Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

MTS speed build challenge results - posted on 11th Nov 2018 at 8:38 PM
Replies: 206 (Who?), Viewed: 58022 times.
Page 3 of 9
Top Secret Researcher
#51 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 2:46 AM
So many logical fallacies, so little time. First, quit changing the goalposts. Your point was that only violence can make the government change its ways. You're now saying that your point is true because any form of violence happened, whether or not it had a hand in those specific changes. Just because violence existed in that decade does not mean it was a catalyst for the changes we described.
Then we have Godwin's Law. "If you support a stable government over no government, it's bad because that's what the Nazis and Communists did!" First, because it's an exceptionally weak argument (so much so that I'd think you were parodying your own point), and second, because it's ridiculous to base an argument on "they were bad, so anything associated with them is bad!". At least give other examples than that so that you're not resting your entire argument solely on the idea that identifying something with those groups is bad.
I will also slap on an argument from ignorance for saying that a revolution is due because of your inability to think of a time when the country was more divided than it is now, because it's always been divided. The only differences are that 1. we have mass media able to report on everything at an unprecedented level and we can communicate more easily than ever, and 2. you happen to be alive in this time period so you're witnessing everything instead of the highlights reel of the past. I'm also willing to bet that you're fairly young, so you're just coming out of the Childhood Blinders that parents try to put on you so that you don't realize how much things suck. Just because the world's not as pretty as it was back then doesn't mean it's that dire.
And finally, you are misrepresenting my position as a false dichotomy. I did not say that your only options were to be 100% behind the government or to want chaos in the streets. I'm saying that a bloody revolution is a bad thing because it is likely to lead to more violence than it solves.

Personally, I don't like the government as it is. In fact, I'm in favor of taking over the world myself, because I have a few problems with the way it's run today. The difference is that I know how to do that without killing anyone, and I also know that killing people tends to undermine your claims of bringing peace to the world. Violent uprisings are not the solution. The best thing you can do is play nice with others. After all, nobody can claim you're a warlord if you never shed any blood and they can't say you're a criminal if you never break any laws.

To round things off, your entire premise is based on a big "if". If the system is critically flawed, broken and doomed. Does it have problems? Yes. Are those insurmountable? That's the real question, isn't it? Do you happen to have any evidence that it cannot be fixed? Because your comments on that point are not backed up by anything except "my gut feeling" and "I think" and some very unstable arguments. Why do you think that or have a gut feeling? Furthermore, what exactly do you propose in lieu of the current government? Because there does not exist a type of government without corruption, and one taken in blood is more corrupt than not. After all, as you point out, the government you accuse of being corrupt is one that was founded in violent revolution.

Now, I do think our government is flawed, and that there could be far better ways to run things. However, it's a terrible idea to hope for or encourage a bloodbath in order to get rid of the government. And by the way, if you want to convince people that you're not cheering on the violence, it would be a great idea to stop saying things like the "kill all parents" comment in the vegan thread or saying that humanity needs to die out, because those are strong indicators of wanting people to die.

And my comments on voting for a third party had nothing to do with supporting the government. Two of the biggest problems are the major parties. You want to get rid of those problems without violence? Give people viable alternatives to those big parties and the two major parties will be forced to shape up. A lot of people are going third party on this election, with Libertarian being the most popular, so this is the best chance to throw in your vote and make it count. And if you feel that the government itself is a problem instead of the corruption in it, then I'll redirect you to my question above on what you think a good alternative would be.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Instructor
#52 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 3:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
So many logical fallacies, so little time. First, quit changing the goalposts. Your point was that only violence can make the government change its ways. You're now saying that your point is true because any form of violence happened, whether or not it had a hand in those specific changes. Just because violence existed in that decade does not mean it was a catalyst for the changes we described.
Then we have Godwin's Law. "If you support a stable government over no government, it's bad because that's what the Nazis and Communists did!" First, because it's an exceptionally weak argument (so much so that I'd think you were parodying your own point), and second, because it's ridiculous to base an argument on "they were bad, so anything associated with them is bad!". At least give other examples than that so that you're not resting your entire argument solely on the idea that identifying something with those groups is bad.
I will also slap on an argument from ignorance for saying that a revolution is due because of your inability to think of a time when the country was more divided than it is now, because it's always been divided. The only differences are that 1. we have mass media able to report on everything at an unprecedented level and we can communicate more easily than ever, and 2. you happen to be alive in this time period so you're witnessing everything instead of the highlights reel of the past. I'm also willing to bet that you're fairly young, so you're just coming out of the Childhood Blinders that parents try to put on you so that you don't realize how much things suck. Just because the world's not as pretty as it was back then doesn't mean it's that dire.
And finally, you are misrepresenting my position as a false dichotomy. I did not say that your only options were to be 100% behind the government or to want chaos in the streets. I'm saying that a bloody revolution is a bad thing because it is likely to lead to more violence than it solves.

