|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive31
Spineless LA Democrats give up on helping homeless[edit]
That should be the headline on LA newspapers today. As a background, homelessness is a big problem in LA. There are 47,000 homeless people in that county. The weakling Democrats, who apparently control the city, can't manage to do anything about the crisis: failing to pass a millionaire tax, a sales tax, or a property tax to raise money to deal with the problem. Why? Why the hell can't they get these bills passed? Aren't they supposed to care about the poor? But wait, they passed a bill to tax marijuana 10% to raise money for the homeless! ..or not. The pussy Dem who originally proposed the measure changed her fucking mind. Maybe helping the homeless isn't such a great idea after all. What a bunch of pussies! PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why should we punish the rich because the poor are lazy? We should tax the homeless for all the crime they commit. Send 'em back to Mexico where they belong! --Ymir (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Primarily because the tax increases are not up to the Democrats controlling the city.
- According to the article you referenced, "Kuehl said there had been “a good deal of ambivalence” about the marijuana tax proposal among service providers, particularly substance abuse treatment providers, who were not enthusiastic about legalizing marijuana. She said she worried it would be difficult to get the needed two-thirds majority among voters without a united front of support among homeless advocates. “We certainly didn’t want to raise millions of dollars for a campaign and have it fail by two or three points,” she said."
- Sounds to me like 2.6 million or more of the LA populace ain't going to be on board with the idea.
- I think this is relevant as well - "Ariel Clark, chair of the Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force, a marijuana industry advocacy group, said in a statement, “It's premature to talk about what L.A. will do with cannabis tax revenue. Today, cannabis businesses are banned in L.A. County and illegal in the City of L.A. We need fair local licensing laws that align with state law. Until then, proposals like these are wishful thinking.""
- So, it sounds like the marijuana tax proposal was a boondoggle to begin with, until the legalization changes.
- Do you think a bad idea that sounds like it wouldn't have raised hardly any money should have been pursued? --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I find it fascinating how both lefty self-righteous douchebags and fascists always point to the same reason for why things aren't going their way : it's always because of "lack of balls" or because the lawmakers are "pussies". Not because the world's a complicated place and changing it for the better on the long run takes tremendous work and patience, not because democracy requires more than just goodwill to move things, not because you have to consider if your laws won't actually backfire or will actually do any good; nope. It's because everyone's a pussy! We should just have the dictatorship PB won't admit he wants. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Or, you know, fully-realized and implemented policies being generally more effective than muddled half measures. Organizations tend to be good at what their members actually care about. Efficacy goes down when political processes, infighting, etc. becomes more important than accomplishing goals. Following through can be difficult in politics, and it tends to take "balls" to push parties in line when they'd prefer some other policy. But follow through is important for results, so here we are. LA apparently doesn't care enough about homelessness to do what it would take to deal with it. One possible solution would be for a "ballsy" politician to campaign on the issue and push against resistance hard enough for changes to stick. Or 'Noting that Pasadena reported a 16% decrease in its 2016 homeless count, Mangano said it may be time to replace the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a joint city-county agency, with local community oversight “that can muster the local political will to get things done.”' 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I find it fascinating how both lefty self-righteous douchebags and fascists always point to the same reason for why things aren't going their way : it's always because of "lack of balls" or because the lawmakers are "pussies". Not because the world's a complicated place and changing it for the better on the long run takes tremendous work and patience, not because democracy requires more than just goodwill to move things, not because you have to consider if your laws won't actually backfire or will actually do any good; nope. It's because everyone's a pussy! We should just have the dictatorship PB won't admit he wants. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- And do what, exactly? Pass your millionaire tax and the millionaires move to the suburbs, depressing the local economy and causing an even larger budget shortfall (and really, California is already heavily taxed). Tax Hollywood and Hollywood notices that California isn't the only place with good weather (and do you really think the government is going to piss off the world's largest propaganda machine, or suck up to them?). Spend money on the homeless and half the homeless move to your city. Set up homeless camps and you end up with constant harassment and crime concentrated in certain neighborhoods, depressing the local economy and leading to even more crime. Institutionalize the mentally ill, and it's basically more expensive than prison but with more risks of abuse; keep in mind that Reagan succeeded in shutting down the mental hospitals. Don't pretend there are easy answers here. CorruptUser (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If we are to believe Castaigne, NewFrenchHotness, and CorruptUser, then America is literally incapable of doing anything about homelessness. And they're all wrong. Utah has less than a third of the homeless that LA county has. Utah recently reduced its number of chronic homeless — people who've had a disability or addiction — by 91%. Holy shit! It turns out the solution to homelessness was staring us in the face this whole time: give people homes! And guess what? It's cheaper to do this than not do this; you don't need to raise taxes at all. What do you think of this proposal? PBfreespace (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the number of *chronic* homeless, who represent about 20% of the national homeless population. No one's said the problem of homelessness is impossible to solve or at least make better: but we were simply responding to your self-righteous dick-waving about California Dems and how they were "pussies" for living in the real world and not yours. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Never said we can't do anything, just that there is no magic bullet and absolutely no solution exists that would solve all the problems. CorruptUser (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If we are to believe Castaigne, NewFrenchHotness, and CorruptUser, then America is literally incapable of doing anything about homelessness.
- Pbfreespace3- No one said that. No one even intimated it. All that was said was that particular solution appears to be withdrawn because it wouldn't have worked and that the solutions are complex. No one said it was impossible. Why do you lie?
Utah recently reduced its number of chronic homeless — people who've had a disability or addiction — by 91%
- Pbfreespace3- And perhaps you should suggest to L.A. that they adopt some of those solutions? Contact some politicians there, point them in the correct direction? Grassroots petitions maybe?
- But no, you'd rather whine and shitpost and stamp your feet because how DARE they not be OBEDIENT to your wishes.
- You are the absolute embodiment of "The perfect is the enemy of the good." --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Castaigne, you and NewFrenchHotness are doing nothing to help. You're not making any counterproposals or alternative solutions to the problem. All you're doing it criticizing my wish to try to solve homelessness and my dislike of the Democrats' not doing anything about it.
- CorruptUser, if we implemented a millionaires tax all over the US, would all the millionaires leave to avoid the tax? No! They'd stay and pay, giving us the money we need to fight homelessness. Why don't you support that? Would a sales tax stop people from buying shit? No! Why are you using Reagan's arguments for why we can't realistically take care of our worst off? PBfreespace (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm willing to vote for whatever solution to the homeless problem will work, won't cost a fortune that could have been used for better or more efficient things, won't fuck other people over further down the line, and won't backfire in some way when the initial problem has been resolved. Guess what, this solution is complex. I don't have to make detailed counterproposals: this is not about us or what we would do, this is about *you* and your unbearable self-righteousness that leads you to calling people who actually have stake in this kind of work "pussy". The Democrats shelved a project that they knew wouldn't work: what, were they supposed to go ahead and waste time and money that could have been spent coming up with a more effective solution? Or do you propose they threaten to bomb the city if they don't get their way? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me why the marijuana tax wouldn't work? Don't quote the article. Explain to me in practical terms why it won't help the problem, or make it worse. PB (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't I quote the article? Here, have what Castaigne already quoted: "Ariel Clark, chair of the Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force, a marijuana industry advocacy group, said in a statement, “It's premature to talk about what L.A. will do with cannabis tax revenue. Today, cannabis businesses are banned in L.A. County and illegal in the City of L.A. We need fair local licensing laws that align with state law. Until then, proposals like these are wishful thinking."". This kind of law could work... in the future, when some other laws have been passed. Until then, it's a waste of time and money. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- But would you support a marijuana tax once it's legal? Because I have a feeling the LA Democratic officials won't because they're wimps. Mark my words: when it's legal they won't divert the tax revenue to helping the homeless. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, it would take three legal changes rather than one, with the extra changes being at the governmental levels that the Homeless Services Authority operates at already. Therefore it's a waste of timed money, and they shouldn't take one of the three steps needed for that policy? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not if the money could be used to campaign for stuff that'd have a more immediate impact, rather than laws that basically serve no purpose until more specific laws are voted, which isn't a certainty anyways. One bird in the hand being better than two in the bush and all that. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't I quote the article? Here, have what Castaigne already quoted: "Ariel Clark, chair of the Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force, a marijuana industry advocacy group, said in a statement, “It's premature to talk about what L.A. will do with cannabis tax revenue. Today, cannabis businesses are banned in L.A. County and illegal in the City of L.A. We need fair local licensing laws that align with state law. Until then, proposals like these are wishful thinking."". This kind of law could work... in the future, when some other laws have been passed. Until then, it's a waste of time and money. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me why the marijuana tax wouldn't work? Don't quote the article. Explain to me in practical terms why it won't help the problem, or make it worse. PB (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- First, I don't live in L.A. Not my jurisdiction.
