You will have to guess my topic. For the last few years, the incident of this topic has been around 800,000 repeats, but is suddenly up again to its historic average of 1M per year, and we're only 5/6 of the year complete. What is it?
Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year
Posts
Total:
68
-->
@949havoc
You will have to guess my topic.
As always. You should precede this sentence with "As always,".
Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year
farts
Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year
Right wing people saying things that sound true, but after investigation, are revealed to grossly misrepresented basic facts and information so badly that the claim can’t really even be considered partly true?
-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
@oromagi
RM: correct. Thanks for following the hint. Apparently, oromagi & Ramshutu can't be bothered, and then complain about it. Sure, right wing conspiracies. It's an easy excuse. Isn't that getting a little old? You've been complaining about that since before the Constitution was ratified, and before there were political parties. Rarely does a person smell their own flatulence.
-->
@949havoc
I have never purported that your lack of clarity is itself a right-wing conspiracy, although both obscure correspondence and faith in conspiracy are symptoms resulting from undisciplined reason.
So....why play coy about abortion stats? Will you be stating a thesis soon?
-->
@949havoc
Apparently, oromagi & Ramshutu can't be bothered, and then complain about it. Sure, right wing conspiracies. It's an easy excuse. Isn't that getting a little old? You've been complaining about that since before the Constitution was ratified, and before there were political parties. Rarely does a person smell their own flatulence.
Who said anything about right wing conspiracies?
I was referring to people on the right who appear to have a tendency to say things that sound true, but fall apart when analyzed.
For example when you analyze your post, and it’s clear that no one was talking about right wing conspiracies; the remainder of it makes little sense.
Additionally, arguing we can’t be bothered, when analyzed, also reveals that you made a post without identifying what you’re talking about, suggesting other people hunt down what you’re talking about; and it’s hardly a reasonable characterization to imply that our reaction to this nonsense is somehow unreasonable.
Finally; now that the underpinning claim is clear - we can actually show that doesn’t appear to be valid either.
Your claim is based on an estimate from a tracking site that appears to be taking the number of live births and using this to infer abortion numbers. The info isn’t driven of actual data, but the presumption that 1/4 pregnancies will end in abortion.
The last data I can find in the US, suggests the number of pregnancies that end in abortion is actually around 1/5 - 18% ; which if applied would bring that number down to….. high 800,000 as it appears to have been all along.
-->
@949havoc
It’s been clear since Day 1 that a large portion of Democrats don’t like the Constitution.
They hate that every state has 2 senators instead of a proportional representation like the House.
They hate the 2nd Amendment
They hate that the Supreme Court has life appointments.
They hate the Electoral College.
Etc
-->
@949havoc
Idk about you but I can generally smell my own farts unfortunately, however it's true that for some reason it 'hits' less harsh.
Body odour is much more what you're describing. Unless someone sniffs their own armpits moving their head closer to it, they can't instinctively register the smell of their own BO.
Ironically, despite the same person finding their own BO bearable, family members (blood relatives) are programmed to find BO similar but not identical to their own as significantly disgusting, it is considered to be an evolutionary protection against incest and those that lacked it died out over several generations.
-->
@949havoc
That is very sad to hear. Abortion is one of those things I can't think about too much or I just get extremely depressed
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s been clear since Day 1 that a large portion of Democrats don’t like the Constitution.They hate that every state has 2 senators instead of a proportional representation like the House.They hate the 2nd AmendmentThey hate that the Supreme Court has life appointments.They hate the Electoral College.Etc
Your avatar is of a man who’s never read it and has demonstrated nothing but contempt for its most basic principals. But go on…
-->
@thett3
Go read miscarriage, still birth and infant mortality statistics and you will be suicidal.
It's all cause and effect Thett3.
And man is a bastard
As is GOD then.
Just look on the bright side.
Helps curb population growth and it's global demands.
-->
@Double_R
Your avatar is of a man who’s never read it and has demonstrated nothing but contempt for its most basic principals. But go on…
Doesn’t really mean much coming from a person who thinks private citizens can be punished in front of a Senate tribunal.
-->
@ILikePie5
Doesn’t really mean much coming from a person who thinks public officials can be held accountable for their violations in office even after they successfully ran out the clock on their term.
Fixed.
Not that I’m surprised I had to, ignoring context is kind of a right wing specialty.
