StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) You've been trying to corner Duke for pages. Apparently again, it is only bad when it isn't you. It is always different when it is someone else. Duke's argument, at least to me, seems to be that somebody who is against some domestic drone policy shouldn't support Obama/Democratic candidates because of that. It's a bad argument because it assumes that "drone strikes" should override any other policy concerns. It's also bad because there's no reason to believe that the Democrats' opponents will be any better on these very same policies. Pointing out previous Republican support for the things duke is concerned about or Rand Paul's statements on using drones isn't an "always different" argument. Neither Reddy nor I are excusing, justifying or support Obama's drone policies. In fact, we've both explicitly condemned it multiple times in this thread.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) So by pointing out that it was just an extension of a Bush policy, that was no attempt to make it not as bad for Obama? lol, you are full of it. I read it as arguing that there's no reason to expect that the Republicans would be any better on this issue than the Democrats

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) But your subconscious did by making the line Bush. Or at least that is what you would say if this was about race. I didn't make any line. I think you're confusing me and Reddy. Even if the line is "Bush," you still have Obama being pretty much s*** on this issue, so I really don't know what you're talking about here.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:26 PM) other than growing the economy and lowering the deficit and creating a "golden years" for america's economy? besides that? yeah that's even less relevant to a discussion about national security/civil liberties than the A&S acts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) Again, an arbitrary line in the sand designed for party politics. Apparently nothing happened under Bill Clinton? I didn't say that, did I? Both parties are pretty much s*** on this issue.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:17 PM) QFT. I think it's hilarious how people argue that one party is better than the other. It's like the special olympics. Republicans and Democrats are all one breed, politicians! Both parties being very far from perfect doesn't mean that one isn't demonstrably worse on basically every major policy area.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) So how is that different than me bringing up the Alien and Sedition Act? All of the policies of targeting American citizens for being "disloyal" can pretty much be traced back to there. Sure, but it's not exactly relevant if we're talking about 21st century US politics and what sort of policies a given party supports.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:52 PM) The funny part is that the last damage to her approval rating was done during the Democratic primaries. Those were her lowest numbers since Bill's impeachment. Yeah, I noted that when I posted the Gallup poll. Probably a bunch of Obama-supporting Democrats who were in the middle of the primary struggle.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) There is a massive chasm between our use of drones internationally and the proposal of using them domestically within our borders that you just kind of shrug off. I think they are both very serious issues worthy of concern. But, again, I've no reason to believe that Rand Paul etc. would be less-bad on even the domestic issue:

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:42 PM) really? You think Reagan or either of the Bushes went out of their way to berate their security details? Hell Ronnie didn't even like saying 'Damn', he sure as hell wouldn't be throwing f-bombs at the help. Did you check the snopes link I posted? A lot of these quotes are poorly sourced or, when checked against the original, have a bunch of extra profanity thrown in, e.g. the sunglasses/Marine One 'quote.'

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) There is a massive chasm between our use of drones internationally and the proposal of using them domestically within our borders that you just kind of shrug off. But the bigger issue here is that you'll support a side you know is going to erode your rights because to you they're marginally better than the alternative. I mean the least you could do is be less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, who of all the potential candidates for 2016 is by far the most likely to make zero effort in curtailing governments intrusion into our rights. I'm missing where I was enthusiastic about Hillary? I'm curious about greg's fears that she'll literally destroy the country, and I think some of the conservatives' talk itt about how hated she is is silly given her levels of approval, but I'm definitely not an enthusiastic Hillary (or DNC) supporter.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:35 PM) It is amazing how short your memory is if you think that is really the beginning of the government spying on and targeting American citizens. COINTELPRO, surveillance of everyone prominent person within the Civil Rights Movement, etc.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) Yup so XYZ judge who the president can trot out to the country for his progressive and tolerant stance on homosexuality can turn around and burn the constitution and let his Administration start killing Americans with drones! #RightSideofHistory See, here's the thing. I agree with you, at least broadly, that our surveillance state, drone policy, etc. are s***. Our national political landscape is such that both parties largely support these programs. Even Champion of Liberty Rand Paul doesn't care about drone policy beyond his minor objection; he is still 100% onboard with how we are using them internationally. So I can choose to between two candidates, both of whom have troubling civil liberties an foreign policy ideas, but one of which supports gay marriage etc. I have no reason to believe that Republicans wouldn't be just as bad if not worse these grounds as the Democratic candidate, plus they'll bring a whole host of terrible social and economic policies with them. You can keep saying "drones!" all you want, but it's a really shallow criticism because it doesn't actually give me a reason to support your chosen party/candidates.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) A little taste here and there. Enough to keep people interested and enough to claim they've made progress. Enough to give millions equal rights. But being straight, you don't really care. Presidents appoint federal judges. That is a very, very important when it comes to protecting rights.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) They aren't going to do anything to further gay marriage I guess you've missed all of the states that have legalized this, the Supreme Court decisions, the ending of DADT, the ending of DOMA?

