keepthefaith Posted October 24, 2016 Posted October 24, 2016 Everyone casting judgement on this guy is a jome It's ijome, or emoji backwards.
Maury Ballstein Posted October 24, 2016 Posted October 24, 2016 What the eff is a jome ? Is boyst slowly turning into Exill?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 My evidence is that there is likely a third (or fourth or fifth) factor that has been ignored or missed by the studies. Maybe the cause is the attitudes (in my opinion, ignorant attitudes, but to each their own) of some people in our society regarding non-nuclear families. There could be other causes as well. Point is, your 'evidence' is weak. Edit: this is not to say your quoted studies are worthless, they were done for a reason. Taking the results as 'fact' is just silly though. In other words, you don't like the outcome of the studies, because it goes against the inclusive leftist narrative that all lifestyle choices lead to equal outcomes, and therefore all choices have equal merit. FYI, the two other leading predictors of intergenerational poverty were not finishing high school, and not securing and holding employment; but both of those significantly trailed in correlation to the non-nuclear family.
4merper4mer Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 In other words, you don't like the outcome of the studies, because it goes against the inclusive leftist narrative that all lifestyle choices lead to equal outcomes, and therefore all choices have equal merit. FYI, the two other leading predictors of intergenerational poverty were not finishing high school, and not securing and holding employment; but both of those significantly trailed in correlation to the non-nuclear family. You are bad at math.
B-Man Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) Senator Tim Kaine ✔@timkaine Hillary's been fighting for military families like ours for decades but her work in the Senate was really important. http://hrc.io/2eysXEp 1:05 PM - 24 Oct 2016 Aspiring vice president Tim Kaine hopes you’ll remember the above when you cast your vote in the coming weeks Edited October 25, 2016 by B-Man
dickleyjones Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 In other words, you don't like the outcome of the studies, because it goes against the inclusive leftist narrative that all lifestyle choices lead to equal outcomes, and therefore all choices have equal merit. FYI, the two other leading predictors of intergenerational poverty were not finishing high school, and not securing and holding employment; but both of those significantly trailed in correlation to the non-nuclear family. No, the outcome is fine and I do not subscribe to the leftest narrative you espoused. Maybe the study means exactly what you claim it means (i don't think it does, but let's go with it). You basing how you treat other people on these studies is what I find unappealing (and was the basis of this conversation). I'm not sure which came first, the study or your attitude towards those in non-nuclear families, but assuming you read the study and then thought "hey, this study means people entering into a non-nuclear family don't deserve my respect because they should know the statistics and know their decision is poor" your reasoning is flawed. What if they didn't see the study? Further, there are so many other factors involved that you ignore. Again, we are assuming non-nuclear family means poverty is more likely. Isn't it a good idea to ask 'why'? Maybe it is the attitudes of others regarding the non-nuclear family which supports the likelyhood of poverty. Maybe if society shifted their view (which happens) the non-nuclear family can rise out of the dregs. That is one example of another factor, and there are many others. I still fail to understand why you let these studies fuel you attitude. Why not make life better for people, why not try to shift the view of this problem and address the problem. It seems like your answer is "don't be in a non-nuclear family". That doesn't work for an increasing amount of people, I don't think it's a good answer.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 Assange cant afford the unlimited data package? Maybe. First, they pressured the Ecuadorian embassy to cut the internet feeds, silencing JA's direct pipeline to the public. A few days later there's a massive DDOS attack that paralyzes much of social media and other notable distribution sites for most of the day, (possibly) designed to prevent any sort of deadman's switch from triggering. This took place while multiple unconfirmed reports claimed JA was seized from the embassy by unknown actors. This story was quelled in the mainstream media by a tweet from WikiLeaks saying Assange was fine -- but he's made no public statement or appearance to back up those claims. Now, for the past week and change, all of WikiLeaks' tweets have taken on a different tone: hyper partisan and alt-right leaning with pro-Moscow overtures... which is exactly how the DNC/Whitehouse has been trying to frame JA for over a year in the public eye. It's possible they've been right all along and nothing has changed. Or, it's possible JA is dead and/or in custody and the WikiLeaks' social media apparatus is disinfo run by whoever snatched him (either US or UK intelligence). Of course if the later is true then the past three Podesta dumps could have been compromised/currated by whomever snatched Assange. All it takes is one edited or falsified email to completely ruin Wikileaks' credibility, and if the US did take over control of his network, that would be an obvious move to make within the next two weeks.