Personally, I don't like the government as it is. In fact, I'm in favor of taking over the world myself, because I have a few problems with the way it's run today. The difference is that I know how to do that without killing anyone, and I also know that killing people tends to undermine your claims of bringing peace to the world. Violent uprisings are not the solution. The best thing you can do is play nice with others. After all, nobody can claim you're a warlord if you never shed any blood and they can't say you're a criminal if you never break any laws.

To round things off, your entire premise is based on a big "if". If the system is critically flawed, broken and doomed. Does it have problems? Yes. Are those insurmountable? That's the real question, isn't it? Do you happen to have any evidence that it cannot be fixed? Because your comments on that point are not backed up by anything except "my gut feeling" and "I think" and some very unstable arguments. Why do you think that or have a gut feeling? Furthermore, what exactly do you propose in lieu of the current government? Because there does not exist a type of government without corruption, and one taken in blood is more corrupt than not. After all, as you point out, the government you accuse of being corrupt is one that was founded in violent revolution.

Now, I do think our government is flawed, and that there could be far better ways to run things. However, it's a terrible idea to hope for or encourage a bloodbath in order to get rid of the government. And by the way, if you want to convince people that you're not cheering on the violence, it would be a great idea to stop saying things like the "kill all parents" comment in the vegan thread or saying that humanity needs to die out, because those are strong indicators of wanting people to die.

And my comments on voting for a third party had nothing to do with supporting the government. Two of the biggest problems are the major parties. You want to get rid of those problems without violence? Give people viable alternatives to those big parties and the two major parties will be forced to shape up. A lot of people are going third party on this election, with Libertarian being the most popular, so this is the best chance to throw in your vote and make it count. And if you feel that the government itself is a problem instead of the corruption in it, then I'll redirect you to my question above on what you think a good alternative would be.


Good point on the libertarian party I may vote for them, if they show up on the ballet in my state. I can't remember ever seeing them on the ballet before, here in Delaware it tends to be only the two major parties and no write in option on our voting machines. Maybe it is better in the rest of the country, but here if you have a problem with the major parties you don't have a lot of options.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Theorist
#53 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 4:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Maybe it is better in the rest of the country, but here if you have a problem with the major parties you don't have a lot of options.


It's not any better in the rest of the country as a whole, but there's some outliers.

I mean, they looked at me like I had two heads when I went to vote in the primary and asked for a Democratic ballot. They had to look for them.
Instructor
#54 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 5:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
It's not any better in the rest of the country as a whole, but there's some outliers.

I mean, they looked at me like I had two heads when I went to vote in the primary and asked for a Democratic ballot. They had to look for them.


Wait, that is one of the two major parties, and I thought only having two parties who really stood a chance was insanely short sighted. I guess we have it a little better here then since both parties are on the ballot. Wow, Just, wow.

I don't know if there are enough Picard faceplams in the world to express my feelings upon reading your post.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Theorist
DELETED POST
13th Jul 2016 at 5:44 AM Last edited by Viktor86 : 13th Jul 2016 at 6:20 AM.
This message has been deleted by Viktor86.
Instructor
#55 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 10:10 AM
So, yesterday I posted a comment, turned off the computer to have dinner and go to bed, and came back today to find lots and lots of replies... so I'm sorry that I'm responding to a post from earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Here is the problem, if I have moral issues with both people running then how can I vote for one of them?

I think both Hilary and Trump are guilty of things that if they were not well connected, they would be in jail for, neither one of them seems to have any respect for the people or the rule of law. As for forcing people to vote, that seems like a form of oppression to me, I mean I would rather be shot dead then vote for either the racist, or the woman who doesn't seem to give a single thought to the value of human life, and that is exactly what you would have to do to me. What do they do in your country if someone just says the "the system is broken and I am not voting until it is fixed", do you throw them in jail for the rest of their lives, do you gun them down in the streets, do you torture them until they vote, how on earth do you force someone to vote without going to those extremes?


