...

It isn't childish, it's impossible. There's no way to tell if someone's Muslim or not, unless they say they are, which most wouldn't. Now if it was possible, then it would be wildly successful, since without Muslims, Muslim terrorism would be eliminated. While that would make idiot liberals piss themselves, everyone else could then move on with their lives without worrying about being subjected to the most hateful, backwards, illiberal religion on Earth.
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
I keep lots of things close at hand, but that's mainly a convenience thing. Just because you have a bible at hands reach doesn't make you a biblical scholar. And that's been proven here pretty resoundingly.
Click to expand...

The majority of Christians are functionally illiterate of their holy book, its origins and its historicity. If you want that information you have to talk to atheists.
 
bshole said:
The majority of Christians are functionally illiterate of their holy book, its origins and its historicity. If you want that information you have to talk to atheists.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even consider myself an atheist really, the FSM is pretty tolerant along those lines.
 
CitizenKain said:
So you planning on joining the military or too cowardly for that?
Click to expand...

That's a really dumb argument. If you suggested something like "we should prosecute the people responsible for the Wall Street Crash" would you consider it a honest counterargument if someone said "well why don't you become a police officer then unless you're too scared."
 
glenn1 said:
That's a really dumb argument. If you suggested something like "we should prosecute the people responsible for the Wall Street Crash" would you consider it a honest counterargument if someone said "well why don't you become a police officer then unless you're too scared."
Click to expand...

Not really.

If your passionate about fixing things and going to bitch about a issue, put up or shut up.
 
glenn1 said:
That's a really dumb argument. If you suggested something like "we should prosecute the people responsible for the Wall Street Crash" would you consider it a honest counterargument if someone said "well why don't you become a police officer then unless you're too scared."
Click to expand...


Glenn wants to send 18 year olds to their death to make him safe again.
 
I think we do it wrong. People should be drafted from age 38 to 50 no 18 to 30. Let people live a life before they die for the country.
 
MongGrel said:
Not really.

If your passionate about fixing things and going to bitch about a issue, put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

What do progressives always respond to something like that? "Collective action problem"?

And having been in the military myself, let me be the first to say it gives me no extra standing to advocate for a particular policy nor does not having served give less standing to other people who advocate for particular policies that are important to them. Either way it's a stupid argument. It's physically impossible to "put up" on every single issue one holds, you can't simultaneously be fighting in the military, patrolling the border for illegal immigrants, feeding people at the homeless shelter, etc. ad infinitum.
 
I know you have been in the military, that would give you maybe a bit more validation as far as giving a shit, but maybe not so much on policy issues.

Many people have been in the military here, the false patriots are some of the worst ones though.
 
Roflmouth said:
It isn't childish, it's impossible. There's no way to tell if someone's Muslim or not, unless they say they are, which most wouldn't. Now if it was possible, then it would be wildly successful, since without Muslims, Muslim terrorism would be eliminated. While that would make idiot liberals piss themselves, everyone else could then move on with their lives without worrying about being subjected to the most hateful, backwards, illiberal religion on Earth.
Click to expand...

The klan and now gop types had a similar plan for black crime. They're still bitter the gubmint foiled their plan.
 
JSt0rm said:
I think we do it wrong. People should be drafted from age 38 to 50 no 18 to 30. Let people live a life before they die for the country.
Click to expand...

Holy shit would that change things. It would nearly be impossible to fight a war with older people who understand what war really is about and all the implications of war/death.

The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until he or she is 25 years old or so. In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain's rational part.
Click to expand...
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
sorry, don't subscribe to that fairy tale nonsense. You may as well be quoting L Frank Baum for all the plausibility of it. Sorry you got brainwashed as a kid.
Click to expand...

Muslims believe in fairy tales enough to go on shooting sprees, bombings, beheadings, drive a truck through a crowd, throw gays off cliffs and buildings, fly planes into buildings,,,,, etc.

There is no middle ground here. A nonbeliever is a nonbeliever.

As for Jesus being a fairy tale, all he did was preach love and he is hated for it.

So liberals, when a muslim wants to exercise his religious rights and marry a 9 year old, what are yall going to do?

How about female circumcision?

Gay rights? Yall know muslim nations execute gays to this day.

How about when an immigrant brings his child bride to the USA, like what happened in Germany?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...egally-married-sharia-law-german-judge-rules/

14 year old girl legally married.
 
Last edited:
jackstar7 said:
So wait... Which is it? Are there collective actions problems? Or no?
Click to expand...

