yoink

You just don't get it do you? These cheap little internet points that you keep trying to score are worthless here. I value some actual thought behind the posts. If you just want to post memes go to 4chan. The phrase relates to people you choose to spend a lot of time with, and you know that. If you deliberately opt not to see a difference between that and meeting someone for a job and a poor photoshop in order to try and make a dig at me then you're an idiot. I wouldn't judge you by people you meet as part of your job. I WOULD judge you if you chose to associate with murderers, terrorists and brutal dictators in your free time. That's what the US has done... And for the record, AGAIN, not everyone who dislikes Trump must automatically hold Hillary in high regard. In just the same way that not everyone who hated Hillary enough to vote for Trump actually likes the fucker. It's a completely ridiculous argument. You're wrong multiple times in a single post. Congrats.

‘ Yup. The US, North Korea and Iran have now all refused to ratify the treaty... Ever heard the phrase ‘you can tell the kind of man you are by the company you keep.’? MAGA? Sure. Whatever.

And that's the frustration - you'd vote for them because you think it would benefit you personally. But there are so many second and third order consequences that people have advanced that you're seemingly unwilling to even consider that the only possible response can be 'look, you're wrong'.

The irony of you talking about intransigence on a position is laughable. And that you feel the need to come into a thread solely to start calling people names is pathetic. Don't you have anything better to offer? As people have said, the concept that the original poster has is nice in theory but it simply can't work in practice because of human nature. It'd be fine for a minority of cases but would cause wholesale meltdown for tens of thousands of others, the pieces of which we (as a responsible society) WOULD have to end up picking up... That's the bit yobnoc is failing to address, but at least he's got a position. You've just got your snide comments.

We get it. You think a) it wouldn't happen to you, and b) people who did make the decision should live with the consequences if it goes poorly. But EVERYONE'S point is that that is an overly simplistic and naive view when you're talking about large percentages of society rather than just your own individual position. Just google 'how many Americans save money'. Then extrapolate how society deals with the fallout of the reality of THAT number of people with zero savings. Do you particularly want thousands of homeless and starving people on the streets of your city? I don't believe you've honestly considered the consequences of your idea when it's certain that it'll result in MILLIONS of people being destitute.

My base assumption is that research has shown that MOST people are bad at saving unless forced to do so. How are you not getting that it's not all about you?

I think the concept is eluding you, to be honest. Yes, freedom is great. BUT most people simply don’t act the way you would. In fact they’d act in the most detrimental way possible. They’d think they would make better financial decisions than they actually would, and then they end up fucked. THAT’S what society has to plan for - the worst case scenario, not the best. From the stats I’ve seen only between 15 and 20% of us are psychologically ‘natural savers’. My wife is, for example. I’m certainly not. Fortunately I’m old enough now to realize when I suck at something... And so I ask again, given that most people assume they are smarter than they actually are, and given that only 20% of people would actually SAVE money if not forced to do so, how does society act when 80% of its retirees are broke and starving? This is a good example of an idea that’s great in theory but would be horrible in practice because, well, people.

Until you’ve been in that situation I don’t believe anyone can really say what they’d do when they’re broke, homeless and can’t afford medication. Its dead easy to say ‘I’d suck it up’ or ‘I wouldn’t be in that situation’ when you’re sitting at home drinking Chablis, but then everyone thinks they’re mentally and physically tougher and smarter than they actually are. Given the choice as you suggest EVERYONE would think they’re smart enough not to end up in that situation, just as you do. There are a bunch of studies out there that show that people SUCK at voluntary saving so Dekker’s situation WILL happen which makes his question of ‘then what’ very valid, and something you haven’t answered. What do you do when large % of your elderly population are starving or can’t afford to heat their homes in winter?

Lots of people do. Hell, I do. It’s the ‘but I don’t subscribe to what this fuckwit is doing because I only voted for him as a protest’ get out of jail free clause I have an issue with. If the guys I voted for simply to vote AGAINST their opponents end up ruining the world, that’s partly my fault. I have to acknowledge that. Just as you do with Trump.

No doubt. You’ve still got to own the consequences of your actions though... Videos of people complaining that Brexit is ruining their business after they submitted it as ‘a protest vote’ are a good example. Whatever reason you had you, voted FOR this. The point Jerry is making is that even if a symbolic vote is your reason, the reality is that you have given that position a positive step to becoming actuality, not just the opposition a negative one. The two aren’t the same. Behaviorally they’re close, but the consequences are very different and it’s dishonest to deny any culpability in the result ‘because you were only doing it for X, Y or Z reasons’. It’s a serious problem with our two party system.