Nobody but hardcore conservatives cares about all of the 'scandal' around Benghazi.

FWIW http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp Many of these are distortions or exaggerations of things she might have said according to one guy 20 years ago.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 25, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) See! This is what I was referring to! Just identifying the fact that there is a problem here (and there clearly is) has been relabeled racist. Now if you start making excuses here, start hyping the multi-culti myth of cultural coexistence and how its just white privilege that created all these problems it sounds real good to people who are terrified of looking racist when they try to articulate the cause of all this. Holding people accountable for anything, both individually and as a group is just not something you're willing to do unless you're self loathing whites. The best part was when you laid the blame at the feet of black communities for not assimilating into mainstream white society, like you're completely oblivious to hundreds of years of forceful and violent segregation. Really good argument you've got there, no wonder us dumb libs can't refute it with anything but self-loathing white guilt!

duke: people don't like Hillary Clinton The Liberals: here is actual polling information, seems she is pretty well-liked? duke: I have no need for your fancy 'statistics' and 'factual information!'

No, you're spewing a bunch of standard racist bulls*** of the type that can frequently be found at stormfront and other explicitly racist hangouts. There's nothing to refute in your shallow, ignorant assertions. The "blacks are a bunch of violent criminals" statistical bulls*** arguments, the 'black culture' boogeyman, all of it is textbook racism.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 25, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) Thing is, I know you all agree with me on this you just cannot admit it yes, that must be it, is that what you guys all say over at stormfront?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 25, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) So poor blacks deserve more welfare than poor whites? That's discriminatory, if not racist. Try re-reading that information I quoted for you.

Welfare is not irrelevant. If poverty is a driving factor in violence and crime (it is), and if poverty for one group is worse than the other (it is), then it is at least an important part of understanding the issue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 24, 2013 -> 08:51 AM) The idea of 'strength' in baseball is a fairly recent phenomenon in terms of baseball history. I remember reading a book about Nolan Ryan a long time ago, which said that the Angels didn't even have a weightroom when he pitched there, and that he pretty well made one there, and was the only guy using it. The idea was that bulk was bad then. It makes me think steroids wouldn't have been used then. Speed was definitely around then, it is well documented. Coke, I am not sure if that would be considered a positive honestly. I didn't mean steroids, but any type of performance-enhancing drug., which would include speed/amphetamine/greenies.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 25, 2013 -> 01:55 PM) Wrong. There are almost three times as many whites who live near or under the poverty line than blacks (29 million whites to just under 10 millions blacks). So if you think income level better explains crime levels than anything else you'd still expect whites to commit more homicides because there are more whites living in poverty. That's not the case, between 2000-10 blacks committed 18,000 more murders than whites. So I dont buy for one second the argument that poor whites are just as violent as poor blacks. Blacks are more violent than whites, its crystal clear and you'd have to be a fool to try and deny that fact. I rarely bother with statistics and I never bother with linking anything but you're just so adamantly wrong I have to bring them in here to prove it. You want to know why I think this exists? I'll tell you now you cannot prove or disprove this with statistics, links or anything empirical. Its not genetic and its not some Darwinian bulls*** either. Contemporary black culture f***ing sucks in this country and giving the blacks an exemption to usual rule of assimilation has led to all these problems. Black urban culture is just incompatible with Western Civilization. And its not the duty of all the Whites, Asians, Arabs, Persians, Hispanics, Blacks etc. who do assimilate into Western culture to amend the way we live to accomodate a blatantly inferior culture. Its this conflict that creates the crime disparity along racial lines. Duke "I dismiss racism" NukeEm eta: as far as your stats go, it might be interesting to note this: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/...the-safety-net/