Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Wow I can't believe you keep dragging that up. Maybe the Christian in you just can't himself but complain about a name? I never knew my name offended you so much.
I'm really glad that you cherished my former name as if it mattered and now I know you have useless Christian and conservative propaganda plus fan-girling over my name in your mind. At least there is some part of you that isn't filled with propaganda.
This will be my last comment and I will leave with my early prediction being true.
" knowing you I don't think this would be anything rational more uneventful like the person you are and probably always will be."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Lol
Guess Franklin is what he always will be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
any threads created by a banned user's alternate account will be deleted entirely
Why even add "banned" users since it is already a violation to have an alt account?
It is like me saying you were banned for banned hate speech. I'm implying there is some hate speech that is allowed like how you are implying that alt accounts in some scenarios are allowed which I don't think they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I know your games omar, I aint playing it
The game I am playing is for you to answer a question. I don't think you can which is sad to see since you have said you analyzed both sides but have yet to pick up on answering closed questions? hmm it almost as if your a liar.
Are you going to answer the very simple question or is your worldview so weak that all I needed was to ask you a closed question for all of it to break? Maybe you should've analyzed having actual answers to questions instead of whatever it is you call these posts you make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Better phrasing:
"any threads created by a banned user will be deleted entirely."
"any threads created by an alternate account account will be deleted entirely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Do you find this ironic? The person who is playing games right now is currently hypocritical about what is going on? All I asked is that if his past self got to evolution through science but he couldn't answer that.
Do you find this in anyway a gotcha or should Franklin be able to answer a question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
So if I get banned all my threads will be deleted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I guess? But I thought Genesis was a lie, until I did some resaerch and leanred the truth
What am I supposed to do with "I guess?". A much better response would be a yes or no.
I'm sticking to the cosmological argument so if the "truth" doesn't pertain to that I'm not responding.
If it wasn't clear all I ask from you is a yes or no. That is all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The only reason why i used to be an atheist was because of evolution, but I learned it was combatible and the universe is a simulation run by God
Did you arrive through evolution by science?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Is it a good clip to show his integrity? Instead of actually ignorantly carrying on the topic when he is not knowledgeable about physics he chooses to swallow his ego that Franklin so easily implies with this:Good clip.
"He is a debater, the debates where he wins or his famous ones are against non-debaters, his opponents dont know basic debating etiquette, thats why he invited THEM on his show any debator would get an outside source to moderate the debate."
to not carry on the conversation and with a person looking into the conversation would deem him a coward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What argument did you agree as an atheist?The digital physics argument and the cosmological arguments makes sense that God is real
Analyzing both sides must be difficult for you since you have only give one side thus not even meeting the bare minimum to actually start analyzing both sides.
I'm sticking to cosmological argument since one is more than enough to "analyze".
Are you okay Dr.Franklin or do I need to tell you that both requires more than 1 thing to be involved?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Imagine being men being nice to women only to be called simps. No this isn't discussing men who do stuff for women in the hopes of some relationship that is really unlikely to happen. They are called dumbasses.
Did you make this video? If so there are better platforms to get more views on. If you don't care about views and it doesn't feel right to profit over it. Your a dumbass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
After all that analyzing you have done in the past you couldn't read the "an" in my words. Okay. I'll only be discussing one because knowing you I don't think this would be anything rational more uneventful like the person you are and probably always will be.
I used to be an atheist, but I reconverted to being a Christian because I analyzed both sides.
What did you specifically analyze as in what arguments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Go on then give me an example.
Oh wait I am talking to Franklin so I'll wait 2 more comments. You must be really free deciding not to bother to give examples instead make me ask for you to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
@SupaDudz
No one has posted for 12 days on this thread. Let it go. If you have a problem talk to the moderators that you are already friendly with instead of virtue signalling. If you want to virtue signal just make another thread I don't want to be notified with your brain-dead takes.
I never knew conservatives would be so stupid to selectively target harassment against a majority from a minority. My shock that a conservative Christian doesn't care about the powerless like Jesus did instead care about his tribes that make up a greater majority then any other group in the US. It is almost as if you don't actually understand the Bible instead virtue signal like you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How are you a free thinker?