- Second, homelessness is not one of my pet causes.
- Third, I don't have enough information to offer a counter-proposal. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm willing to vote for whatever solution to the homeless problem will work, won't cost a fortune that could have been used for better or more efficient things, won't fuck other people over further down the line, and won't backfire in some way when the initial problem has been resolved. Guess what, this solution is complex. I don't have to make detailed counterproposals: this is not about us or what we would do, this is about *you* and your unbearable self-righteousness that leads you to calling people who actually have stake in this kind of work "pussy". The Democrats shelved a project that they knew wouldn't work: what, were they supposed to go ahead and waste time and money that could have been spent coming up with a more effective solution? Or do you propose they threaten to bomb the city if they don't get their way? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Reading this whole conversation, it seems like this is indicative of the larger philosophical debate of pragmatism versus idealism, with Pbfreespace3 and that IP address being the idealist, and everybody else the pragmatists. It's an interesting debate, with good points being made on both sides. Applesauce (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Peebles, the very first paragraph in this section involved you complaining about a single city in California failing to tax millionaires higher. Not the whole US. CorruptUser (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. And your point is? PBfreespace (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. And your point is? PBfreespace (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Peebles, the very first paragraph in this section involved you complaining about a single city in California failing to tax millionaires higher. Not the whole US. CorruptUser (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
“”CorruptUser, if we implemented a millionaires tax all over the US, would all the millionaires leave to avoid the tax? No! They'd stay and pay, giving us the money we need to fight homelessness. Why don't you support that?
|
- Do you see the problem with you making that statement? CorruptUser (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. The alternative to what I'm proposing is to either lower the tax or keep it where it is. Do you support that? Because the only way to actually make sure the millionaires don't leave is to just raise the tax nationally. Do you oppose that motion? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is you/we were discussing a county in California and then you are claiming I made statements about national policy that I never made.
- As for national taxes, there does need to be tax reform; capital gains should be treated as regular income, companies shouldn't get nearly so many tax breaks but dividends should be tax deductible (and then taxed as income from the recipient). Companies shouldn't be allowed to play games with where the profits were made, and we should get smart about it; if 80% of your revenue was made in the US, 80% of your profit was made in the US even if your company was headquartered in the Cayman Islands. Schools should not be funded primarily from local property taxes, as that rewards segregation, the biggest form being in Florida with age discrimination where by keeping communities 55+ they don't need to build schools and other neighborhoods pay for education (but still expect everyone else to pay for medicare and social security). But good luck getting any of that through... CorruptUser (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. The alternative to what I'm proposing is to either lower the tax or keep it where it is. Do you support that? Because the only way to actually make sure the millionaires don't leave is to just raise the tax nationally. Do you oppose that motion? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you see the problem with you making that statement? CorruptUser (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Careworker shot trying to help an autistic man with a toy truck[edit]
Who is at fault? Part of the problem is because guns are widely available in the USA people are frightened. A toy truck gets mistaken for a gun. An autistic man plays with the toy truck and doesn't obey an order to lie down with his hands up. Police at a distance (perhaps?) imagine he's loading a gun. The autistic man and the caregiver are both lucky to be alive. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Warning! If you're black and a white policeman has a gun don't holler. You may feel you have good reason to holler to prevent an unarmed patient playing with a toy being shot. Still it's a big risk. Too many white American police dealing with blacks shoot first and ask questions later. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Don't you just love police in America? Shoot first, ask questions about autism later. Well at least the poor people weren't killed like they usually are... Applesauce (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well they are lucky in the sense that the policeman's incompetence didn't kill either of them. One of the reasons police in the US kill so many mentally ill and intellectually disabled people is because they are not trained to recognize that the individual is different and requires special care. I am not sure why the officer couldn't understand the caretaker since he seemed to clearly say that the white man was autistic and that he had a toy car.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 18:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- If the autistic man had been black it's much more likely he'd have been shot. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, the story isn't bad enough the way that it happened or anything... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- If the autistic man had been black it's much more likely he'd have been shot. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well they are lucky in the sense that the policeman's incompetence didn't kill either of them. One of the reasons police in the US kill so many mentally ill and intellectually disabled people is because they are not trained to recognize that the individual is different and requires special care. I am not sure why the officer couldn't understand the caretaker since he seemed to clearly say that the white man was autistic and that he had a toy car.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 18:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely ridiculous. I fully support Campaign Zero and their policy proposals. That's the best way to solve this crisis. PBfreespace (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- A black man was lying on the ground with his hands up as he'd been told. Still he was hollering. The police either didn't know or didn't care that he was hollering trying to protect the patient. When a white police officer has a gun a black man should stay quietly respectful. A bullet in the leg wouldn't disable him longterm (hopefully). Still it should hurt enough to teach him better respect for the future. I don't know what was really going through the mind of the police who shot him. Still I keep wondering if it was anything on the lines of what's above. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton[edit]
What are Hillary Clinton's policies besides being immeasurably better than Donald Trump? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pro-choice, pro equal marriage (not that it matters at this point), pro equal pay, pro death penalty, pro non-crazy SCOTUS justices, anti TPP, for the DREAM Act, fasttrack to citizenship, etc. AyzmoCheers 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- The main problem I have with Hillary, besides her being bought off by corporations and the Arab kings, controlled by centrist think tanks and lobbyists, and not truly caring about what the people want, is that she's not trustworthy. If she tells me her view on something, I can't say I trust she's telling the truth. She's been shown to tailor her policy positions based on what crowd she's talking to. If she's in front of the banks, she'll say she's against reform and regulation, but if she's at a Democratic rally, she'll act like tight regulation is the only sane choice. What does she really think? I'd say the former, but I actually don't know. That's a problem. I pretty much know what I'll get with Trump and Sanders, but Hillary is a giant wild card. PBfreespace (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Will Trump really build that wall? How will he force Mexico to pay for it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you are afraid that Hillary might not do what she says, that is a much smaller problem to have than the problem I have with Trump. I am afraid he will do what he says. Ban mḾuslims, build a wall, give nukes to Japan and South Korea, defund NATO and all his other harebrained schemes. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair fear. However I don't think he will get the chance to do these things. If there is a wall it'll be some half-assed fence that people can still tunnel under and climb over, also taking his entire presidency to build. The Muslim ban was a clever bargaining position taken by Trump to force a compromise he wouldn't mind, which would likely be a temporary ban on Muslims from Syria, Iraq, and Libya. That's not a big deal. He wouldn't "give nukes" to Japan and South Korea, he just said he wouldn't block their production as Obama and Bush did. He wouldn't "defund NATO", but simply slightly reduce our funding. If anything, we should be pulling troops from Japan and South Korea, and Germany. That Okinawa base needs to go. You take Trump way too literally. All politicians lie and exaggerate (except for Sanders, peace be upon him), so it's not a big deal. