 | Hello World.
HERE will be the NEW HOME of all the strange and odd things I have feelings about. You could consider this, Phart's Brain Farts regarding world or local news.
There will be freedom of speech here.Just don't violate someone elses.
For starters,
only registered users can see external links
Really now? Well what is really despicable is the mess at the border with folks coming in willy nilly bringing their dope and their virus's and diseases we have eradicated decades ago. Instead of putting all your air into denying it, PROVE THE THEORY WRONG.
There is overwhelming evidence of a problem brewing,and unless democrats can gain from it,they would be otherwise trying to stop it. |
Show why it's crap.
Then show that many people support it.
'Woke' just means 'not liking injustice'.
That's the 'woke' that 'libs' support.
It's included in the definition of 'liberal' to not like injustice.
The rest is just stupid right-wing propaganda,
as a DISTRACTION for never doing anything good.
/mql3pb0vi8jxpic.html
To me when someone is "woke" It means they think they are owed or have more rights than me because of something that happened to someone else in history.
Because I'm pretty 'woke' (as in 'not liking injustice')
and I support equal rights for everyone.
Because justice means; equal rights for everyone.
I also support maximizing personal freedom, but, and this is very important; up to the point where it negatively affects other people's personal freedom.
That is also part of being 'woke', because it is injustice when people limit other people's personal freedom, when that personal freedom does not negatively affect other people's personal freedom.
Before you make this binary; there are gray-scales. Sometimes, a massive gain in personal freedom for one group is allowed to have some insignificant effect on other people's personal freedom. Especially when the gain of that personal freedom generally increases equality in personal freedoms. It still should result in everyone having the same rights though and not one group having more rights than the other.
Actually, some of my principles can be summarized as a quote
from Mr. Spock from Star Trek:
“The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few (or the One)”
That's the exact opposite of 'what is good for a very few is best for all'
Actually, that's what you say, when you defend capitalism.
The MANY need income, which comes from jobs. the FEW provide those jobs.
only registered users can see external links
But they didn't define 'aggravated homosexuality', so it can be used against anyone
they want to get rid of.
"Under the law, people will be banned from "promoting and abetting" homosexuality,
as well as conspiracy to engage in same-sex relations."
The bill passed, because its opponents feared being imprisoned for promoting homosexuality, if they lost.
"How U.S. Evangelicals Helped Homophobia Flourish in Africa"
only registered users can see external links
Good job American evangelicals, you enacted the death penalty for homosexuals.
Will you now first try to get this done in other African countries too?
Or will you go directly for the grand prize now; America?
Does anyone want to argue that religion is not a scourge on humanity and freedom?
So throw them in prison or kill them?
Ever heard about condoms?
How about the argument; right-wingers didn't wear mask, didn't do physical distancing and didn't vaccinate, causing much more deaths during the Covid crisis?
Is that a justification for throwing right-wingers in prison or killing you?
By the way, it is a choice to deny masks, physical distancing and vaccines.
It's not a choice to be gay. There is no exception for gays getting punished,
when they wear condoms. They are also not allowed to have safe sex.
rich people aint stupid.
They see the problems.
And who causes them.
three responsible for the current problems facing Americans are Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was the face of the American response to the covid-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve, which let inflation get out of control by printing money, and the U.S. Undersecretary of State for political affairs, Victoria Nuland.
Problem 2: At least you finally understand that the FED printing $7.8 trillion, during Trump's time in office, is the biggest cause for your inflation. The rest is caused by companies price gauging consumers. Republicans voted against Biden's anti-price gauging bill.
Problem 3?: U.S. Undersecretary of State for political affairs, Victoria Nuland?
Please explain.
Sadly, they seem to not work at this progression phase of the disease.
What would that do for a virus? It would give it a 2 month head start.
The virus made it to Antartica. 1 of the most desolate lonely places on earth. Did a sailor forget his mask in New Zeeland?
I can't explain under secretary as I don't know what they do. I would take Elons word over a democrats though.
He knows what it takes to run a business, and he actually pays his people well to boot.He just ask them to do their jobs.
I knew the stimulus checks were a bad idea. I feel sure I have had to spend twice the amount I received on price increases in everything I use and need in life.