Hang on, are you talking about immigration, illegal immigration, or the perception of immigration? Because they're all very different things.

BUILD A FUCKING WALL THOUGH BECAUSE CLINTON! I'm not convinced a lot of posts in here actually get. you know, 'read'.

I'm not sure if you didn't read Jakee's post, don't understand the point of mine, or are just looking for a fight. Let's try this again: Jakee posted that the stance of being afraid of illegal immigrants to the point of needing to take action because of the 2 cited cases of re-offenders pales into insignificance when compared to the liklihood of being the victim of a citizen repeat offender. He then got told to mind his own business. You should try reading my post again - it contained NOTHING about the substance of jakee's post and was everything to do with the type of reply BIGUN posted. For what it's worth I disagree with the name calling by everyone. I think it's pathetic. So, as I pointed out, it's a crap retort simply in terms of having a discussion because it makes no sense. The question is still exactly the same now that I, an American citizen, asks it. I don't need to be the person to actually type it out for it to be a perfectly valid question. The weird bit is that your reply about building a wall has nothing to do with either my post OR the original question about the citizen vs immigrant re-offenders. You've just picked a post to reply to in order to shove something about a wall in there, it seems.

This is one of the more stupid replies there can possibly be. I’d expect it of rushmc but you’re better than this. First, this is an international discussion forum in which you CHOOSE to post. Limiting discussions by region goes against the entire point of the internet. Second, it’s a crap argument. I can completely defuse it by simply copy/pasting Jakees question. I DO live here, so now you’re in exactly the same situation but looking more foolish. Just because one person asks a question or voices a thought doesn’t mean others aren’t thinking the same thing. And thirdly, the entire world is connected. What happens in the US has direct and indirect consequences across the world. You’re not just an isolated nation, even if you wish to be.

To get a reaction from people? Of course he would.

Interesting. Why?

I agree. The name calling is detrimental to the post. But the point of the post still holds true. Why have an impartial investigation if it is funneled through a partisan political gatekeeper before release? Regardless of the side, the logic of it is stupid.

No it doesn't. It means that I'd be willing to bend the rules a LITTLE in that particular situation. That's all it says. I know that because, well, that's what I said. You're free to criticize me for what I wrote and hold a different opinion. I expect it when I put something like that out there. But don't you fucking DARE extrapolate 'volumes' from it. Like I said, I see very a lot of grey in those areas. I wouldn't directly answer a question on a test for my son, but if he was struggling I'd certainly point him in the right direction. You're saying you wouldn't. I'd help my kid prepare for an admissions interview, helping him predict questions and prepare good answers. You're saying you wouldn't. Fair enough - There are a lot of folk out there who would think that you're being a lousy dad if you did that... Straight. By the book. But a shit dad. Like I said - 'grey'.

When oil runs out, and it WILL at some point, EVs will become 99.9 of the market. Or are you expecting a sudden uptake of hydrogen fuel cells?

That’s equally messed up!

Its a tough one, isn't it? Really, how many people here, given the resources and opportunity to help their kids WOULDN'T do as much as possible? That 'as much as possible' changes depending on the person but I doubt there are many who would play completely straight and level. 'You want this school, son? You're on your own. Fuck it up and you're working at McDonalds for the rest of your life...' Taking a full on test for your kid instead of them doing it to help them get into a better school? I totally understand the drive to do it but that's too much. Helping them with a few questions on the test??? I'd probably do that, even though it's cheating. How about helping them prep for interviews? Something I think not only all parents would do, but are SUPPOSED to do... I don't see too much difference between that and helping with some test questions, quite honestly. It's not a clean line.

Are you actually going to answer my questions?

Billy, Look at this graph of US economic growth. Now explain the utter nonsense you just posted. There has been some growth under Trump. We could argue about whether it's because of Trump or as a legacy of the previous administration, but that's a different argument. What is utterly undeniable is that not only was there recovery under Obama, but the magnitude of it dwarfs anything that has happened since 2016. While you're at it I'd like an answer to a simple question - do you post tripe in here because you actually believe it or just to generate a response? Because I'd like to know if it's the latter so that I don't waste my time in future.

I don’t have a lot of time right now, but I thought I’d drop this in here as food for thought. This thread has caused me to do a little research and there are certainly a number of studies that seem to suggest a link between disrupted circadian cycles and onset of cancer. Most of them have been done in relation to shift workers and conclude that it’s possible but needs follow up studies. Wind turbines are pretty loud and I could imagine them waking people up frequently. While disingenuous, Trumps statement might not be ENTIRELY rediculous. At least not as stupid as it sounds. I need to look into it some more.

I was wondering about that. That ain't what resting meat does. In fact it's the exact opposite! X)