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
Fixed.Not that I’m surprised I had to, ignoring context is kind of a right wing specialty.
Hell ya lets impeach George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for being slave owners!
-->
@ILikePie5
Let's suspend habeas corpus for misdemeanor trespassing while we get partisan judges to handle the drawing and quartering, like Guy Fawkes.
-->
@949havoc
You will have to guess my topic.
Isn't that the case with all your threads, though?
-->
@ILikePie5
Hell ya lets impeach George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for being slave owners!
I’m morbidly interested at this point with the thought process that goes in to posts like these.
So you kinda imply that impeachment shouldn’t apply to people who are a few weeks out of office, so you obviously just try and find the unreasonable sounding way of phrasing “impeaching a president who just left office to prevent him serving in public office again” - pretty standard rhetorical device - pawn to king 4 type stuff.
DR gives you a typical response - correcting lazy misrepresentation, with the correct representation. Fine. Again - expected pawn to king 4 type stuff. Going through the troll motions.
So now you’re trying to figure out what to say; and you have to obviously fine some way to make “the only way to prevent someone from serving in public trust at this level is through impeachment: so you want a system where you can still do that for crimes in office - even though an individual may have run out the clock” seem unreasonable.
This is where I’m morbidly curious as to your thinking process. Do you actually believe what you’re implying - that any single person on the entire planet is advocating for any form of the judicial system to apply to dead people - or that that not limiting impeachment to people in office would necessarily mean expansion of impeachment power expands to include even dead former officials: can you walk me through the logic of that.
Or have you posted it not believing it; in which case I’m kinda interested on why you thought this is a good way of obviously misrepresenting doubles position; I mean, it’s so obviously nonsense, I can’t imagine any reality in which anyone would think it either convincing or valid.
It would seem if it’s the latter - this goes beyond typical run of the mill troll-jousting that happens all the time around the periphery of arguments - but really this weird sort of alternate reality trolling that appears to be ubiquitous now, where individuals throw out one liners without even pretending to be based on any semblance of reality.
I mean seriously; why not go for “so we can impeach Clinton again” would probably get you much further.
Guy Fawkes was a self-admitted Spanish secret agent and Catholic terrorist who came just minutes away from assassinating the King and most of parliament by bomb for believing in the wrong religion, which would likely have brought on the civil war 70 years earlier. He was certainly guilty of betraying his country, King, and the most Democratic institution in the world at that point.
So, yes, a very apt poster boy for the Trump-besotted treasons of Jan 6th.
-->
@oromagi
Actually, the king at the time and England at the time were far from Democratic, Fascistic is far closer to what they were, persecuting Catholics left, right and centre.
If you are so triggered by a Guy Fawkes mask, I couldn't care less. He stood for wingless liberty in general but at the time was more allied to those on the Right Wing.
I am not pro-Trump and simply read the website that 949havoc posted and took part in what the thread asked you to take part in. You chose to mock him and get trolled back.
-->
@RationalMadman
Actually, the king at the time and England at the time were far from Democratic,
Which in no way contradicts my assertion, " the most Democratic institution in the world at that point."
You could probably make a good argument that the textile unions of Flanders or the nascent Iroquois nation was more Democratic but on a much smaller scale. In an age when Hapsburgs and Bourbons and Tudors were enslaving huge chunks of the world, Parliamentary checks and balances on the British Monarchy served as effective models and prequels for Locke and the enlightened experiments that were to follow.
If you are so triggered by a Guy Fawkes mask, I couldn't care less.
If by TRIGGER you mean "A concept or image that upsets somebody by sparking a negative emotional response," I'd call your presumption unfounded.
He stood for wingless liberty in general
Bullshit. Fawkes was a monarchist and a papist- he just wanted to control by violence the religion of that monarch. People who stand for Liberty don't murder people for the wrong religious belief. Fawkes is far more akin to Osama bin Laden than John Locke. Yes, Catholics and then Anarchists and then Hollywood all revived his reputation for their own political purposes but almost all of that is just propoganda.
Read Nick Holland's The Real Guy Fawkes or some other work of researched biography for the facts. Just because you enjoyed V for Vendetta doesn't mean Guy Fawkes is magically transformed into a freedom fighter any more than enjoying Braveheart makes William Wallace a freedom fighter. Think for yourself- don't believe the hype.
but at the time was more allied to those on the Right Wing.