Edit,google helps confuse me a bit more
"Sometimes called the “either-or” fallacy, a false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when there are many options or sides. Essentially, a false dilemma presents a “black and white” kind of thinking when there are actually many shades of gray."
There were no grey area's with the virus. it was here and it was going to spread. Period.
WHo was the face of the Trump administration who's mouth made the motions and noise's saying we didn't need mask for 2 months??
Fauchi.
There were no masks. Because America doesn't produce anything anymore and China needed those masks for themselves. So Fauci protected nurses and doctors who were trying their hardest to save as many lives as they could, from the mask shortage, by lying to people. By the way, I didn't believe him, because I can figure out the benefit of masks by myself. I have worked with them for several years.
But what do you care? You don't even believe that masks do anything.
Trump lied about the whole existence of Covid for a long time.
Who were protected by those lies? Nurses? The average Joe?
No one, it allowed the virus to spread like wildfire through the public.
Doesn't you just copying an argument about some U.S. Undersecretary tell you anything? You accept arguments, even if you don't understand them. Do I need to tell you more about the necessity of being critical? You accept a claim purely on the basis of who is the source. When the source would have been Elon Musk, a few years ago, you would have dismissed any claim from him outright, but now that he is posing as a right-winger, you trust him. Do you know how easy you are making it for people to scam you?
I do it completely the other way around; I read or listen to the arguments, search for a coherent logical message, and every time I find an inconsistency, the source gets a downgrade in trustworthiness in my brain. It's true that sometimes I can recognize a scam in seconds, just by the look of the website, or just by the rhetoric that is used, but often everything looks and sounds legit, and I just get warned by logical errors. Then I check the source and find out how other people are getting tricked.
I am managing very well under that capitalist system. I don't like it and want to change that system of horrible inequality, but I'm not suffering from it myself.
I don't want to depress you, but you are suffering from the system you prefer,
while a lot of people, even people you hate with passion, are benefiting from your preferred system, very much. If you succeed in convincing me, there's just another person who is satisfied with the status quo. If I succeed in convincing you, there's another person supporting change, that will also benefit himself.
A couple taps with a air chisel or jack hammer and my issues can go flying out the tunnel.
Trumpists will support Trump, no matter what he does or is accused of.
His whole family and loyal friends are protected under that support too.
Unless Trump drops his support, then Trumpists will do the same, at once.
Just look at what happened to Mike Pence. They wanted to hang him.
Biden cannot count on anything close to that support. If there are allegations against him, that only approach what Trump has been accused of, he will lose a huge part of his support. Remember how Al Franken was dropped like a stone by Democrats, over the allegation that he touched a woman's ass, during the making of a selfie? Down goes Al Franken! Who was actually a popular and powerful voice for lefties and liberals alike. Republicans would not even care or just accuse the woman for being a liberal operative.
And his family? The stories about Hunter are nonsense, because even his own texts found in that laptop are exonerating his father. He's a dumb-ass and he has benefited from his father's position, but that is legal and Republicans are even more guilty of abusing that 'freedom'. However, if there is ever convincing evidence found of wrongdoing, lefties will support his indictment for sure. Just watch TYT and Secular Talk. Biden supporters would be open to evidence much more than Trumpists.
Here we go again.
Republicans are working hard to get our energy independence back so we won't be like Europe and the dems are wanting to veto it.
Dems need to get off their high horse and let America get back on it's feet.
Don't be like Europe? Europe doesn't have any oil, to be independent.
Would you want Europe to keep funding Russia's war chest?
I know you think you are smarter than scientists, but this is not just about the climate. Most of your oil reserves are hard to extract. That can only be done with fracking.
That fracking is creating horrible pollution all over the US. It's the prime reason for people having polluted tap-water.
only registered users can see external links
Do you care about having food independence?
Irrigated agricultural production accounts for about 40% of the freshwater withdrawn in the United States and more than 80% of the water consumed.
Have you ever heard of aquifers? It is ground water; the biggest source of fresh water.
only registered users can see external links
A lot of farms are fully dependent on that water source and it has been depleting rapidly. However, the US still has at least 33,000 trillion gallons left. UNLESS YOU POLLUTE IT!