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- For me, the issue is not so much his stated policies, but his not-so-hidden dog whistle politics and his appeals to the far- and alt-right. If you think Breitbart is a force for bad now, just imagine what will happen when it becomes Trump's chosen media outlet. We saw it after the Brexit vote, when the xenophobic wing of British society, previously marginalized, came out of the wood work to perpetrate hate crimes against Polish and Muslims. Brexit by itself may not have apocalyptic consequences and there's reasonable arguments for it, but the vote became more about the movement than the policies. The Bernie or Bust people miss at least part of the point of Presidential elections, because they're pretending that all that matters with the President is their personal ideology, when in reality, ever since Andrew Jackson, the President has been a symbol of their political movement. Obama's election and reelection was not important just because of the individual policies he set forth, his election showed an optimistic, accepting America, and his reelection affirmed that this was still the case. The right wing has been endlessly and obnoxiously claiming victory for the last 6 years because they won and then gerrymandered the House, imagine if they win the Presidency. We're already seeing more and more hate crimes from him simply being on the campaign trail, what do you think will happen if he actually wins, his horrible cultish fanbase becomes empowered and feel like they're in control. This is putting aside very important things like the SUPREME COURT, we already know how Trump has in mind there and it's not pretty. We will have to hope that it stays a Swing Court, and Trump doesn't get 3 appointments. That will do much more harm to many vulnerable people (including perhaps you, but maybe not. Bernie fans usually don't have much to lose), much more harm than four years of Clinton or Trump are capable of. No one is going to stand up and pat you on the back for voting for Jill Stein when 2020 rolls around, just as no one views 2000 Nader voters as being brave and today. They're viewed as the purist babies who gave us 8 years of Bush, with many more dead US soldiers than Obama or Clinton ever gave us. And don't think for a minute that Trump is unable to win reelection, Dems made the same stupid assumption in 2000, as well. Hentropy (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Garland is a mixed bag, and ultimately I oppose his appointment. Rather than try to appoint a more liberal justice, Hillary has said she'll do whatever Obama tells her to without question, which I don't like. I would much rather Barack Obama serve on the court. He was at the top of his class in Harvard Law School, with a law degree and practiced constitutional law for many years. He's also probably more liberal than Garland. Just a thought. In absence of that, just pick someone really liberal and left-wing to break court ties. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clinton has not said that she would appoint Garland, only that she supports his current appointment (which of course she does). I imagine she will choose someone quite different if she actually wins, someone younger and more liberal. Garland was always just a political pawn to try to make Republicans look bad for not giving him a fair hearing, issues that no one is talking about because we're too preoccupied with internal Democratic party primary rules. Hentropy (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- "I imagine she will choose someone quite different if she actually wins, someone younger and more liberal." BULLSHIT! Hillary is a centrist all the way, and will not pick a young person or a liberal. She is less liberal than Obama. PBfreespace (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- She's more liberal than Obama or equally as liberal as him by literally every metric that matters, which we have presented to you and your ilk about a hundred times already. Do you litterally keep your head in your ass? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Iraq War. Syria intervention against Assad. She is more right-wing than Obama on these things. In other words, no U! PBfreespace (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You mean these two very specific things that are actually part of the past and thus aren't going to change her present positions and won't have any influence on who she picks for the Supreme Court? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I'm not sure where this whole "foreign policy liberalism" comes from. Going to war or not going to war is not a right-left wing decision, and has nothing do with "liberalism" or "conservatism" in any context. "Liberal" Democrats started every major war in the 20th Century, and Republicans were isolationists for much of that time. Military support for allies and our interests overseas has long been a part of the Democratic platform. The Iraq War was sold on a bill of lies and distortions, and was quite popular for the first couple of years, so blaming Democrats for that is simply giving into neo-neo-right-wing propaganda that Iraq was somehow all the liberals fault and a "real conservative" never would have done it. Hentropy (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You mean these two very specific things that are actually part of the past and thus aren't going to change her present positions and won't have any influence on who she picks for the Supreme Court? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Iraq War. Syria intervention against Assad. She is more right-wing than Obama on these things. In other words, no U! PBfreespace (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- She's more liberal than Obama or equally as liberal as him by literally every metric that matters, which we have presented to you and your ilk about a hundred times already. Do you litterally keep your head in your ass? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- "I imagine she will choose someone quite different if she actually wins, someone younger and more liberal." BULLSHIT! Hillary is a centrist all the way, and will not pick a young person or a liberal. She is less liberal than Obama. PBfreespace (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clinton has not said that she would appoint Garland, only that she supports his current appointment (which of course she does). I imagine she will choose someone quite different if she actually wins, someone younger and more liberal. Garland was always just a political pawn to try to make Republicans look bad for not giving him a fair hearing, issues that no one is talking about because we're too preoccupied with internal Democratic party primary rules. Hentropy (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Garland is a mixed bag, and ultimately I oppose his appointment. Rather than try to appoint a more liberal justice, Hillary has said she'll do whatever Obama tells her to without question, which I don't like. I would much rather Barack Obama serve on the court. He was at the top of his class in Harvard Law School, with a law degree and practiced constitutional law for many years. He's also probably more liberal than Garland. Just a thought. In absence of that, just pick someone really liberal and left-wing to break court ties. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- For me, the issue is not so much his stated policies, but his not-so-hidden dog whistle politics and his appeals to the far- and alt-right. If you think Breitbart is a force for bad now, just imagine what will happen when it becomes Trump's chosen media outlet. We saw it after the Brexit vote, when the xenophobic wing of British society, previously marginalized, came out of the wood work to perpetrate hate crimes against Polish and Muslims. Brexit by itself may not have apocalyptic consequences and there's reasonable arguments for it, but the vote became more about the movement than the policies. The Bernie or Bust people miss at least part of the point of Presidential elections, because they're pretending that all that matters with the President is their personal ideology, when in reality, ever since Andrew Jackson, the President has been a symbol of their political movement. Obama's election and reelection was not important just because of the individual policies he set forth, his election showed an optimistic, accepting America, and his reelection affirmed that this was still the case. The right wing has been endlessly and obnoxiously claiming victory for the last 6 years because they won and then gerrymandered the House, imagine if they win the Presidency. We're already seeing more and more hate crimes from him simply being on the campaign trail, what do you think will happen if he actually wins, his horrible cultish fanbase becomes empowered and feel like they're in control. This is putting aside very important things like the SUPREME COURT, we already know how Trump has in mind there and it's not pretty. We will have to hope that it stays a Swing Court, and Trump doesn't get 3 appointments. That will do much more harm to many vulnerable people (including perhaps you, but maybe not. Bernie fans usually don't have much to lose), much more harm than four years of Clinton or Trump are capable of. No one is going to stand up and pat you on the back for voting for Jill Stein when 2020 rolls around, just as no one views 2000 Nader voters as being brave and today. They're viewed as the purist babies who gave us 8 years of Bush, with many more dead US soldiers than Obama or Clinton ever gave us. And don't think for a minute that Trump is unable to win reelection, Dems made the same stupid assumption in 2000, as well. Hentropy (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair fear. However I don't think he will get the chance to do these things. If there is a wall it'll be some half-assed fence that people can still tunnel under and climb over, also taking his entire presidency to build. The Muslim ban was a clever bargaining position taken by Trump to force a compromise he wouldn't mind, which would likely be a temporary ban on Muslims from Syria, Iraq, and Libya. That's not a big deal. He wouldn't "give nukes" to Japan and South Korea, he just said he wouldn't block their production as Obama and Bush did. He wouldn't "defund NATO", but simply slightly reduce our funding. If anything, we should be pulling troops from Japan and South Korea, and Germany. That Okinawa base needs to go. You take Trump way too literally. All politicians lie and exaggerate (except for Sanders, peace be upon him), so it's not a big deal. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you are afraid that Hillary might not do what she says, that is a much smaller problem to have than the problem I have with Trump. I am afraid he will do what he says. Ban mḾuslims, build a wall, give nukes to Japan and South Korea, defund NATO and all his other harebrained schemes. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Will Trump really build that wall? How will he force Mexico to pay for it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- The main problem I have with Hillary, besides her being bought off by corporations and the Arab kings, controlled by centrist think tanks and lobbyists, and not truly caring about what the people want, is that she's not trustworthy. If she tells me her view on something, I can't say I trust she's telling the truth. She's been shown to tailor her policy positions based on what crowd she's talking to. If she's in front of the banks, she'll say she's against reform and regulation, but if she's at a Democratic rally, she'll act like tight regulation is the only sane choice. What does she really think? I'd say the former, but I actually don't know. That's a problem. I pretty much know what I'll get with Trump and Sanders, but Hillary is a giant wild card. PBfreespace (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think a similar thread has been raised in the saloon bar. Asking whether or not hawkishness or dovishness are inherently left or right. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Confirmation that both political parties are exactly the same It's just a cartoon but it's a bit cool and it works. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Flip-flop on TPP. Flip-flop-flip-flop on being a hawk or a dove. Flip-flop on gay marriage. Flip-flop on whether juveniles are super predators or not. Flip-flop on her emails. Hillary Clinton is a mushy Third Way Democrat. The only reason Donald Trump is the GOP nominee polling 45% of the vote is because the Republican field was atrocious and Obama has been a mediocre President (we have not had one full year of 3+% GDP growth under Obama yet). Objective (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