B-Man Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 #PodestaEmails18 pic.twitter.com/MkV15n1zX6 “Clean this up,” eh? Sounds Nixon-ish to me.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 No, the outcome is fine and I do not subscribe to the leftest narrative you espoused. Maybe the study means exactly what you claim it means (i don't think it does, but let's go with it). You basing how you treat other people on these studies is what I find unappealing (and was the basis of this conversation). I'm not sure which came first, the study or your attitude towards those in non-nuclear families, but assuming you read the study and then thought "hey, this study means people entering into a non-nuclear family don't deserve my respect because they should know the statistics and know their decision is poor" your reasoning is flawed. What if they didn't see the study? My attitude toward people in non-nuclear families? My attitude is that when people make sub-optimal decisions, they should expect sub-optimal results, and that it is not only counterproductive, but also quite harmful, to propagate the idea that decisions shouldn't matter to outcomes. Further, there are so many other factors involved that you ignore. Again, we are assuming non-nuclear family means poverty is more likely. Isn't it a good idea to ask 'why'? Maybe it is the attitudes of others regarding the non-nuclear family which supports the likelyhood of poverty. Maybe if society shifted their view (which happens) the non-nuclear family can rise out of the dregs. That is one example of another factor, and there are many others. I didn't say poverty. I said "intergenerational poverty". The gifting of poverty to your children. And what about the acceptance of poor decision making do you think will raise people up? The reality is that when you normalize poor decision making, and make it acceptable, you weaken society because there is no shame left to drive people to make decisions that lead to better outcomes. I still fail to understand why you let these studies fuel you attitude. Why not make life better for people, why not try to shift the view of this problem and address the problem. It seems like your answer is "don't be in a non-nuclear family". That doesn't work for an increasing amount of people, I don't think it's a good answer. The studies illuminate the reasons why some people do better than others inter-generationally. Pointing out that people's poor decision making is making their lives worse is helping them make their lives better if they choose to. Key point, is that it is the individual's place to make his life better. As to the absurd notion that if people more and more often start making the decisions that lead to worse outcomes that we should begin accepting those outcomes as positive, that's how a society circles the drain.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 From April, but still relevant as the coronation reaches its conclusion... Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon Beyond sharing this neocon “regime change” obsession, former Secretary of State Clinton also talks like a neocon. One of their trademark skills is to use propaganda or “perception management” to demonize their targets and to romanticize their allies, what is called “gluing white hats” on their side and “gluing black hats” on the other. So, in defending her role in the Libyan “regime change,” Clinton called the slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi “genocidal” though that is a gross exaggeration of Gaddafi’s efforts to beat back Islamic militants in 2011. But her approach fits with what the neocons do. They realize that almost no one will dare challenge such a characterization because to do so opens you to accusations of being a “Gaddafi apologist.” Similarly, before the Iraq War, the neocons knew that they could level pretty much any charge against Saddam Hussein no matter how false or absurd, knowing that it would go uncontested in mainstream political and media circles. No one wanted to be a “Saddam apologist.” (snip) The Libyan operation was sold as a “humanitarian” mission to protect innocent civilians though Gaddafi was targeting Islamic militants much as he claimed at the time and was not engaging in any mass slaughter of civilians. Clinton also knew that the European allies, such as France, had less than noble motives in wanting to take out Gaddafi. As Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal explained to her, the French were concerned that Gaddafi was working to develop a pan-African currency which would have given Francophone African countries greater freedom from their former colonial master and would undermine French economic dominance of those ex-colonies. In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons reported that Gaddafi’s government had accumulated 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver that “was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency” that would be an alternative to the French franc. Blumenthal added that “this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” Sarkozy also wanted a greater share of Libya’s oil production and to increase French influence in North Africa, Blumenthal wrote. But few Americans would rally to a war fought to keep North Africa under France’s thumb. So, the winning approach was to demonize Gaddafi with salacious rumors about him giving Viagra to his troops so they could rape more, a ludicrous allegation that was raised by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who also claimed that Gaddafi’s snipers were intentionally shooting children. (snip) Like the earlier neocon-driven “regime change” in Iraq, the “regime change” obsession blinds the neocons from recognizing that not only are these operations violations of basic international law regarding sovereignty of other nations but the invasions unleash powerful internal rivalries that neocons, who know little about the inner workings of these countries, soon find they can’t