When progressives are asked why they don't use their own time and money to solve problems rather than government they cite "collective action problem" even though there's basically no barrier to entry in doing so but just rather unwillingness to open their wallet. Many problems they complain about could be eliminated if they did things themselves rather than wait around for taxpayers to do it for them. Plus it would be done better, they just don't want to be inconvenienced or assume the costs directly. For example if one progressive in 1,000 decided they would share their living space with a homeless person then that problem would basically cease to exist. If one progressive in 10 decided to use their own money to directly hire a poor black person the problem of ghetto poverty would be reduced tremendously. But they won't do that because they'd rather hold onto their wallets to pay for their next trip to Europe (so they can marvel about "universal healthcare" over there) or get 'organic hierloom vegetables for 6x the price rather than buy conventional vegetables and share their meal with a refugee family.

Then you have this situation. When someone expresses a government policy goal a leftist disagrees with they throw out some extreme barrier to entry suggestion like "well then why don't you (insert 'change your entire profession' here) unless you're a coward." Which is a stupid argument. It's akin to saying "Derp derp if you think global warming is real why don't give up all carbon you go live in a cave like a Neanderthal, unless you're chicken." It's the idiots way of trying unsuccessfully to say that unless you take the most extreme measures to solve a problem then your opinion is somehow invalid. Which is stupid because it's not like the very progressives who use this tactic are doing any of the same things - "derp derp if you oppose human trafficking or female genital mutilation or whatever, why aren't you joining the Peace Corps or Uniformed Health Service or selling all your shit and moving to Africa to dig wells?"
 
glenn1 said:
When progressives are asked why they don't use their own time and money to solve problems rather than government they cite "collective action problem" even though there's basically no barrier to entry in doing so but just rather unwillingness to open their wallet. Many problems they complain about could be eliminated if they did things themselves rather than wait around for taxpayers to do it for them. Plus it would be done better, they just don't want to be inconvenienced or assume the costs directly. For example if one progressive in 1,000 decided they would share their living space with a homeless person then that problem would basically cease to exist. If one progressive in 10 decided to use their own money to directly hire a poor black person the problem of ghetto poverty would be reduced tremendously. But they won't do that because they'd rather hold onto their wallets to pay for their next trip to Europe (so they can marvel about "universal healthcare" over there) or get 'organic hierloom vegetables for 6x the price rather than buy conventional vegetables and share their meal with a refugee family.

Then you have this situation. When someone expresses a government policy goal a leftist disagrees with they throw out some extreme barrier to entry suggestion like "well then why don't you (insert 'change your entire profession' here) unless you're a coward." Which is a stupid argument. It's akin to saying "Derp derp if you think global warming is real why don't give up all carbon you go live in a cave like a Neanderthal, unless you're chicken." It's the idiots way of trying unsuccessfully to say that unless you take the most extreme measures to solve a problem then your opinion is somehow invalid. Which is stupid because it's not like the very progressives who use this tactic are doing any of the same things - "derp derp if you oppose human trafficking or female genital mutilation or whatever, why aren't you joining the Peace Corps or Uniformed Health Service or selling all your shit and moving to Africa to dig wells?"
Click to expand...

I do think the "well, do it yourself" approach is facile. Many solutions are better-off being tackled on a larger scale, whether it's government or business. With that said, if we were going to have individuals sign up to solve problems, I'd rather make die-hard conservatives share living space with homeless people and refugees... they're the ones who regularly spit on these groups. Make 'em see first-hand what they're dismissing so casually.
 
Texashiker said:
As for Jesus being a fairy tale, all he did was preach love and he is hated for it.
Click to expand...
No one hates Jesus any more then they hate Mother Goose. What we hate is when you try to use the story of Humpty Dumpty to ban walls so eggs don't get broken. That is really what most Christians sound like to the rest of us when trying to use religion to justify laws.

So liberals, when a muslim wants to exercise his religious rights and marry a 9 year old, what are yall going to do?
How about female circumcision? Gay rights? Yall know muslim nations execute gays to this day. How about when an immigrant brings his child bride to the USA, like what happened in Germany?
Click to expand...

The same thing we do when Christians want to do these things, often citing the same old testament passages to justify it, or did you forget that Islam is an Abrahamic religion as well? We tell them no. Our laws take precedence over religious doctrine.


14 year old girl legally married.
Click to expand...

New Hampshire laws allow children to marry as young as 13, five other states, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, and Mississippi, have marriageability as low as 15 years old. So, it would appear that all they would have to do is move to New Hampshire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top