Tell me again how you gained your ideas?
Created:
-->
@skittlez09
I use Paint. Download the picture. Right-click "open-with" then "Paint". After that I click the rectangle next to "cut" option. I then drag it until I get to a resolution I like. As you decrease the size of the picture the numbers at the bottom will go down. That would be the resolution numbers as in 1080 x 1080. If you do make a mistake like pretty much any other software you can click undo until you get it right.
I use this mainly because I know how to use it not really some deep dive in all other options and found this to be the best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
The reason why I am a left winger. What he says is really easy to understand and does a great job presenting how stupid the other side is with just simple questions.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
?
One Google search shows just how little research you did before commenting this.
Link: "Roosevelt prioritized economic recovery from the Great Depression and victory in World War II above humanitarian crises overseas. There was very little public pressure from the American people or from the US Congress to take action to increase immigration or to rescue European Jews."
Guess people wanted their country to be fixed before going cross country and telling other people to fix their things.
Given that the very first thing you said is completely unfair on what was going on I think it is fair for me to not spend my time researching on the other things you said since it doesn't seem like you have researched what you have said whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
Bad idea I think.
Too many people in charge will lead to lengthier meetings and people getting less done. Another obvious problem is that who is going to tell everyone in the company what to do if the company is worker owned? Are they going to simply agree to have a boss thus saying we relinquish our positions to make it not a worker own company? I guess that will happen.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Drops dead seems like the more likely option.
I think the Bernie shills really overestimated their "grassroots" support.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
How can Bernie win?
I don't see a chance.
Created:
Posted in:
@SupaDudz
Okay guess Christians are no no to insult since they are a majority on this site but refugees are not? K gotcha.
Your so lucky you have a connection with the moderation team because I would've banned your sorry ass. You should've been banned for skirting the lines but guess if your friends with the moderation team your intent can't be bad.
I am blocking you for a reason. Do you not understand? I don't want to communicate with you. I stayed well away from you and I would like to keep it that way because I lose brain cells talking to you. You give more than what Dr.Franklin gives in discussions which I thought was a good thing but then it only meant I had to sieve through more shit to find any semblance of anything coherent.
I probably get banned for this but whatever. Worth it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Neither of you buttaching here can hold a candle to Athias, or Rosends, Or PGA2.0, or EtrnlVw. Away with all of you pretentious, self-important pretenders.
Athias is literally an anarchist. Do I need to say more?
Who is Rosends? A quick glance I see he uses nice words but like Athias it ultimately can be boiled simple and easily debunked ideas.
PGA2.0 is literally Mopac but with more words.
EtrnlVw is a spiritualist without any evidence, basically a waste of anyone's time unless he does drugs.
Self-important? The projection is real.
I didn't read it all. Guess this must hurt you since you do love thinking how important you are. Please make a TL;DR. Please understand I don't want to spend time reading a long statement of a person who I don't actually enjoy conversing with.
The longer you make it the more I feel like you are just vomiting words out of your mouth without any clear understanding of what was your aim. I guess if your aim was to write a story I guess you passed but if it was just to tell me atheists bad, Religious forum is a circle jerk, these people are better than you and you are not actually that important well lets say you wrote a lot for very few topics. No whataboutism doesn't actually add value to what you say. It is you preaching to the coir as if you are expecting a different result. Do you know the definition of insanity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Given that there's at least whole other thread about how annoying his threads were, that is patently untrue.
Can you not read? That was about spam. Oh wait guess you provoke people with spam? Pefrect time to given me a definition of provoke but well you were never in the position to give sane feedback.
And you're advocating he should have been outright banned from the site, while complaining that his behavior was reprimanded to a lesser degree. Again, you speak nonsense.
I am saying if I wasn't a moron I would ban a forum poster from forum posting. It was implied that since I did call you stupid, I think you are doing something wrong which should mean when I am trying to follow your logic I'm probably making your stupid actions better not agree with them entirely.
As things stand, he may still engage in any thread within the forum; as he is choosing to do.
Never knew a thief can literally rob someone but get sentenced for murder. That is some dumb shit.