If you put the US fracking map over the aquifer map, you will see that they overlap a lot. Fracking makes the earth crack, so oil, fracking fluid and radioactive minerals present in the earth can get into your aquifer water source. That will make farming impossible in a lot of area's that don't have surface water sources and you don't have enough surface water sources to pump it to those area's. The US is still the #1 food exporter in the world, but prepare to see that go down very hard in the coming decade(s).
Prepare to see even more farms going bankrupt over water shortages.
I can't see how having a lower iq is any advantage. I sadly do not do well on online Iq test but my friends that know me well say I am smart, strange how it works.
That means your intelligence is only partly dependent on the brain you are born with and for the other part how you choose to use your brain.
You don't necessarily need to study philosophy or logic or train IQ-tests to improve intelligence, every challenge that requires spacial thinking or deductive reasoning, like figuring out why the damned car don't start or making an informed choice on which washing machine to buy and where, is already training your brain. For a big part, doing well on an IQ-test is no guarantee for being smart in social/emotional interactions. There is some relationship with being artistic/creative with intelligence, but you could be the next Vincent van Gogh and suck at IQ-test. Or a great salesman. Or a leader that people will follow courageously into battle.
What you can't be when you suck at IQ-tests, is a scientist. That requires the type of logical reasoning skills and particular brain development that is aligned with what is scored by IQ-tests. Being a scientist also require a certain attitude, to be unbiased, impartial and skeptical. That doesn't mean to not have opinions, that means having opinions based on reasoning and evidence. It also requires being able to change opinions on reality and what is true, when the better evidence is pointing to another reality or truth than you previously accepted. People who cannot do that are not necessarily unintelligent or 'dumb', but could be better described as 'stubborn' or 'dogmatic'.
A good example is Christian apologists; they constantly keep inventing new, sometimes very smart, ways to convince themselves and others of proof that God exists, while they have the intelligence to understand that their proof is based on fallacies (logic errors) or unsubstantiated fundamental proposition. They are obviously intelligent, might even do good at IQ-tests, but they fail at intellectual honesty. In my opinion, intellectual dishonesty is worse than being unintelligent, because it is self-inflicted.
only registered users can see external links
It is ok for the kids to inhale second hand pot smoke and be drug addicts by the age of 10 or decide to be opposite what they were born at 4 but Oh my GOD don't let no red no.3 into the state!
over some story from Newsmax, that you put even more BS on top of.
Would it be so bad, if California banned the use of poison in candy?
Manufactures can decide to not put poison in candy, you know.
Then Skittles could also be sold in California again.
And maybe then children in red states don't eat poisoned candy anymore either.
Or the Skittles manufacturer will have two production lines, one without poison for California and one with poison for the red states. Customer is king!
Problem solved!
And why associate California with pod use?
They are not even in the top 10 states for pod use.
Didn't you live in Colorado, the #2 state of biggest pod users?
only registered users can see external links
It's pretty much the same in my country; the liberals have a culture where smoking near kids is considered child abuse, while the right-wingers have less of a problem with it. But even my right-wing in-laws go out on the balcony to smoke. However, that's partly because they just painted the ceiling and don't want to do that again.
Ok, now take this event,and compare to the burning and looting that went on after the george floyd era and tell me why she is getting the book thrown at her when those rioters never did? , which for arson, I don't have problem with the woman being punished but it is a double standard.BOTH are protest, both are expressions of emotions and feelings if you believe the media about the riots..
only registered users can see external links
Stumbling over this link motivated me to give you folks some background as to why I am the way I am in some departments of life,
This lady in the video was in the exact same situation my former girlfriend, addicted to Xanax. So I can compare and relate.
Except in my girlfriends case, her 3rd suicide attempt was about 80% successful. I know addiction can be beat ,but it takes the addict having a genuine desire to recover and someone to help. I tried helping my girlfriend for a total of 7 years,1 of those being after her 80% successful suicide
It is this situation that I lived thru, and have coped with that puts a bad taste in my mouth about drugs.
I knew her from way back when we were kids, she was attractive, High Iq, great grades in school and so on, UNTIL a so called friend, talked her into smoking a joint. she got addicted to it ,ran away from home, got pregnant at 15 and 3 marriages later she was at the end of her rope and came home to NC and her mother. She ask me to help her recover as she knew I was not a addict of anything except caffeine. But it didn't work.