BREAKING: Syrian Army besieges rebel-held East Aleppo[edit]
This really is a huge development in the Syrian Civil War, both diplomatically as well as strategically. If the government can pull off a victory here (which would take over a year with thousands of casualties), it would make Assad's faction unable to be removed. Full control over this city means the government regains an aura of legitimacy it didn't have 3 years ago, and makes Assad a permanent feature of Syria's future. Thoughts on this? PBfreespace (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Legitimacy"? What do you mean by that? Also, the easiest way to remove Assad from power is assassination. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Assassination requires us to actually be officially opposed to the Assad regime, which we are not. We want Assad to step down, but we do not support his opposition either. This was always going to be the result in the long run as long as Syria had material support from Russia, the rebels were never going to be able to win unless they did it quickly in the beginning. Our inability to choose a side, even if it's no side, in Syria has led to the now 5-year-long civil war there. Taking no side also means doing nothing about Daesh, as well, something that most Americans aren't ready to hear either. Hentropy (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Who said "we" are doing the assassinating? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not even matter of who pulls the trigger, really. It's a question of whether we actually WANT him dead/gone. One of his Alawite lackies would just step up and continue the regime and potentially be even more brutal, Russia might do a more serious invasion of Syria to put down the "terrorists" who killed a sovereign world leader, and nothing would change unless we make the decision to fight either Assad forces or the Opposition. Hentropy (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You don't need the scare quotes here, Hentropy, everyone in the Syrian Civil War maybe except the Kurds and some small groups I forgot is a terrorist or the army of a bloodthirsty dictator.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 14:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not even matter of who pulls the trigger, really. It's a question of whether we actually WANT him dead/gone. One of his Alawite lackies would just step up and continue the regime and potentially be even more brutal, Russia might do a more serious invasion of Syria to put down the "terrorists" who killed a sovereign world leader, and nothing would change unless we make the decision to fight either Assad forces or the Opposition. Hentropy (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Who said "we" are doing the assassinating? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Assassination requires us to actually be officially opposed to the Assad regime, which we are not. We want Assad to step down, but we do not support his opposition either. This was always going to be the result in the long run as long as Syria had material support from Russia, the rebels were never going to be able to win unless they did it quickly in the beginning. Our inability to choose a side, even if it's no side, in Syria has led to the now 5-year-long civil war there. Taking no side also means doing nothing about Daesh, as well, something that most Americans aren't ready to hear either. Hentropy (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strongman or terrorist friendly power vacuum. Thanks for making those the only choices competing Russian and American geopolitical interests. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the initial portion of the Iraq War in slow-motion. We have the option of stopping the fall of a Ba'athist government, preventing an even worse sectarian civil war, and stopping part of the country from falling under the control of a lunatic theocracy. We have the choice of stopping Iraq 2.0. If we halted all support for the rebels, the Assad government would end up winning and Syria would begin the process towards reunification. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Make this deal with Assad: The West stops support for the rebels except the Kurds and Assad leaves the Kurds alone to create their Syrian Kurdistan.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 14:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- But this would hurt the West's relations with Erdoğan! another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
And it's fully surrounded. No way out for the rebels except to surrender. I expect many of the more moderate rebels to surrender, leaving the jihadis to fight and die. PB (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Sources that should and shouldn't be quoted on the WIGO page[edit]
I just found "RT" treated as if it were a serious source. Clearly shit like that should go into Clogs if anything. Or am I being over-sensitive? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- RT is like the Daily Mail in this regard: if it's actually a sensible story that isn't made of bullshit, it'll be somewhere else too - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The last Jews of the MENA[edit]
I missed this great article by Radio Free Europe that discusses the fleeing of Jews in Tunisia. This has the unfortunate effect of ending one of the last Jewish communities in the MENA. It has been estimated that there are only 5 Jews in Iraq while the Jews in Yemen have fled due to the eruption of violence and the return of anti-Semitic prejudice. The Jews of Morrocco are also leaving to enjoy economic prosperity in Israel. I am curious what other's thoughts on this loss of culture were.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- It harms the countries that lose their Jews more than anybody else. IIRC the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire said something along the lines of "If they want to give us their best and brightest, sure why not?" upon hearing of the expulsion of Jews from Spain (or was it Portugal?) and he immediately granted them asylum. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- More racist Jew-loving from AvengeroftheBoN. Gotta love this user who can't quit Rationalwiki like some cocaine addict. On the article, I don't think any Jews should live anywhere in the Middle-East besides the Israeli coast and Jerusalem. PB (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not start the cycle of of direct user antagonizing, please. Also, there's no better way to convince someone that you're racist against Jews and not just opposed to the worst policies of Israel quite like the phrase "Jew-loving" used as a negative. Take a break, pb. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I fully realize this, but word police, much? It's not like I said "shifty Jew Avenger" or something like that. Would Judeophile have been a better and less offensive term? PBfreespace (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, it was the sentiment not the exact phrasing. Liking Jewish people is probably not something you should treat like a problem. I get that he excuses horrible shit in the name of protecting Jewish people, but... uh... not wanting an ethnic minority to flee their home country is probably pretty reasonable. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- You should lay off the weed, it's making you even more stupid than you usually are. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lay off the weed!? But it cures the cancer, the one in your soul, maaaan! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- You should lay off the weed, it's making you even more stupid than you usually are. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, it was the sentiment not the exact phrasing. Liking Jewish people is probably not something you should treat like a problem. I get that he excuses horrible shit in the name of protecting Jewish people, but... uh... not wanting an ethnic minority to flee their home country is probably pretty reasonable. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I fully realize this, but word police, much? It's not like I said "shifty Jew Avenger" or something like that. Would Judeophile have been a better and less offensive term? PBfreespace (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The fuck? You want die Juden to be restricted from living in various countries? Look, I know you love to fellate the Palestinians, but that's fucking going way beyond the pale. Should we also restrict Muslamics from living anywhere other then MENA? What other religions or races should we restrict from living where? --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not start the cycle of of direct user antagonizing, please. Also, there's no better way to convince someone that you're racist against Jews and not just opposed to the worst policies of Israel quite like the phrase "Jew-loving" used as a negative. Take a break, pb. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- More racist Jew-loving from AvengeroftheBoN. Gotta love this user who can't quit Rationalwiki like some cocaine addict. On the article, I don't think any Jews should live anywhere in the Middle-East besides the Israeli coast and Jerusalem. PB (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
On the article, I don't think any Jews should live anywhere in the Middle-East besides the Israeli coast and Jerusalem.