I will just clear up a point here: no, Australia doesn't "gun [people] down in the streets" if they don't vote. They get a fine, maybe $20? It's not much. But really the only bit you have to do is get a ballot paper and put it in the box, if you want to write "all politicians are [insert favourite swear word here]" across your ballot paper you are welcome to do so. It's called an informal vote (or a spoilt ballot), along with votes where someone failed to number in order, and politicians (at least occassionally) try to reduce the number of them.

The problem with not voting is that your non-vote is identifiably you, and so politicians in countries where voting is not compulsory can start saying "well, old/young men/women of such-and-such a race do/don't vote, so we'll tailor our policies accordingly", and all pensioners get free bus passes while students get huge amounts of debt for their degrees. Not voting says you don't care - so I would recommend writing swear words across your ballot paper (or whatever you like, really) as a better method of protest.

-*-*-*-*-

On a more general note, I would like to make an observation about violent revolutions and the people who engage in them. Obviously the revolutionaries aren't currently doing the best out of the current system, or they wouldn't want a revolution. But they're not the worst either. It's (some of the) people in the middle who try to force a change through - and it's people on the bottom who end up dead even when they weren't involved.

And for the Nazi comparisons - the people of Germany in 1933 had a large variety of parties to vote for, and I'm sure most of those that voted for the Nazis didn't do it because they were "least worst" - in fact if anything they were a rejection of the status quo. It was also not at all obvious that the results of that election would eventually lead to the Holocaust etc., and I'm sure that many Nazi voters were horrified at the consequences. Not least various senior Nazi party officials who tried to assassinate Hitler.
Instructor
#56 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 2:59 PM
Maybe it's just because I have been studying the German elections of the time that I am seeing this, but when asked why they voted for the Nazis at the time they won a third of the vote with over a dozen parties on the ballot, my people said something along the lines of "They will make the government stable.", so I guess that triggered a reaction in me when I saw people here sighting it as a reason to vote for one of the two parties.

Sorry.

Interesting I had no idea how Australian elections worked.

One thing that should be noted is the electoral college can vote however they want, in most states they are not bound by law to vote the way their state went so that also factors into if I think it's worth waiting in the crowds on election day to vote for president. Still that may just be me and my not doing well in crowded places and other people most likely don't have that problem.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Theorist
#57 Old 20th Jul 2016 at 1:19 AM Last edited by HarVee : 20th Jul 2016 at 1:56 AM.
Has anyone heard Steve Kings comments about race during republican committee thing? "White" people did more for civilization? Excuse me? Have you read history book?

King further said that the Western Civilization and culture was superior? Oh sorry us Egyptians are not of the superior Western Civilization culture master race! We sorry we gave you concepts for organized religion and marshmallows and razors and writing and wigs and makeup and laws and beer and calendar and astrology and deathcare and salt mining and shall I go on?

If you so superior, we'll gladly take those back. Seeing as you do not need the inferiority.

That aside, with remarks like these it only proves how America really is out-of-touch with reality, thus further reiterating my very first comment in this thread.

/wɒt Iz lʌv?/
/beɪbi dəʊnt həːt miː/
/dəʊnt həːt miː/
/nəʊ mɔː/
Theorist
#58 Old 20th Jul 2016 at 1:51 AM
A certain head-up-ass segment of America, sure. I take shit like this with the same grain of salt I do when crazy folks in Tehran try to pretend the Holocaust didn't happen, or when North Korea promises to "rain destruction on America."

A lot of people are idiots, another fraction of those idiots are in charge of things somewhere, and then another section of those guys are offensive assholes. Just try keep them minimized and hope they fail. It won't work every time, but it actually works most of the time, which is why most of the time we just have deal with the people in charge being idiots while being surrounded by a large number
of idiots. It's frustrating that the world isn't full of good, sane people but the reason they're reactionary is because every year we box more of the assholes up. They're losing. We're winning.
Theorist
#59 Old 20th Jul 2016 at 2:12 AM
Indeed so. Point of my comment was snarky rebuttal toward idiotic behaviour. Instead of thinking of these as human achievements those in charge or those representing those in charge of America have to prey on the skin colour to make assessment of prosperity. It is sad distorted view of reality that only fuels bigoted Trump dystopia.