Alot of pain and strife and suffering ,all because of 1 punk ass bastard got her on dope ,pot.
Pot opens the door, it gets people enjoying being "high" and then after a while it is not enough, and then, they go to worse things. and their lives are ruined. And God forbid if they have a baby while addicted to drugs ,the baby is addicted as soon as it takes it's first breath.
I wish people could understand the harm drugs do and stop thinking about the "happy" fake relief from stress that it may bring for a short time.
But at least be practical about your desire to restrict it.
The US has waged a 'war on drugs' for more than 50 years now.
Isn't it clear yet that it has been a miserable failure?
Everywhere they tried to fight drugs with even tougher methods,
they are failing harder and they are just killing people like your ex.
So why don't you accept an alternative way of beating drugs?
Everywhere they implemented legalize, tax and regulate,
addiction went down, overdose deaths went down and crime went down.
The only reason for not doing it, is that the pharma industry bribes your politicians
to not do it, because they want to keep selling shit like Xanax.
Drug dealers and users alike should be dealt with using a much heavier hand than ever before. If you sell drugs to someone and they die, you should be charged with murder, tried and in the gas chamber.No different than a gun.
And I can't say you are wrong about the bribeing by the big pharma, I feel sure it happens. BUT Another reason dealers are handled so gently, police and lawyers make MILLIONS from seizures and fines and attorney fee's.
I think 1 major change needs to be made .Seized items from a drug dealer should have be donated to charity, and NO benefit to law enforcement from them.
That's not true. Unless you create the most horrible police state ever.
Do you want to live in such a horrible police state?
Well, even if you want to live in such a horrible police state,
a large majority of people don't. So it will never happen!
People like freedom. Republicans used to like freedom too once.
That's why I say; be practical about it.
Your way will never happen, so better support an alternative, that will increase personal freedom, reduces addiction, reduces crime and reduces costs from policing and imprisonment.
And don't be a hypocrite when it comes to the costs of freedom.
You support the freedom to carry guns, while getting shot is the number one cause of death for children in the United States.
Maybe there will be some downsides of legalizing drugs, but they have been proven to be no where near the downsides of your freedom to carry guns.
Legalizing drugs has been proven to result in many upsides, while the upsides of your freedom to carry guns are a total fantasy. Guns only makes you feel safer,
while they actually make you much less safe.
As you know drinking is legal, but drinking and driving isn't.
That would be exactly the same when legalizing any drugs.
Your argument assumes that more people will cause accidents when (some) drugs are legalized, taxed and regulated, but firstly you assume incorrectly that the use will increase massively. It might at first, but will fall again and some studies show a significant decrease in the use of at least the harder drugs later.
Secondly, alcohol and drugs differ enormously in the duration of the effect.
It takes many hours to get sober after alcohol, but it takes at max a half hour to get sober after weed.
And when you don't fill the time of the police going after drugs criminals, they have more time going after drunk and stoned drivers. People will then just use their alcohol and drugs at home and not pose a risk in traffic.
At least I can get aboard with you last idea; reduce bad incentives for cops.
But why are Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Israel in front of us?
We can't have that, so our Dutch talk-show host Arjen Lubach has a solution.
It's in English and starts at 1:46.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Let me be clear the immigrants are 'illegals' and there has to be some blame with law breakers.
The term "asylum seeker" , gee, we have enough Americans that need to be in asylums that we don't need more people swimming the river to fill them up.
Second, I don't know of anyone suggesting illegal aliens be given the right to vote. The only ones that keep bringing this up is you, Repuckers. Are you wishing this to be true?
Third, a citizen of the US is LEGALLY entitled to vote regardless of weather he became a citizen by birth or naturalization. You Repuckers seem to conviniently jump over this small little bit of fact.
--------------------------------------- added after 8 hours
In my RED STATE the citizens voted two yrs ago to restore civil rights to felons that finished their sentence and are NOT on parole or probation. The only exception is for convicted ****philes and murderers
No bail ,out of jail, no death penalty and etc are giving criminals free reign over our once civil society.