Please don't turn your fantasies into accusations of what other members literally partake in with each other.
Please don't delude yourself oh wait I'm talking to the moderator who made this decision and is a Catholic. It must be difficult to comprehend a level of sanity when all you do literally resides on fantasies. Yes without exaggeration but guess you are delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay 1 person who frequently posts and another who posted a thread a month ago.
I don't see the point of the forum apart from it being a circle jerk or some random atheist or agnostic debating them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
depending on whether you are saying that these people should change their stance on hate speech
I couldn't give a damn about Salixes but they are too stupid to realize they are unironically advocating against hate speech but acting using hate speech as a way to ban Salixes.
you are saying that they should stop reporting Salixes (I assume the former based on context but this assumption could be innacurate)
If they cared about acting accordingly to what they preach but they don't.
The choices literally link to one another. The first one is an idea and the other is that idea put in practice. I would have to be for both since they are hypocrites both in their actions and words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Context of the offenses were key; as already outlined in the public warning given to him prior to the restriction.
Okay:
You started a topic designed to provoke, and then respond to concise half line disagreement of your interpretation with five paragraph rant rife with insults.
The only reason why it is provoking is the because of the audience of the Religion forum. Literally all of them apart from Salixes, Stephen and Discipulus_Didicit are Christian. It might as well the Bible studies forum at this point.
The same nonsensical statement could be made of giving warnings instead of jumping to bans at the first offense, or even answering dumb questions instead of banning, or ultimately having users instead of just a ban log.
It is not nonsense because he is the only one creating opposing threads in a debate platform. It is literally a circle jerk at this point. It's been a month since Stephen's last thread in the Christian forum.
Created:
Posted in:
Reasoning behind it:
***
Your behavior has crossed the line too many times. Fighting Words are banned within the CoC, and you seem incapable of starting topics as more than that. Accusing people of having boils on their asses for which they refuse medical treatment (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3789/post_links/162530), declaring you did not intend any honest discussion while spewing insults (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3835/post_links/162682), and various other infractions.
Given the previous hard warning, we take your continued behavior to be a request for help with your impulse control. You may no longer start threads (you may appeal this after one month).
-Ragnar, DM
***
First thing is that he got banned for creating threads when the "reports that have been handled" green tick box were from replies he made not the thread itself. To this day there has yet to a "Reports have been handled" for either of the threads mentioned by Ragnar but guess ban him from creating threads? Just ban him from using the forums.
Other thing I guess this is also a sign of literal hypocrites. The same people against hate speech, toughen up and all that other stuff are the same people literally reporting Salixes. This is an attack on their character but I didn't think very highly of them anyway so yeah.
If it wasn't clear I think the moderators are stupid but that wouldn't be a shocker. Banning threads when you can ban the users, banning a person from creating topics even though what was being reported on was his replies?
I would've liked to said other stuff but I just realized I probably could get banned just for hurting their feelings as well. If I get banned at least I know someone is calling out this stupidity because I don't think someone has and given there has been 16 days past I think there has been enough time for someone to talk about it even on this dead site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
In America, as might be expected, organisations declaring themselves receive a tax free status so far as it is not profit making. This includes secular and atheistic groups.
Do you have a link to atheist groups that are tax exempt in the US?
Ironically, in our 21st century, secularism now seeks to intentionally ostracise particular political and religious views from the community.
Links would be helpful.
If Determinism was to be defined as God determines all things - then yes I could agree with it.
So believe in determinism with God?
Christianity holds to a personal God who personal cares for his creation
Can you explain this?
Created:
-->
@Alec
I think it's Person B's fault, since he went through with the murder.
But didn't Person A give Person B the incentive to commit to the murder? How is that not morally wrong?
I as of right now don't believe this, speech isn't violence, but do you have an example of when actions can be verbal? I can't think of any.
Not violence I mean isn't talking an action?
Created:
-->
@Alec
Would you deem asking someone to kill another person and that person does it morally wrong?However, if you actually killed the person you wanted dead, with very few exceptions, such as self defense or if the government did as a punishment for a serious crime, then you would and should be charged for murder and suffer the punishment for it.