/wɒt Iz lʌv?/
/beɪbi dəʊnt həːt miː/
/dəʊnt həːt miː/
/nəʊ mɔː/
Theorist
#60 Old 20th Jul 2016 at 3:11 AM Last edited by Mistermook : 20th Jul 2016 at 4:38 AM.
He's not in charge of shit. He might normally retain some sort of power in a political situation where Congress was coherent enough to assert the full legal extents of its powers, but for the majority of the time Obama's been President Congress has mostly been an empty room full of loud yahoos who like to make noise but can't get their act together enough to actually do anything. And King's the representative of an underrepresented, underpopulated state that state pretty much no one without any money in corn futures gives two slow fucks about except when King opens his pie hole and lets the insanity stretch out. I mean he's not a representative from anywhere where he's going to screw anything besides livestock really. He's a Tea Party member whose most prestigious committees involve farming. And who knows, it's possible he's actually okay at kicking the tires like Congress is supposed to as regards to Agriculture Committees and only pulls the party favors out of his "I'm a Loon" bag so he can keep on shining kickbacks onto his favorite 10,000 acre farms around town. He's not some member of Congress from New York or California, where saying crazy stuff might be blowing the dog whistle that some sort of significant shift in common thought was happening. He's not even from Texas, where the members of Congress are insane AND influential (but occasionally barely restrained by all the money in Texas slapping them across the face and telling them to cut it out.) Iowa's barely got any more people in it than Mississippi, and it makes less money each year than Kentucky. These are not high bars. It's not the bottom of the bowl in the lists of states, but it's definitely in the part of where there's only candy you don't care for. So basically he's being offensive out of his weight-class. It might even be a strategy, because no one's ever going to hear about the guy based on what he could actually do politically. He's powerless, so he can afford to say crazy shit that would get him canned elsewhere. He's the federal equivalent of that crazy guy on a small town's city council, the one who thinks he got probed by aliens but he owns three gas stations so no one wants to tick him off and not let him play politician.

Again, it's like the crazies in Tehran and North Korea. Those guys can literally be as crazy as they want because they're really limited in their capacity to actually act or influence people based on controlling stuff other people want. North Korea says they have death rays and are going to kill all Japanese people? That's nice dear. Tehran says they're sixty seconds away from possessing a nuclear enema? Great, show me the transcontinental suppository and I'll pay attention. King wants to put a confederate flag on his desk? Yeah, even down here close to where that flag actually might mean something people mostly know better than to pull that shit, if for no other reason than we've got more than six black people around willing to kick them in the nuts the next time they see him in the grocery store.

Trumps a dangerous asshole because he's looking to become President of the United States. Steve King is a pathetic nobody looking for attention, because even the people from Iowa don't care much about Iowa.
Lab Assistant
#61 Old 20th Jul 2016 at 7:41 PM
Bernie is my favorite. The only other reasonable one was Kasich, but he was too conservative and was bringing his religion into it far too much. Trump and Hillary both change their opinions more than their underwear, they're just not reliable. Not to mention the fact that Trump is racist and disturbing towards women, Hillary is a criminal who only began supporting the LGBT community when it was easy for her. I'm more stressed about this election than the one Romney was in, and this time I actually have to vote for one of these idiots. Still hoping Trump says it was all a joke, c'mon his (immigrant) wife can't even create her own speeches, how the hell are they going to be the first family.

But honestly the most terrifying thing is the amount of people, not even limited to America, who thing Trump is the best option. I think those people are the ones living in a fantasy world. My stats prof had said one thing I will never forget. "A lower middle class person votes republican because they live with the idea that they will come into money at any moment and want to be in a country that supports the rich better than the poor". Not word for word, it's been over a year, but I explained it as best I could lmao.
Instructor
#62 Old 21st Jul 2016 at 9:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadhead_kay
Trump and Hillary both change their opinions more than their underwear, they're just not reliable.


I appreciate that politician's shouldn't change their minds about everything too often, because their voters need to know where they stand, but really - over the course of a long career, it would be very sad if they didn't change their minds about things. Clinton at least has been involved in politics (through her husband as well as in her own right) for more than 25 years - shouldn't she change her mind about some things? Isn't it a good thing that she can say "I thought that then, but I've since discovered I was wrong"? Or "At the time it looked like the best option, but now we've seen it didn't work"? Most of the population of the USA (and indeed the Western world) have changed their minds about gay marriage in the last decade or so - why shouldn't Clinton?