Trump relaxed all the regulations for banks up to a worth of $250 billion, where it was previously $50 billion. That's stating that banks with a worth over $250 billion are too big to fail and banks under it are not too big to fail. This bank is worth under $250 billion, so let it fail then. It doesn't mean that you let depositors lose their money, you just gut the bank, take all the assets, start legal actions against management and use whatever value you get out, to pay depositors. That's how bankruptcies work. As far as the government has a responsibility to compensate the depositors, do that, but after that it's a personal or company risk to use a bank that is not operating under regulations. Why should the tax-payer pay for banks and companies taking irresponsible risks? The tax-payer has no responsibility for this bank failing.
If you still want to rescue this bank to help the depositors, then nationalize it.
First let it go bankrupt and then take it out of the hands of management and the shareholders in the cheapest way. Then it can recover, as a simple loan-bank.
Once the bank is healthy again, either keep it as a state bank or sell it for top dollar. That way the tax-payer actually benefits from Trump's dumb deregulation. Stop doing socialism for the rich and protect the tax-payers interests for a change.
Don't rescue banks that didn't want to answer to government regulations.
Only banks that answer to the government should be able to beg for money
from the government. Maybe then the will stop lobbying to cut regulations.
I'm surprised that you, Ananas2xLekker would take Tecsan's viewpoint. I would have thought that as a socialist you would take the blameless's side.
If banks lobby to get those regulation off their backs, then it's their own responsibility if they fail. If the tax-payer keeps helping them, they will keep screwing the tax-payer. It's easy taking risks, if you don't feel the consequences when it fails.
Depositors have a responsibility too. They chose a risky bank,
so they need to feel the consequences too.
If you want a safe bank, then ask for a national bank. Do you see now,
why agreeing with tecsan here is consistent with my socialist viewpoint?
But it's also consistent with REAL capitalism. It is a system where failing companies should be allowed to fail. That's real COMPETITION. And it's an incentive for clients to make the right choices. Backing failing companies
is not capitalism, that's socialism for the rich.
Banks have that responsibility as much as a carny artist has to entertain. Investors take risks and I'm not sorry if they loose their shirt, but, let's take it to the extreme. If all depositors take out all their money out, ALL banks would fail. So what? Bank deposits run the economy. Banks close and the economy tanks in a big way IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Then, the real meaning of tax dollars used to get the economy running again, would be apparent. No capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist or whatever would get us out of that disaster. I SUPPORT THE FEDS STAND TO PROTECT DEPOSITORS 100%.
As this link will indicate, Even the co author of the bill that Trump changed says that Trumps actions did not cause this.
The fed STILL Has the right to do it's thing ,they chose not to.
It's also on principle; if it was decided that this bank was not too big to fail and therefore did not need to adhere to regulations, then let it fail.
You should not give them every opportunity to gamble and then rescue them every time they fuck up.
Your right that banks are important, so it's important to regulate them well.
That's what the rest of the world is doing. We learn from a crisis.
If a bank is too big to fail, so the government would need to step in when shit hits the fan, then you should demand that the banks adhere to regulation.
If Republicans are too stupid to understand that, then make them responsible for the shit that results from that. Don't repair their shit and then allow them to cry about Democrats spending tax-dollars. That's bad politics.
considering where the bank was putting it's money,what should we think of this?
Remember how Trump bailed out the whole stock market, when it was crashing due to the Covid crisis? And after that, he helped mostly the big companies survive the crisis, asked them (not enforced it with rules) to not fire their employees (it's called the Paycheck Protection Program), but big companies
still fired many of their employees.
And when the crisis was over, 92% of the loans issued were granted full or partial forgiveness. And while that was supposed to go to small businesses, billions of dollars went to companies owned by wealthy celebrities, including Tom Brady and Khloe Kardashian, and companies that thrived during COVID, like many manufacturing and construction firms. He let the small businesses go bankrupt, so they can be swallowed up by big conglomerates.
That's how Trump increased the debt with $7.8 trillion.
How much debt is Biden adding by saving Silicon Valley Bank?
I agree with the principle of letting banks crash, if they are not too big to fail,
but I'm consistent in critique of presidents and not partisan like you.
Bet that dementia ridden fool could not think of anything devious on his own.
New Comment Go to top