Beliefs are different from actions basicly.
Actions can be verbal right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
In Australia secular thinking or atheism is not considered a religion - yet in America it is.
Mainly would like to talk about America, do they identify as it or are you projecting that onto them?
secularist
Do you dislike secularism?
But someone might say - TS you are not telling us how you picked your particular religion. And the answer is: I didn't. In fact I ran from Christianity as fast as I could when I was younger. The point is God picked it for me. And that is the nuts and bolts of it. I would not have chosen it - especially since like most people who reject things - we don't go back to something we have rejected. In my secular - atheistic days, Christianity sickened me on almost every level. It was bigoted, racist, intolerant and foolish. It rejected science, good thinking and having fun or living life. There were rules and rules for this and for that. And most of the Christians I knew were white and middle class snobs. Its doctrines on prayer were weak, they always wanted money. They held to doctrines that included effectively cannibalism - drowning people in the water including babies. They were inconsistent hypocrites - and many in some churches were paedophiles. Liars and drunks. Following a book - a dead book written 2000 years at least by people on the other side of the world in a culture I could care two hoots about.
Why did you type this?
And yet here I am. I did not pick it. God chose it for me.
Do you believe in determinism?
Created:
-->
@Alec
So you say that I shouldn't call for someone's murder (which I take as it is morally wrong?) but isn't it also an unpopular opinion since in most cases a lot of people don't want to kill a person unlawfully?
Created:
-->
@Zaradi
Why are you so mad?
He has shown no sign of meaning harm. He is generally open minded and you choose to attack him instead of actually changing his mind?
I thought people would actually try to help the people who can be helped but guess we always have people like you.
Created:
-->
@Alec
I can name a bunch:-Murder-Rape-StealingThose are some that I've listed at the top of my head.
What if I called for someone's murder?
Created:
-->
@Alec
Those who believe that Veganism is good is an unpopular opinion. Yet, it is certainly not immoral to be vegan.
Can you tell me an immoral thing?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You said there is no way to prove either then you said you have proof that he is lying? Are you stupid?lol other than electing him president there is literally no way to prove he is lying. There is also no way to prove he is telling the truth. The available evidence says that he is lying though. So why would anyone choose to believe him?
My reasoning behind this is that I am not going to make an enemy out of everyone instead start off with them being honest and then see if there is major evidence of them lying. This would need to be in a short span of time because I am not going to call someone a liar for something they did a decade ago.
You implied that Bloomberg's belief in climate change was an issue he is "left" on. Since science is not a left or right wing belief, this is simply untrue. Believing in science is not a left wing policy position.
I literally showed you a quote of mine but you still said the same thing as before. Have you literally lost your mind or are you doing this on purpose since I did show you evidence of my response and you refused to give me a different answer?
no, i'm telling you he has not acknowledged what he did was wrong. He has said that he is sorry for how it turned out. He isn't sorry for doing it. He isn't sorry for violating people's constitutional rights. This is the weakest apology possible. And the reason it is so weak is because he still thinks stop and frisk was a great idea. And he was making that case fairly recently.
No proof given. Guess this must be your belief. Everyone other than who I like are liars.
You are asking me to difinitively prove something inside Bloombergs head. That us obviously not a fair request.
Calling someone a liar is a pretty hefty claim my dude. If you can't prove it don't say it.
Why do you think that the campaign promise is his real beliefs?
Why would I engage in conspiracies, so that I can be as bad as you?
you changed your mind on 1 issue, probably after years of reflection on that issue. Bloomberg is claiming he has changed him mind on like a dozen issues and he did it at the exact moment he decided he wanted to be president.
It isn't 1 issue. It is various issues like with Bloomberg. You give me a bullshit answer and expect to me to accept this level of trash.
The timing, the number of issues he has swung on, and the fact that he has something to gain by saying he now believes this are all factors that should suggest that he is lying. Other than his word, there is no evidence to support what he says. His entire record says the opposite.