- Pbfreespace3 So you want to complete the ethnic cleansing of the Arab World of Jews? Honestly, go fuck yourself with a cactus.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC) 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- PB, please tell me you're trolling?! Just for the record; saying "No member of [ETHNIC GROUP] should live in [LOCATION]" is pretty much as retardedly offensive as a statment can get. Also, your complaint about "racist Jew-loving" seems like a candidate dictionary definition of "the pot calling the kettle black". What's gotten into you!? Bathsalts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I just read sigl as Sieg in Pb3's sig line. Objective (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gee, I wonder why. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- For the record I think everybody should be able to stay where they are. Regardless of ethnicity or religion. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, lol. Especially any ethnicity. There may be evil branches to religion (e.g. I would argue that practicing ISIS warriors can't live anywhere they like), but to even bring up anyone's ethnicity is just mind-boggling. As if that bit of information leads to any type of valid charge against an individual? It's insane. Absolutely insane. Racialist, even. I still have no idea what the fuck PB was going on about above, and I'm still shocked, frankly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was saying they shouldn't live there for their own good. Of course the Muslims there aren't going to welcome them or treat them well. The fact that there are any Jews still left in these countries when they get free travel to Israel surprises me. Also, I'm not on bathsalts. I wouldn't do a drug like that.
- To Kugelschreiber: I don't think we should restrict Muslims from living outside of the Middle East. This makes a lot more sense than Jews living in Muslims countries, as the West is much more tolerant of other religions and ethnicities than the Muslim world is. PBfreespace (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pb, swap "Middle East" with "Israel", and "Jews" with "Palestinians". See if you still agree with that statement. CorruptUser (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- "To Kugelschreiber: I don't think we should restrict Muslims from living outside of Israel. This makes a lot more sense than Palestinians living in Muslims countries, as the West is much more tolerant of other religions and ethnicities than the Muslim world is."
- I don't see what that changes. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pb, swap "Middle East" with "Israel", and "Jews" with "Palestinians". See if you still agree with that statement. CorruptUser (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, lol. Especially any ethnicity. There may be evil branches to religion (e.g. I would argue that practicing ISIS warriors can't live anywhere they like), but to even bring up anyone's ethnicity is just mind-boggling. As if that bit of information leads to any type of valid charge against an individual? It's insane. Absolutely insane. Racialist, even. I still have no idea what the fuck PB was going on about above, and I'm still shocked, frankly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- For the record I think everybody should be able to stay where they are. Regardless of ethnicity or religion. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Huntington, West Virginia heroin overdoses[edit]
Just by reading the number of deaths, I instantly thought "Yep, this involves fentanyl
". I was right. It's not the heroin that's killing them, per se — and I don't exactly mean that heroin is harmless.
I mean that what the users are often told is "pure" heroin (meaning, with diacetylmorphine as the only active component) is infact either that mixed out with fentanyl derivatives/analogues, or just fentanyls without any of the diamorphine. And the fentanyls are waaay, way stronger per unit of weight and volume than any of the old semisynthetic morphine derivatives (and paradoxially, the fentanyl analogues are often unadulterated themselves, adding to the risk).
The amount of pure fentanyl required to get the average BMI adult man with no tolerance so high as to be able to perform minor surgery on him is about four grains of table salt. And fentanyl is generally sold relatively pure (!). To quote a Canadian doctor who was discussing fentanyl; "If you salt your eggs every morning, trying to get just those four grains with your fingers, some days you're going to get six grains, some days you're going to get eight..." And that is a lot stronger than "just" those four that could take you to that sweet, sweet edge.
And the fact that they're putting carfentanil on the market for users now is just insane; it was developed to sedate large animals like **** elephants and pandas. I kid you not — carfentanil's relative strength compared to morphine is in the range of 10,000–100,000 times stronger (see TOW link on equivalencies above). I cannot believe that street carfentanil can ever be dosed safely, by anyone, ever.