I appreciate that a politician changing their position on an issue can look like opportunism, and maybe that's involved, but can't you give them the benefit of the doubt? Certainly for a politician like Clinton with a track record (I agree it's harder with Trump) you can see where their aims are, and it's largely the same as Sanders.
Lab Assistant
#63 Old 21st Jul 2016 at 9:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyCarey
I appreciate that politician's shouldn't change their minds about everything too often, because their voters need to know where they stand, but really - over the course of a long career, it would be very sad if they didn't change their minds about things. Clinton at least has been involved in politics (through her husband as well as in her own right) for more than 25 years - shouldn't she change her mind about some things? Isn't it a good thing that she can say "I thought that then, but I've since discovered I was wrong"? Or "At the time it looked like the best option, but now we've seen it didn't work"? Most of the population of the USA (and indeed the Western world) have changed their minds about gay marriage in the last decade or so - why shouldn't Clinton?

I appreciate that a politician changing their position on an issue can look like opportunism, and maybe that's involved, but can't you give them the benefit of the doubt? Certainly for a politician like Clinton with a track record (I agree it's harder with Trump) you can see where their aims are, and it's largely the same as Sanders.


I can completely appreciate them changing their opinion, as long as their mind and heart are there to back it up and it's not just a ploy to gain votes. I honestly don't even know where to start with Trump, cause he's gone back and forth on issues for years, the most noticeable one that i'm recalling is his stance on abortion. But I do believe that if it weren't for Hillary being so shady and committing fraud, I'd be backing her much less reluctantly than I am forced to do now. In my mind it comes down to this with these two candidates, do you want to be treated as nothing more than a business' merchandise to be traded around and sold, or treated as a human by someone no one respects because they've been under investigation by the FBI?

At least we can all hopefully agree America is becoming even more of a shit show than it has been for the past couple decades lmao.
Instructor
#64 Old 22nd Jul 2016 at 6:11 AM
America just needs to be nuked off the map. If that were to happen every other problem in the world would vanish. America is the single most evil and worthless thing the human race has ever produced. It is nothing but a dumping ground for the garbage other much better nations do not want and the sooner it is gone the better off everyone will be.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Theorist
DELETED POST
22nd Jul 2016 at 7:15 AM Last edited by HarVee : 22nd Jul 2016 at 7:26 AM.
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Instructor
#65 Old 22nd Jul 2016 at 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
Where this extreme attitude coming from? I do not pretend, nor have I ever, to like America much, but even I do not want millions of people nuked. Besides, if America did not exist, then where else would all the worlds trash go?

...Unless you mean nuking as metaphor and America as in its government and media and culture, and not its people and landscape? If this what you meant then I would agree with metaphoric nuking.


No I think America is such a piece of trash and Trump being the most popular leader in the history of the country proves that we are just the next Nazi Germany and that we will murder far more people then have ever lived in this country, so I think the world is better off with us all dead. The so called "human" lives in this worthless piece of shit country are just monsters who put the rest of the world in danger and are better off dead. We are talking about the country the run gitmo, the biggest death camp in the modern world.

Everything about this country is pure evil and it has never done one good thing in it's whole history. Even the people who are not evil are better off dead or going back where they came from, because every country on earth is better then this one. I have just reached an all time low in my faith in this country and that there is anything good left in the human race and I just can't wait for death and I think the planet would be a lot better off with myself and the rest of this country no longer on it.

I am so depressed by the news that comes in every day and there doesn't seem to be any way to change anything so I say just nuke it all and maybe the rest of the human race can be saved. I don't see any good coming from letting this country go on, in fact all I do see is us committing crimes on a scale the nazis could never even dream of because they didn't have the tech at the time.

Sorry if that sound harsh, but that is how I feel. There is no hope left and the country can't been turned around from the blood soaked path it is on, so just kill it and save the people worth saving who are all in other countries any way.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Theorist
DELETED POST
22nd Jul 2016 at 1:45 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Instructor
#66 Old 22nd Jul 2016 at 5:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
@EvilMcNastySim2015

I ask to you this - I do not identify with America country in anyway other than simple acknowledgement of living there currently. I am worth saving or not?


I guess, maybe I am just too depressed to see things clearly right now but things seem completely hopeless at the moment.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Lab Assistant
#67 Old 22nd Jul 2016 at 7:41 PM
It does make a U.S. citizen feel pretty hopeless watching the news for more than 2 minutes a day. But I realize that even if i'm not an important, powerful person changing the way the country is, at least i'm educating myself on it. I say as I get my Portuguese citizenship so that I have an escape plan if/when Hitler, I mean Trump, wins. :P
Field Researcher
#68 Old 24th Jul 2016 at 5:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadhead_kay
It does make a U.S. citizen feel pretty hopeless watching the news for more than 2 minutes a day. But I realize that even if i'm not an important, powerful person changing the way the country is, at least i'm educating myself on it. I say as I get my Portuguese citizenship so that I have an escape plan if/when Hitler, I mean Trump, wins. :P


Hitler. Do you even think before you type? If you had any sense of decency or any true idea of the scope of his horrific legacy you would not speak that name so lightly. And to compare him to Trump? Enjoy Portugal.