With this amount of belief I think you should attend a Church. Your already doing the hard part as in literally denying the claims you are making aren't valid but lets just say they are correct well because I just feel like it should be.
i'm not suggesting those specific policies are things he would try to enact. But it shows what kind of man he is. He is willing to take people's rights, to violate the constitution to get what he thinks is right. A man who is willing to knowingly engage in and defend wildly racist government harassment is not a man who should be trusted with power.
I guess people don't change. Well guess poor people are doomed to be poor.
No, i'm saying he is doing it to try to protect his money. Bloomberg profits massively off of the broken economic and political system as it exists today. If Biden looked like he was going to win, he never would have gotten into the race. He is running to try to stop a progressive candidate from winning. He is trying to protect his wealth, power and influence.
No evidence just your belief. I guess more cult like behavior the more that I read it.
opposing minimum wage, he supported the war in Iraq, he is a corporatist (ie supports the government giving handouts to corporations)
Literally wants a minimum wage and you have refused even now to tell me how my link was wrong.
Biden supported the Iraq war guess he is also a Republican oh wait this can't be true since he is trying to become the Democratic nominee.
"Michael Bloomberg said Saturday he would raise taxes on the wealthy, increase the corporate tax rate, and curb tax-free inheritances of large estates, elements of a tax plan that he says would raise $5 trillion over a decade."
Guess literally all of your claims don't correlate with the present. Biden I guess is right wing. Bloomberg doesn't support the minimum wage even though he said he has. Bloomberg doesn't support a higher tax rate but he does.
So lets come at it from a different direction. Much of the county sees that he is right wing whether or not you do. Much of the country sees him as a misogynist, a racist and an oligarch. If he is the nominee, progressives will not show up to vote for someone they perceive to be a right wing oligarch. So why would picking him as the nominee be a good thing? He will get crushed by trump.
Why would I continue this conversation with such a bad faith actor who is willing to literally lie about the other side in order for his side to look better? This can be easily seen with you literally providing no evidence that he is lying and you even contradicting yourself on the evidence to signify you don't actually know what you are talking about it.
Respond if you want but your refusal to be reasonable instead be feelings driven has made this useless to me.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol he has opposed something his whole life, then suddenly decided he wanted to be president and now he believes the exact opposite. why are you choosing to believe obvious lies?
Still have not proven that he is a liar. Never thought people could never change their mind but guess you think so.
ok, you just proved that there are millions of republicans who worry "a great deal" about climate change. a) that kind of disproves your point that the right doesn't believe in it. b) you have yet to show how believing in science is in any way a result of being right or left wing.
Do you know how data works?
18% is less than 50% which can be summed up as less than half. You saying millions is ignorance on what the numbers are. The right does not believe in climate change which can be shown by the majority of right wingers not believing in it is a threat.
My burden was not to show science is a left or right thing it was to show the left care more about climate change than the right. Did you miss that or are you mis-characterizing me on purpose? Here is what I said and I quote:
"His stance on climate change is left."
Followed up by
"Right wingers deny climate change, left wingers don't."
This wasn't about belief it was about which side denies climate change. Please read what I say before uttering whatever comes from your mouth.
It is that anyone would support such a policy in the 1st place. He has not apologized for that.
So your telling me someone before they understand they did wrong should be apologetic for something they don't even know is wrong? I guess I am forgiving left winger while you are the begrudging left winger. Who would've thought you envied people so much that they need to know they did wrong before they actually know they did wrong.
I'm telling you that if someone has strongly advocated for a series of beliefs for decades, then suddenly changes a whole bunch of them all at once when he decides to run for president, that is a very strong sign that he hasn't changed his mind.
Do you have anything other than your word supporting this? As in a data point showing a person can't simply changing without intentionally misleading people?
I already showed you a clip off him saying he has never believed in raising the minimum wage.
I just showed you a link earlier that he is for the minimum wage. Is he for the minimum wage currently?
But you don't hold the same beliefs for decades, then have a huge epiphany the minute you decide you want to be president and decide you have been wrong your entire life.
Most of my life I was a theist then I wasn't. Are you calling me a liar because you are certainly calling Bloomberg a liar for the exact same thing?
From stop and frisk to banning soft drinks and lots of other issues, he loves the idea of having the power to order people to do what he wants.