In fact, I cannot believe anyone survives a single brush with street carfentanil unless they have a sober pal with an epipen of epinephrine and Naloxone standing by. Signed, a long-time pharmacology nerd and former skooma opiate user. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- You mean the number of deaths nationally? The article says all the West Virginia overdoses were reversed with naloxone. Nitpick nitpick. You're right about the other stuff. And fentanyl is available for prescription legally in the U.S. despite being more potent than heroin. Hooray for the sound logic of the War on Drugs! --Ymir (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I mean "globally", actually — That is, I'm not talking about the stats per se, I'm talking about what's facing young people and society today (for good or largely bad); a new illicit market of cheap, easily smuggled, über-powerful synthetic opioids combine with the information superhighway known as the internet. And misunderstand me right — I am a major opponent of the war on drugs. But that being said, from a former user's perspective, these are some harsh mistresses (fuckin' carfentanil, come on — did you see how strong I pointed out that is?!). That being said, I have absolutely no qualms about the use of fentanyl for medicinal purposes. It's a great substance for that, truly remarkable. Pure, safe, cheap, controllable... fentanyl helps a lot of people suffer less every day. Speaking of nitpick, heroin is also avaliable on prescription in the US. It's called diacetylmorphine. And further nitpick; fentanyl's potency is only higher than heroin relative to weight. The dose makes the poison, as I'm sure you're aware. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Opioids being illegal makes them a lot more dangerous than the substances themselves are. Illegal substances are often adultered by stuff the consumer cannot possibly know and sometimes the dose is higher than the user expects. Which kills far too many people. Don't get me wrong, Opioid addiction would probably kill people even if it were legal, but it would not be as deadly as it currently is. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're preaching to the choir, my friend... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Am I unclear? I was agreeing with you. I was just pointing out the silly logic (or lack thereof). And heroin isn't legally available in the U.S. It's Schedule I. It is available for prescription in the UK and some other countries. --Ymir (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Opioids being illegal makes them a lot more dangerous than the substances themselves are. Illegal substances are often adultered by stuff the consumer cannot possibly know and sometimes the dose is higher than the user expects. Which kills far too many people. Don't get me wrong, Opioid addiction would probably kill people even if it were legal, but it would not be as deadly as it currently is. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I mean "globally", actually — That is, I'm not talking about the stats per se, I'm talking about what's facing young people and society today (for good or largely bad); a new illicit market of cheap, easily smuggled, über-powerful synthetic opioids combine with the information superhighway known as the internet. And misunderstand me right — I am a major opponent of the war on drugs. But that being said, from a former user's perspective, these are some harsh mistresses (fuckin' carfentanil, come on — did you see how strong I pointed out that is?!). That being said, I have absolutely no qualms about the use of fentanyl for medicinal purposes. It's a great substance for that, truly remarkable. Pure, safe, cheap, controllable... fentanyl helps a lot of people suffer less every day. Speaking of nitpick, heroin is also avaliable on prescription in the US. It's called diacetylmorphine. And further nitpick; fentanyl's potency is only higher than heroin relative to weight. The dose makes the poison, as I'm sure you're aware. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing entry[edit]
Is there some special voodoo for properly removing an item? If there is David Gerard apparently didn't do it because the entry I added got the old poll number. --Ymir (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- You have to comment them out. Otherwise a new one with the same number as a previous one will get the previous one's votes. Commenting out looks like this: <!--this is commented out --> (ignore the nowiki stuff when copying the code). Bicyclewheel
06:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- David commented it out, but the next entry I added got the same poll number. --Ymir (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hillary entry[edit]
Aside from the fact that this should be on WIGO:Election, what exactly is wrong with someone raising money for a politician other than the fact that money in politics in general is a pretty shitty thing. I read the article and could only tell the author thought I was supposed to be outraged, but without any clear indication of why. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I thought the Intercept piece should go in the WIGOW since it is about her time as SoS. My opinion of the piece is pretty meh compared to the AP piece but it shows how her staff was raising money while she was SoS.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- So what we have is evidence Clinton, who had already run for President in the 2008 primaries, was still interested in running for President five years later. I wouldn't call that news... --Forerunner (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"Buying access to the SoS" there've been a million counter-articles since this one. eg, vox. http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a scathing tear down. They based their "half" assertion on the arbitrarily asserted idea that she'd only met with 154 people who weren't government officials? That's crazy inaccurate. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- One, I am not convinced that unethical is going on. Secondly, the AP said, “more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation” so that is my mistake for oversimplifying. Though, as I have said before, Clinton's certainly no more unethical than most politicians who accept these kinds of donations, her foundation is no more corrupt than say Romney's, and the way she generates her donations is fairly mainstream now for the Democrats.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- No offense but Ikanreed and Fuzzy you are not swallowing that whole Vox piece as a clever rebuttal to the AP, are you? I mean, the AP was saying that half of the private citizens that she met with were donors; the government officials, domestic or foreign, the Secretary State meets with should be expected since that is a part of the job while meeting with private citizens is a choice.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Why are people voting the train thing down?[edit]
I'd just like to know. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- At a guess, either because they hate Corbyn, or they hate Virgin, or they don't give a shit because it's an incredibly trivial and parochial story of no interest except to people who hate Corbyn or Virgin. Annquin (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well Corbyn "created" the story in order to put renationalization of the British train system on the agenda. But apparently he failed, as it has now become a partisan "he said she said" instead of a debate on the issues. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- its truly a measure of his incompetence, when british trains are derided for being overcrowded, he couldnt find a train rammed enough to make his point without looking like hes been caught in a lie. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well Corbyn "created" the story in order to put renationalization of the British train system on the agenda. But apparently he failed, as it has now become a partisan "he said she said" instead of a debate on the issues. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Because you're Avenger and your autism can't help but focus on trains no matter how much you try and disguise yourself as someone else PBfreespace (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are increasingly sounding like your own parody. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Turkish Invasion of South Kurdistan/Syria[edit]
So Turkey has decided to invade part of Syria to combat "terrorists", which is a codeword for anyone Turkey doesn't like. They started by paying Arab and Turkmen mercenary men to take over a town and some villages, losing only one fighter. What a withdrawal battle! Then they began attacking the Kurds instead of pressing on against ISIS. Well, the Kurds fought back, and blew up a Turkish tank with a missile, killing 1 Turkish soldier and wounding 3. This is defending your territory against an invading army. Around the same time, Turkey bombed the Kurds in this area. We'll see what happens next. Thoughts? PBfreespace (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- You keep restarting this same discussion every month. Do you expect a different result? CorruptUser (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I told you this was inevitable. The Kurds have doomed themselves: their provocation at Hasakah has alienated Russia and Assad, their refusal to retreat across the Euphrates and attack Raqqa will alienate the US, and the Arabs will not side with them against Turkey since most of them dislike the Kurds.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a bit of an assumption. The part that Arabs dislike Kurds, that is. While Syrian and Iraqi Arabs hate the Kurds, Jordanian Arabs are strengthening ties with the Kurds. Or were, 2 years ago. Politics and all. CorruptUser (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well Rojava isn't in Jordan but I don't that Jordan will intervene to keep Rojava alive. They are already reeling from the massive influx of Syrian refugees and are trying to figure out how to educate and provide food to them all while human rights activists plead with them to take more and/or provide more. The Saudis are too busy wrecking Yemen with the rest of the GCC while they continue to arm jihadist in Syria. I don't see any future for Rojava as Syria continues to become a cesspit of imperial self-interests.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- As an aside, the Iraqi PM has apparently said he believes it is an "undisputed right" to allow the Iraqi Kurds to vote on an independence referendum.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a bit of an assumption. The part that Arabs dislike Kurds, that is. While Syrian and Iraqi Arabs hate the Kurds, Jordanian Arabs are strengthening ties with the Kurds. Or were, 2 years ago. Politics and all. CorruptUser (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I told you this was inevitable. The Kurds have doomed themselves: their provocation at Hasakah has alienated Russia and Assad, their refusal to retreat across the Euphrates and attack Raqqa will alienate the US, and the Arabs will not side with them against Turkey since most of them dislike the Kurds.