control. (snip) Now with Clinton’s election seemingly within reach, the neocons are even more excited about how they can get back to work achieving Syrian “regime change,” overturning Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and – what is becoming their ultimate goal – destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia and seeking “regime change” in Moscow. After all, by helping Assad bring some stability to Syria and assisting Obama in securing the Iranian nuclear deal, Russian President Vladimir Putin has become what the neocons view as the linchpin of resistance to their “regime change” goals. Pull Putin down, the thinking goes, and the neocons can resume checking off their to-do list of Israel’s adversaries: Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. And what could possibly go wrong by destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia and forcing some disruptive “regime change”? By making Russia’s economy scream and instigating a Maidan-style revolt in Moscow’s Red Square, the neocons see their geopolitical path being cleared, but what they don’t take into account is that the likely successor to Putin would not be some malleable drunk like the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin but, far more likely, a hardline nationalist who might be a lot more careless with the nuclear codes than Putin. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/16/yes-hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/
Prickly Pete Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/16/yes-hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/ Does anyone here doubt this? I have tried to convince many off this board, but are there any here who still have rosy glasses on?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 Does anyone here doubt this? I have tried to convince many off this board, but are there any here who still have rosy glasses on? Hillary is not a neo-conservative. Hillary is a pro-Hillary opportunist and will always do what is best for Hillary, ideology, constituents, country be damned.
dickleyjones Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 As to the absurd notion that if people more and more often start making the decisions that lead to worse outcomes that we should begin accepting those outcomes as positive, that's how a society circles the drain. i see. so, for example, no one should come out as gay because 100 years ago it was fact that you'd be totally ostracized and have a terrible time with life? and even now, there's a (just throwing out a random number here) 30% greater chance of being ostracized for being gay? and society as a whole shouldn't be encouraged to accept it, or change, because outcomes were really bad 100 years ago and are still bad now? Can you not see a future where these problems don't exist? Are you saying that then, and only then, when homosexual and heterosexual, nuclear and non-nuclear, etc, are seen as having equal opportunity in society, would you accept coming out as gay or entering a non-nuclear family as a good idea? This is how society changes, for the better imo. or maybe we should go back to separate seating arrangements on buses?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) i see. so, for example, no one should come out as gay because 100 years ago it was fact that you'd be totally ostracized and have a terrible time with life? and even now, there's a (just throwing out a random number here) 30% greater chance of being ostracized for being gay? and society as a whole shouldn't be encouraged to accept it, or change, because outcomes were really bad 100 years ago and are still bad now? Can you not see a future where these problems don't exist? Are you saying that then, and only then, when homosexual and heterosexual, nuclear and non-nuclear, etc, are seen as having equal opportunity in society, would you accept coming out as gay or entering a non-nuclear family as a good idea? This is how society changes, for the better imo. or maybe we should go back to separate seating arrangements on buses? I haven't made the argument that individuals shouldn't come out as gay, or even enter into gay relationships. That's the strawman you've introduced. Perhaps you'd like to next like to make the argument that participants in homosexual sex aren't more likely to contract STDs than participants in heterosexual sex, because feelings; and all that needs to happen to fix this is to change the perception about the disparity, and it will all go away. Edited October 25, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 Does anyone here doubt this? Plenty do.
4merper4mer Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 I haven't made the argument that individuals shouldn't come out as gay, or even enter into gay relationships. That's the strawman you've introduced. Perhaps you'd like to next like to make the argument that participants in homosexual sex aren't more likely to contract STDs than participants in heterosexual sex, because feelings; and all that needs to happen to fix this is to change the perception about the disparity, and it will all go away. You correctly point out the straw man he unfairly created and then create one of you own? Have you taken logic yet or is that next semester?
DC Tom Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 Does anyone here doubt this? I have tried to convince many off this board, but are there any here who still have rosy glasses on? You'd actually have to find a coherent definition of "neocon" first. The only consistent definition I can find is "interventionist Republican who is hated by both Democrats and other Republicans."
GG Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 You'd actually have to find a coherent definition of "neocon" first. The only consistent definition I can find is "interventionist Republican who is hated by both Democrats and other Republicans." You sure? I thought it was anyone who disagrees with Obama's Sally Fields foreign policy?
Recommended Posts