No proof that he will enact stop and frisk when he could be elected nor would he ban soft drinks? Are you being hyperbolic because I certainly didn't hear him say he wanted to ban soft drinks or still support stop and frisk?
he is a billionaire trying to buy an election. Why do you think he is running?
To prove what? Are you saying he is doing it for the fun of it?
But all of the discussion of precisely why bloomberg is right wing aside
You have yet to give me one point but okay.
I don't see anyone else with a path to beating trump.
Separate argument, I just want to know how Bloomberg is right wing.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Some things are morally wrong. But saying an unpopular opinion isn't.
What's the difference between something being morally wrong and an unpopular opinion?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
He opposed raising the minimum wage.
The link I gave says he is pro it. Guess he changed his mind. Wow
He opposed healthcare reform (the ACA), he was in favor of authoritarian "tough on crime" laws such as stop and frisk, he supported redlining and even said that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by cracking down on redlining rather than the greed of wall street.
You just can't help yourself with your diatribes. Even your own links heavily implies he wants to fix the issues as in an improved ACA.
There are lots of people on the right who acknowledge climate change. I agree there is more denial on the right than on the left. But that is not a political ideal that can be associated with right or left.
Literally 18% of Republicans don't even think it is a problem as in only 18% worry "a great deal" about climate change.
The fact that he did a 180 change the moment he decided to be president should tell you he is lying.
So people apologizing and changing their mind is lying? It doesn't matter if it was in a 6 months span or he was defending it back then (which you haven't given that evidence), it matters if he has changed his mind, if you listened to the debate he admits fault.
He says that he is not, and has never been, in favor of raising the minimum wage. He said that just a few years ago.
Are you telling me he can't change his mind in a few years?
to bloomberg? extremely. He is an authoritarian, right wing billionaire who is trying to buy the nomination just to protect his own money.
Extremely uncharitable and have yet to bring any evidence with the personal attacks you gave.
You missed this please respond
"29:40. If you actually watched the video you would understand his problems weren't that Obama knew what the issues were it was that it didn't address them with the ACA. This heavily implies he would like a plan that addresses the issues. Do you even watch the video and how uncharitable are you?"
why do you choose to believe him? He has been right wing and opposed progressive policy for decades
A decade is a long time and more than enough time to change.
He opposed minimum wage laws. That is a fact. He supported authoritarian tough on crimes laws and still did until very recently that is a fact.
Is he now?
how is a politician's record not relevant to today? He has spent decades showing he believes in right wing principles. Now he suddenly claims he believes the opposite of everything he has done. His past shows that he is lying.
Tell me why can't he change his mind and admit to his faults?
wow, you really are choosing to ignore decades of his record (including things he said very recently) and just believe whatever he says now? Just because a right wing politician claims to be a democrat does not make him one.
What makes a Democrat and how long do they have to be one to be considered one and also does an official DNC body accept your definition?
your argument appears to boil down to "well he was right wing 5 years ago, but he says he isn't now". Choosing to believe a politician in his late 70's has changed massively from the beliefs he has held for decades is just sad. He is lying to you to try to protect his money and power.
This is conspiracy nonsense. Unless you can back up that Bloomberg wants the presidency as a financial investment. I'll await for your conspiracy to be met with evidence if not I'll always call what you are saying here conspiratorial.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
<br>he has a handful of social issues he goes left on. But the basically everything else about him is right wing and authoritarian.
Name them.
There is no such thing as left or right wing about climate change. There are those who acknowledge science and those who don't. That is not a political spectrum.
Right wingers deny climate change, left wingers don't. I think the right are still not agreeing on it being human influenced. He also wants to do something about climate change whereas Trump removed himself from the Paris agreement.
Even now, he has "apologized" for how it turned out, but has not acknowledged that the entire policy was designed to be racist and he wholeheartedly embraced that.
Apologizing is an admittance of fault. People I think do this in order to imply they won't do it again.
of course, because on this issue, like most others, he is way too right wing to possibly be considered for the democratic nomination. So he has had to pretend to be democrat and copy other people's platform.