By definition, the entire world was right-wing before the Declaration of Independence.
-->
@oromagi
People who stand for Liberty don't murder people for the wrong religious belief.
The agenda was to eliminate oppressors of a religion from the perspective of Fawkes.
You are saying in your perspective the ruthless way they treated Catholics and tried to eradicate Catholicism weren't the real focus, you believe that the Prostestantism itself was the focus.
Your outlook isn't what people who use the mask as a profile picture generally believe, they see the tyranny as the focus. You can throw a hissy fit all you want, I'm free to use the image and couldn't give a shit if you think it's an icon of Trump.
-->
@oromagi
By definition, the entire world was right-wing before the Declaration of Independence.
Sure, semantics.
I'm talking relative right-wing to the time.
-->
@Ramshutu
You should check out my debate with DR on the subject lol
-->
@ILikePie5
You should check out my debate with DR on the subject lol
Why?
Does the existence of the debate somehow make the implication that allowing impeachment to allow former presidents to be prevented from serving in public office is also suggesting that action can be taken against those who are dead any less stupid?
No, not really. The implication is dumb, and I genuinely don't know whether you actually believe it, or whether you don’t believe it and are saying it in order to troll: regardless of which it is, you’re reply is a comprehensive non answer.
-->
@Ramshutu
No, not really. The implication is dumb, and I genuinely don't know whether you actually believe it, or whether you don’t believe it and are saying it in order to troll: regardless of which it is, you’re reply is a comprehensive non answer.
Actually, the debate answers your question and that’s how the Fathers designed it.
If you aren’t an officeholder at the time of a Senate trial, the trial itself is unconstitutional. Consequently, a non-officeholder cannot be impeached.
-->
@RationalMadman
-->@oromagiPeople who stand for Liberty don't murder people for the wrong religious belief.The agenda was to eliminate oppressors of a religion from the perspective of Fawkes. You are saying in your perspective the ruthless way they treated Catholics and tried to eradicate Catholicism weren't the real focus, you believe that the Prostestantism itself was the focus.
Because that is the more accurate assessment. Consider: James I was the most Catholic and pro-Catholic King since the Reformation took hold one hundred years before. James' parents were Catholic- he was baptized Catholic and never re-baptized in an Anglican Church. Some of his kids were Catholic- his son and heir Charles I would be beheaded forty years later for being too Catholic. James tried hard to marry the Spanish Intifada to become part of the most prominent Catholic family in Europe. His actual Queen remained secretly Catholic for the rest of her life. Many of James' closest friends and advisors were Catholic. James was far and away the most Catholic tolerant Protestant sovereign of his age.
Fawkes wasn't trying to kill James because of increased intolerance, rather Fawkes was a radicalized soldier seeking to exploit James' tolerance to Catholic advantage (the plan was to replace James with his Catholic daughter Elizabeth). Yes, intolerance was a real concern for Catholics in this age but James' ascension was the best news that English Catholics had received in a long time.
After the failed coup, there was a marked increase in anti-Catholic violence for a time but that too, was discouraged and suppressed by James' court.
Your outlook isn't what people who use the mask as a profile picture generally believe, they see the tyranny as the focus.
Because of V for Vendetta and the adoption of the mask by Anonymous, not because of any historical interest or fact.
You can throw a hissy fit all you want, I'm free to use the image and couldn't give a shit if you think it's an icon of Trump.
I can't honestly say I noticed you were using Fawkes for your profile, I was reacting to GreyParrot's depiction of Fawkes as victim of injustice and relating him to Jan 6th seditionists. In fact, I was thinking of doing a Guy Fawkes theme for my new profile this Friday and now almost feel like I've got to. I had not considered Fawkes as an icon of Trump or Trumpism (can you think of a group of people more ignorant of history?). I suppose both Trump and Fawkes are democracy hating terrorists powered by treasonous acts from the very center of govt. but I think of the present Guy Fawkes mask wearers as mostly anti-Trump- part of the Anonymous and Anarchist movements. I certainly saw many Fawkes masks during the Floyd protests of '20. I did also see a few on Jan 6 but as I said, that bunch ain't exactly thinkers.
-->
@RationalMadman
Sure, semantics.
That is what "by definition" means. I don't know how anyone could apply left/right dichotomies to societies before liberty, equality, fraternity took root.