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently Salih Muslim indirectly implies the YPG can take on the invading Turkish forces, however I think this chest-pounding is highly delusional — if Erdoğan wanted he could wipe Rojava of the map in a matter of days. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 22:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Erdoğan might get a guerrilla war quagmire of Vietnam proportions on his hands if he tries to wipe out the Kurdish forces. And unlike Vietnam he won't have the convenient alternative of pulling out and cutting his losses. And remember that there are some very pissed of European countries right now that would love to fuck with Erdoğan for his hijinks. Unfortunately I think Sultan Recep the Petty is too enarmoured with his own megalomania to see the risks of what he is doing. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- The last thing Europe wants is Erdogan allowing more refugees to cross through Turkey or for Turkish immigrants to join them. I do agree that Erdogan would risk opening up a massive front inside his own borders.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- If Erdogan were to launch a full-scale invasion of Rojava with hundreds of thousands of troops, he would embroil Turkey in a guerilla war that would expand into Turkey's borders. The frontline would spread out across one fourth of Turkey's own territory, and plunge his country into further chaos as thousands of Kurdish militants from Syria flood into Turkey to wage war. That's why Erdogan hasn't done this yet. Instead he's doing piece-by-piece interventions that avoid this kind of violence. PB (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The last thing Europe wants is Erdogan allowing more refugees to cross through Turkey or for Turkish immigrants to join them. I do agree that Erdogan would risk opening up a massive front inside his own borders.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Erdoğan might get a guerrilla war quagmire of Vietnam proportions on his hands if he tries to wipe out the Kurdish forces. And unlike Vietnam he won't have the convenient alternative of pulling out and cutting his losses. And remember that there are some very pissed of European countries right now that would love to fuck with Erdoğan for his hijinks. Unfortunately I think Sultan Recep the Petty is too enarmoured with his own megalomania to see the risks of what he is doing. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Students carrying dildos to school[edit]
Isn't this old news? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
What?! Link please!Never mind, found it. Less graphic than I hoped for. Regarding if it's old news; the link in question is dated to the 25th this month. I.e. not that old, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)- Found it in the Blogs section. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
British Bill of Rights[edit]
As reported earlier, the Tories are promising to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. I don't understand what the point of this transition is. Correct me if I am wrong, but May and the rest of the Tories don't plan on leaving the ECHR which can still rule that the British government has violated certain human rights; I also can't find any info on how the "Bill of Rights" will be notably different from the Human Rights Act. Does anyone who understands British politics or European law understand what is going on?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here is the what the Conservatives said about it in their election manifesto/campaign (pdf download). They want Britain to be responsible for overseeing its own human rights laws, without European Court of Human Rights rulings & precedents being binding within the UK or UK citizens being able to escalate a case to the European Court. This might ultimately mean withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights if the Council of Europe doesn't recognise the new bill as a legitimate approach to human rights law. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- To me this is clear as day: If they think the ECHR does not go far enough when it comes to human rights, they can pass laws in addition to its requirements. The only reason to pass a law that is intended to replace the ECHR based law is to get rid of some things the ECHR wants. Maybe this is about the death penalty? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- They're tories so it's safe to say human rights are, in general, things they'd like to cut back on at least a bit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well the only reasonable complaint I could find against the ECHR was that many of the judges don't understand Common law which means that won't understand the UK's laws. But even though the Tories likely want to reinstate the death penalty or indefinitely detain immigrants, I don't understand why they want to scrap the Human Rights Act unless they want to leave the ECHR; I doubt they want to leave the court since May herself may not want to fulfill Brexit and leaving the ECHR would be an even more extreme measure.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, they don't want to reinstate the death penalty within the UK. Check the pdf link I posted above & you'll see some examples of what the Tories' want to achieve: denying voting rights to prisoners (which they don't currently have in the UK but which the ECHR maintains that they should), deporting terrorists to their home countries (regardless of what will happen to them there), and excluding British armed forces overseas from the reach of UK/EU human rights law. The other important piece of context is the Investigatory Powers Bill (Snoopers' Charter) which the Tories are pushing through, giving the government & police massive data collection powers which almost certainly conflict with the ECHR. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to say that even if they(or a minority, at least) likely wanted to reinstate the death penalty I don't see how they could since the ECHR's rulings still apply to them. Even with the current platform you listed I don't see the point; if the UK still doesn't have to give prisoners voting rights then why do they worry about the ECHR's rulings, do they get.punished in some way?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Forget about the death penalty. It's been defunct in the UK for 50 years. Technically it was completely abolished by the 1998 Human Rights Act so maybe that's what's confusing you, but it was already obsolete for decades prior to that & won't be making a comeback any time soon. It's completely irrelevant to repealing the Human Right Act.
- The Human Rights Act obliged UK courts to apply ECHR rulings as precedent, rather than seeing them as "advisory" as the Tories would like. Sooner or later this would have made anomalies like depriving prisoners of the vote unsustainable. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reintroducing the death penalty has been defeated several times in Parliament in the last fifty years, regardless of the party in power. However the ECHR has been looking at Britain's use of whole-life sentences, so perhaps that's what the tories want to protect. Bicyclewheel 21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- (EC) Well that clears up the death penalty issue then. Anyways isn't the government already under no obligation to change a law that is incompatible with HRA which binds UK courts to the ECHR rulings?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reintroducing the death penalty has been defeated several times in Parliament in the last fifty years, regardless of the party in power. However the ECHR has been looking at Britain's use of whole-life sentences, so perhaps that's what the tories want to protect. Bicyclewheel
- Sorry, I meant to say that even if they(or a minority, at least) likely wanted to reinstate the death penalty I don't see how they could since the ECHR's rulings still apply to them. Even with the current platform you listed I don't see the point; if the UK still doesn't have to give prisoners voting rights then why do they worry about the ECHR's rulings, do they get.punished in some way?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, they don't want to reinstate the death penalty within the UK. Check the pdf link I posted above & you'll see some examples of what the Tories' want to achieve: denying voting rights to prisoners (which they don't currently have in the UK but which the ECHR maintains that they should), deporting terrorists to their home countries (regardless of what will happen to them there), and excluding British armed forces overseas from the reach of UK/EU human rights law. The other important piece of context is the Investigatory Powers Bill
- Well the only reasonable complaint I could find against the ECHR was that many of the judges don't understand Common law which means that won't understand the UK's laws. But even though the Tories likely want to reinstate the death penalty or indefinitely detain immigrants, I don't understand why they want to scrap the Human Rights Act unless they want to leave the ECHR; I doubt they want to leave the court since May herself may not want to fulfill Brexit and leaving the ECHR would be an even more extreme measure.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- They're tories so it's safe to say human rights are, in general, things they'd like to cut back on at least a bit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- To me this is clear as day: If they think the ECHR does not go far enough when it comes to human rights, they can pass laws in addition to its requirements. The only reason to pass a law that is intended to replace the ECHR based law is to get rid of some things the ECHR wants. Maybe this is about the death penalty? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Protests in Kargoorlie, West Australia[edit]
The text of the link reads that "police kill[ed] an Aborigine teen for allegedly stealing a bike," but I can't find any mention of the police being involved in the death. How could anyone read the linked article and infer that the police killed Elijah Doughty? The killer is identified only as a 55-year-old man (from the rhetoric of the protesters, I'd say he's probably white), so I guess it's possible that he's a cop, but he was arrested and arraigned in court--an extremely rare outcome in killings by police and doubly-so in white-on-minority killings by police all over the world, so I'm just not so sure.
The story, as presented, seems to go more like this: An Aborigine teenager took a motor scooter without consent. The following morning, the owner of the scooter was driving his pickup truck and saw the teen riding the stolen bike, so he chased the kid, ran him down and left him to die. The guy was charged with manslaughter rather than murder, something the protesters view as part of a very long pattern of judicial racism in Western Australia. Hilarity Rioting ensues. --mobooz 01:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Whoops. I didn't mean to keep the police part; I was originally saying that the police and protestors clashed but it felt redundant.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Nick Clegg[edit]
Fuck Nick Clegg and his fucking whining. If he hadn't sold the whole fucking country down the river in exchange for a whiff of political power, Osborne wouldn't have been in a position to do fuck all and we wouldn't be in the fucking state we're in now.