Calling him a liar requires proof if you can't find him being a liar on the minimum wage issue your attack on his minimum wage plan is null.
"I, for example, am not in favor, have never been in favor of raising the minimum wage,"
I never knew Bloomberg could tell the future oh wait he can't so he can change his mind thus making this statement null.
again, he says that now. He argued against the ACA. Here is a speech he gave where he called the ACA "a disgrace". Timestamp 29:20.
29:40. If you actually watched the video you would understand his problems weren't that Obama knew what the issues were it was that it didn't address them with the ACA. This heavily implies he would like a plan that addresses the issues. Do you even watch the video and how uncharitable are you?
He didn't want the ACA. But he has to pretend like he likes it now because to say otherwise would be political suicide.
Him being liar requires proof and make it about the ACA if you can. No a video 10 years ago doesn't count because he has changed his mind that is if I take your uncharitable view that he says there are issues but he doesn't want to fix them. I don't think you can comprehend someone literally changing their mind.
I've already pointed to multiple areas where he is right wing. Other than a handful of social issues, he has been right wing for a long time.
No you haven't. I have literally rebutted all your claims. You still went on your diatribes and know you are moving the goalposts that he was a right winger for a long time? I don't care about someone's past unless it is relevant to today. Given everything you have given is literally null since Bloomberg has changed his mind it doesn't count now you resorted in using the past instead of the recent present as if that matters?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Other than a handful of social issues, how is he not?
His social issues are more left than right.
His stance on climate change is left.
He is against any meaningful regulations of corporations, he fought for racist "tough on crime" laws, he lobbied hard against healthcare reform, he doesn't believe in raising the minimum wage etc.
No proof he will carry on using policies like stop and frisk.
Literally wants a minimum wage but okay.
Literally wants an improved ACA. Right wingers don't even want an ACA and he wants an improved version.
Literally everything you bought up is null. Please stick to the topic instead on your typical diatribes. Spare me this one time please. Focus on my points say how they are right wing don't give me your feelings and stories. I beg you.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
How is Bloomberg right wing?
Correction: Trump is barely a billionaire, Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Can we agree he lacks charisma?
I didn't know a multi-billionaire couldn't prep himself for those obvious questions. Guess him being the first to kinda pay his way in wasn't able to pay his way to being charismatic. Welp. Hope he does fix that or you know carry on being moronic about his debate performance. His team had to resort clipping the debate out of context for him to look good. Link
Created:
-->
@Alec
However, given that racism is an ideology, what's morally wrong with being a racist anymore than any other belief?
As a society we deem certain words as a no no for whichever reasons. That would be the very broad reasoning.
Do you think there is morally wrong things? Does something being an ideology make it not wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I'll wait for a functioning country that adopts socialism. That hasn't been one yet, maybe your the one to create it or maybe you are going to live in La La Land while someone else figures it out.
Bernie is adopts pretty much what the Scandinavians do but not really push socialism even though he calls himself a socialist. If you look at his policies I can't find one that changes how the economy works, instead of it being based on wealth it would be owned equally.
I guess I could say more but I think this more than enough covers the problems with the viability and if there is a working socialism model.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not really lazy but I am talking to Dr.Franklin.what a lazy attempt to get ehtang banned by the nihilist
Hey buddy
That is so sweet.
still think my parents thinks that I am incompetent
You already know the answer why ask?
really schooled me on a DEBATE WEBSITE
Am I not supposed to be debating someone on a debating website?
Mr. Alpha Male
I guess your a beta since you called me an alpha? That's a yikes from me.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
? Do explain.Lol. A logical mod. I'm swooning with satisfaction.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
What? The fact that users are allowed to form and express their own opinions about other users? No, that is not being looked into.
I guess it would be a CoC violation if he print screened his PM and posted it in the public?
No, why would I?
Okay.
When the need arises, the head moderators can check IPs, yet. It is not a routine thing, no.
How else do you check multi-accounts if not through IPs?
A public post where Salixes says they are Willow.
Guess PM's is not enough?
I don't know if it is in a PM, at the moment I haven't even asked for the info, I asked if it was public.
What is your next move since ethang5 said it was in PMs?
Created: