WAR ROOM LOUNGE V12: Mao With Noir

[senri]

You got a hot chick to bring with ya'?

No even better... Red wine... Our conversation will transcend the opposite gender, they will come eventually, as the ascension brings forth our desires....

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

No even better... Red wine... Our conversation will transcend the opposite gender, they will come eventually, as the ascension brings forth our desires....

Honestly, that is better. Book your ticket for Big Island and we'll talk. What's more nexus than rivers of lava flowing forth from the pits of the Earth, creating new opportunities for whichever lifeforms adapt to the afforded advantages?

 

[senri]

Honestly, that is better. Book your ticket for Big Island and we'll talk. What's more nexus than rivers of lava flowing forth from the pits of the Earth, creating new opportunities for whichever lifeforms adapt to the afforded advantages?

Indeed...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Indeed...

 

[senri]

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@Trotsky, I'll concede the dirty but by virtue of that you lose on the "football player" argument.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Football is when your WR makes a point of leveling the best LB since coked-up LT.




EDIT: For good measure.

 

[nac386]

@Trotsky, I'll concede the dirty but by virtue of that you lose on the "football player" argument.

I never thought Hines Ward was dirty, and I lived in Baltimore where everybody hated him. They say, "He blind sides defensive players!" Yeah no shit, and every single defensive player blindsides offensive players. You think Ray Lewis or Ed Reed won't hit you if you're not ready for it? Lol. Give me a break. Just a bunch of whiny defensive players that are upset somebody was finally hitting them back.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your claim---”Trump's presidency is actually moving people away from his dumb position on immigration”---appears not to comport with reality:

I’ve not seen a poll of the Constitution Party’s views on American becoming a majority ethnic minority nation. Could you please provide a source?

http://www.people-press.org/2018/06/28/shifting-public-views-on-legal-immigration-into-the-u-s/

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/h...ial-diversity-is-bad-for-the-country.3802429/

BTW, you revealed a lot in that thread. Probably more than you intended to.

Again, I accept Marbury v Madison. You appear to think that my acceptance of the opinion in that case implies acceptance of all Supreme Court decisions. That’s a non-sequitur. I’d wager that all War Room posters except a few anarchists hold my view there, including you.

I can disagree with their reasoning and lament the effects of their decisions, but I accept that the SCOTUS has the final say on the matter. You were simply asserting that some very important cases were decided incorrectly *and thus that the rulings should be ignored*. See the difference? Your proposed amendment is not necessary to protect SS because it is Constitutional.

I explicitly wrote that SS should be preserved via constitutional amendment. I also never advocated ignoring or “single-handedly overturning” a SCOTUS ruling. You are responding to a phantom.

It has been challenged and won. No need for an amendment. And you said you wanted it phased out, which would bring about mass poverty.

Posts like this make me think you are excessively present-oriented. It seems like you’re reading me to say that SS should be ended in the short-term even though I explicitly wrote otherwise. You seem incapable of imagining different futures, particularly those in which technological change has dramatically changed our way of life.

If "technological change" somehow eliminates poverty, than, sure, we can get rid of SS. I'll not be holding my breath. I lean toward the technological pessimist view, meaning I think we'll continue to see exciting new technological advancements, but because it takes bigger and bigger leaps to make additional gains in quality of life, I expect a slowdown in the rate of growth of quality of life (to illustrate the point, note that in 1900, infant mortality was over 20%, while it's been under 1% since 1950--further declines from the present 0.6% are possible but will take a lot more work than the original "don't give them poison milk/water" advancement--and even getting it to zero won't have the same impact on our lives that the initial advancement did). The "optimist" view likely would require an *expansion* of SS rather than allow for its elimination with no impact on poverty.

Which laws are you referring to?

In general, no, that is not my position.

The laws that you're referring to (SS for example, or borders).

 

[waiguoren]

@Jack V Savage

You claimed:

”Trump's presidency is actually moving people away from his dumb position on immigration”




Does this view not directly contradict the above plot?

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage

You claimed:

”Trump's presidency is actually moving people away from his dumb position on immigration”




Does this view not directly contradict the above plot?

No. I'm seeing increasing support for more immigration (see the link for an example). Very good news.

 

[waiguoren]

No. I'm seeing increasing support for more immigration (see the link for an example). Very good news.

Explain how your view is not contradicted by that data. You said people are being driven away from Trump on immigration, but his favorability rating on immigration has stayed basically flat for the entirely of his presidency.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Explain how your view is not contradicted by that data.

My view is that more and more people are seeing (or acknowledging) the value of immigration. The data 100% supports that. Favorability is irrelevant to the point.

 

[Jack V Savage]

BTW, @waiguoren, you never explained your attack in the other thread.

 

[Gregolian]

Perhaps this one is more appropriate for the occasion?

Never seen it before....

 

[Gregolian]

Bow before God @Cubo de Sangre

 

[waiguoren]

My view is that more and more people are seeing (or acknowledging) the value of immigration. The data 100% supports that. Favorability is irrelevant to the point.

It's not irrelevant to your claim, which was that people are being driven away from Trump's position on immigration. That's demonstrably untrue. I demonstrated it, and the honorable thing for you to do is to admit fault here.

The poll data you posted were for legal immigration only. Trump's primary campaign issue was illegal immigration. Please post a poll showing that people are moving away from Trump on illegal immigration.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's not irrelevant to your claim, which was that people are being driven away from Trump's position on immigration. That's demonstrably untrue.

How do you explain the Pew thing?

I demonstrated it, and the honorable thing for you to do is to admit fault here.

You introduced a non-sequitur, didn't you? My claim can be directed checked, and it is 100% accurate, as I demonstrated.

The poll data you posted were for legal immigration only. Trump's primary campaign issue was illegal immigration. Please post a poll showing that people are moving away from Trump on illegal immigration.

Trump, Bannon and Miller have pushed against legal immigration. And everyone opposes illegal immigration.

 

[waiguoren]

You introduced a non-sequitur, didn't you? My claim can be directed checked, and it is 100% accurate, as I demonstrated.

And Trump's presidency is actually moving people away from his dumb position on immigration.

If the percentage of the electorate that views Trump's immigration policies favorably/unfavorably is unchanged, how can your statement be accurate?

Focusing on a small part of Trump's immigration platform (reduction in legal immigration) is not a reasonable way to address this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If the percentage of the electorate that views Trump's immigration policies favorably/unfavorably is unchanged, how can your statement be accurate?

My statement was that support for immigration is rising, and I think that it's a result of the backlash against Trump. The first part of the statement can be directed checked, and it is, in fact, true. My statement was not that views of Trump's immigration policies have changed since the election. Do you think your approach here is honorable?

BTW, you did not explain your attack in the other thread.