A fool and his money are soon parted. ~ Thomas Tusser
Theorist
DELETED POST
24th Jul 2016 at 5:17 AM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#69 Old 24th Jul 2016 at 7:00 AM
He did bring jobs to millions of people and the Autobahn in Germany is thanks to his government. Although that doesn't change the fact of the evil purposes of his plans...

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
Theorist
DELETED POST
24th Jul 2016 at 1:02 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Mad Poster
#70 Old 24th Jul 2016 at 3:27 PM
I find it strange that a country as large as the US can't produce better candidates than the clownfest it's got going now. I'm almost tempted to say that I'd rather have back Bush in the driving seat than any of these clowns, and he's already below rock bottom of presidents I'd be willing to get back (even below several dead ones, just dug up and placed in a chair).

The only thing I find stranger that the candidates, is that people are actually willing to vote for them. I may not have a good enough grasp of US politics, but out of a pool of how many candidates, these are really the best you could do? Even the current president seems to think they're a bit of a joke.

Can't say we've not had some political jokes running my country from time to time, but at least none of them have managed to screw up things too bad as of yet (not for the lack of trying, though - but at least their political schemes need to go a few rounds before applied or denied, and even the weirder ones are usually somewhat decent people). Once again: I'm glad I'm not American, and that I live about as far away from there as I can come.
Lab Assistant
#71 Old 24th Jul 2016 at 8:29 PM
It's not like Hitler started off as extreme as he ended. His politics in the beginning were on par with what Trump wants to accomplish. You guys have to remember that he didn't come into power automatically doing those horrendous things to the Jewish people(and others). He started off with just ostracizing them as others and making his people turn against them. Remind you of how America, Trump in particular, want to/do treat Muslims? That's what I meant by that comparison. Not that Trump right now is behaving how Hitler did during his "prime", but that he rings so many warning bells of how Hitler was in the beginning of his reign.
Theorist
#72 Old 24th Jul 2016 at 11:59 PM Last edited by Mistermook : 11th Sep 2016 at 7:06 PM.
Luckily the US isn't nearly such a desperate place as 1920s-1930s Germany, unless you're a Trump supporter or suffering from clinical depression. Things aren't perfect, but compared to a few years ago we're getting better.
Theorist
#73 Old 25th Jul 2016 at 1:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
Only if using 12 hour format. Only correct once if using the correct hour format.


That sentence was based on those old fashioned 12 hrs clocks.

The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
Theorist
DELETED POST
25th Jul 2016 at 1:33 AM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Lab Assistant
DELETED POST
30th Jul 2016 at 5:13 PM
This message has been deleted by bloodstained_black_lace.
Instructor
#74 Old 4th Sep 2016 at 1:53 AM
I haven't even looked at the responses yet and I'm already pretty confident that the majority of the responses say that Trump is the worst. (UPDATE: I was right...shocker ) Well, here is my rebuttal: While Trump definitely isn't the ideal candidate (I was originally rooting for Ben Carson and Marco Rubio), I definitely think that Hillary is far worse than Trump could ever be.

Yeah, Trump says a lot of things that people don't want to hear. But at least he's honest. Hillary is probably one of the most dishonest people in America. She flat-out lies and flip-flops on issues if she thinks it'll win her votes (ex. originally was against gay marriage, but now that the Democratic Party agrees with it, suddenly she's all for it). Not to mention that she lied about Benghazi AND lied about the 30,000 emails she kept on a private email account and deleted (so really she isn't just a liar, but also a criminal).

Sorry, but if it boils down to choosing the candidate who would be in a federal prison if it weren't for the fact that her power and influence can get her out of her problems (forget calling Trump privileged, that's real privilege right there) or choosing the candidate who just says mean things, I think I'd have to go with the latter.

Annnnnd now to sit and wait for all the disagrees and hate to start flowing in
Mad Poster
#75 Old 4th Sep 2016 at 2:15 AM
America's best option would be to ditch their current candidates and find some new ones who are capable of running a country to compete for the job. They've still got the time.
Page 3 of 9
Back to top