So fuck off, Nick Clegg, and find another way to sell your shit book. London Grump (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I have always hated the BS "I'm sorry" routine politicians give when they betray their base. His deep thoughts about how UK voters felt about the tuition hikes are worthless.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- With you 100% London Grump. "Osborne slashed welfare to boost Tory popularity" whines Clegg. But you sat there and let him fucking do it! Bicyclewheel 09:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- He didn't just let him do it. He enabled him to do it. London Grump (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- What should Clegg have done in your opinion? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Moments after being re-elected Osborne was interviewed by the BBC and made it clear the Lib-Dems were resistant to Conservative Policy, so we can assume they were just too weak to do more than complain. As I recall, he described the Lib-Dem losses to be the result of them being a bunch of bullies preventing the Coalition from doing the [conservative] stuff it set out to do.-- Forerunner (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- (EC) In the 2010 general election, when no party achieved an overall majority, Clegg could theoretically have negotiated a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Labour would be closer to the Lib Dems' values & policies but a Lib-Lab coalition would have made for rather a questionable government when the Tories were the party with the most votes. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Lib Dems did block several Conservative policies during the coalition, most of which unfortunately the Tories are plowing ahead with since being reelected (EU Referendum, Snoopers Charter, scrapping the Human Rights Act, relaxing the fox hunting ban, etc). WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- But Lib-Lab would not have had a majority of seats in the commons. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually you're right. I thought it was closer than it actually was. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 23:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, yeah, he sold out, but he really was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He tried getting the one thing out of it that could have helped his party down the line (electoral reform), but he lost that bargain and I think once the results of that referendum came in, he knew he'd done the wrong thing. But honestly, what should he have done? Without the benefit of hindsight. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually you're right. I thought it was closer than it actually was. Щєазєюіδ
- But Lib-Lab would not have had a majority of seats in the commons. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- (EC) In the 2010 general election, when no party achieved an overall majority, Clegg could theoretically have negotiated a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Labour would be closer to the Lib Dems' values & policies but a Lib-Lab coalition would have made for rather a questionable government when the Tories were the party with the most votes. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- He didn't just let him do it. He enabled him to do it. London Grump (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- With you 100% London Grump. "Osborne slashed welfare to boost Tory popularity" whines Clegg. But you sat there and let him fucking do it! Bicyclewheel
A red under every bed?[edit]
I just looked under my bed. Where's my red? I want my red! another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, they're actually right from what I've seen reported. AyzmoCheers 18:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Zika funding entry[edit]
It is from June of this year so I am tempted to remove. Any objections?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not from me. PBfreespace (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Mandatory minimums for rape[edit]
We shouldn't praise minimums since they will only cause the racial disparity in prison to become worse, give prosecutors more power to force defendants into a plea deal, and gut the judge options in a case.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Whoops.-💠💿☝️ (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well you didn't have to change it since it is your opinion but I wouldn't be champion this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Changed to a more neutral point of view.-💠💿☝️ (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- That whole case inverted the usual views on sentencing, a frankly alarming number of self-described liberals totally lost their heads over it. The bloviating of Michele Dauber on the case was more than a little frightening, especially from a law professor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Changed to a more neutral point of view.-💠💿☝️ (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well you didn't have to change it since it is your opinion but I wouldn't be champion this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to justify mandatory minimums for anything. Every case is different. The fact that the idea of a mandatory minimum arose in a prison industry dominated by private corporations invalidates the idea's credibility, until the aforementioned system is removed. PB (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- You know, most prisons in the US aren't privately owned; mass incarceration and police brutality have been supported by police and prison guard unions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- The thing is that clearly the penalty in that case was laughably low. Especially when compared to the penalties that originated from mandatory minimums in other cases. However, when you look at the sex offender registry, that is also a de facto mandatory minimum of being treated as a social outcast for the rest of their life no matter what the reason for being put on that list was. You may have differing attitudes as to whether a 17 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old should be an issue to be brought to court, but it should not land any of the people involved on a "person too toxic to touch with a ten foot pole" list for life. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- And most of the people live in a jurisdiction with "Romeo and Juliet" laws to prevent exactly that scenario. CorruptUser (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- [Citation needed] another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here you go, doesn't list all states though. Can't find a good list on wikipedia. CorruptUser (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are states where Romeo and Juliet laws only apply for certain sex acts or certain gender combinations? The Supreme Court should look into this. Care to make someone a test case? another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I find it wrong that many states have different ages of consent for same sex and opposite sex couples. If a 17 year old boy can sleep with a 25 year old woman, he can sleep with a 25 year old man. Equal protections clause. The problem is that any politician trying to update the law will receive less support from the LGBT community than opposition from the Moral Majority, so it's still on the books virtually everywhere.
- But getting back to the "oh noes, 17 year old with 16 year old gets on the sex offender registry", no, that's not nearly as frequent as you claim, and most cases of that happening are plea deals involving, well, trigger warning. CorruptUser (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are states where Romeo and Juliet laws only apply for certain sex acts or certain gender combinations? The Supreme Court should look into this. Care to make someone a test case? another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here you go, doesn't list all states though. Can't find a good list on wikipedia. CorruptUser (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- [Citation needed] another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- And most of the people live in a jurisdiction with "Romeo and Juliet" laws to prevent exactly that scenario. CorruptUser (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The thing is that clearly the penalty in that case was laughably low. Especially when compared to the penalties that originated from mandatory minimums in other cases. However, when you look at the sex offender registry, that is also a de facto mandatory minimum of being treated as a social outcast for the rest of their life no matter what the reason for being put on that list was. You may have differing attitudes as to whether a 17 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old should be an issue to be brought to court, but it should not land any of the people involved on a "person too toxic to touch with a ten foot pole" list for life. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Ten louts harassing women for dressing immodestly.[edit]
As usual, view the comments section at your own risk. Massive circlejerk on the evils of Islam and calls for mass deportation. They claim the fact that "liberal media" didn't mention the faith of the attackers is proof they were Muslim (regrettably I find it likely myself that they were). Blitz (Complaints Box) 17:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Bayer buyout[edit]
Isn't this a problem since this creates an overarching oligopoly across several industries?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
My girlfriend's sister likes to occasionally call me a shill for Monsanto (although, to be fair, the company I work for does occasionally do work for them). Looks like she's going to have to learn the name of another company. AcidTrial (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- We don't know if the deal is going through. They just agreed to a $128/share deal, it still has to be approved by regulators.
- Also keep in mind that this is not the first time Monsanto will be owned by a major chemical company. CorruptUser (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Schlafly sr. ceases her earthly existence[edit]
Very disrespectful headline if you ask me. Mrs Schlafly was not an evil person and does not deserve to be mocked, neither does Andy if any are thinking of doing so, please change this headline.--Mercian (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Bullshit. She was fucking evil to the core and deserves all the mockery she gets. Her son Andy is just a stupider evil, but not less evil for it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I think not only should we dance on her grave, we should sing while we do it. Who's in for some music? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty fucking disgusting. If Hillary got a knot in her colostomy bag and the bile backed up to give her fatal dose of blood poisoning just before election day, would you be laughing about that, too?nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 02:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mu (negative) another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, yeah, if that happened or she actually had a colostomy bag, that would be pretty fucking funny. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mu (negative)
- I'll join in on that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yay, let's get some shawarma, vodka, and bacon and get smashed!!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 17:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
(Looks left, looks right) Alright, i think I know whats going on Rationalwiki. Sure, she gave you a hard time but now... Its over, isn't it? You fought, you spared, and you snarked and now your rival is gone. So, its over isn't it? And now you have to move on. 173.56.77.91 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)krashlia
- Her son is still around. Besides, we have long ceased being the Conservapedia parody headquarters... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks like soon after his mother passed Andy chose to honor her by posting this quote from the Washington Post:
“” Mrs. Schlafly drove feminists nuts
|
Not how I would memorialize the woman who gave birth to me, but hey, it's fitting to both Andy and Phyllis. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- While it is plausible that his trusworthy encyclopedia is a result of his relationship with his mom, it's a bit besides the point for us to speculate about that. It's if anything his business. Unless he makes it other people's business. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)