Raiders22

Member Since:December 2010
Location:

Recent Posts

Date Post Entry

Raiders22
Soccer > Matchday 6 > View Post
Nice hit. 

Raiders22
Politics > If a Democrat president tweeted what Trump did today...how long > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by Europa:
Why did Trump entice Alabama crowd to boo Sen. McCain for opposing a 20% approval rating Graham-Cassidy Health Bill? McCain could very well save the majority seat for GOP in Congress in 2018 Midterms.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc0-5b9GcZo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rau-0lM8nK0
Very highly questionable if McCain could save anything at all, now or at a later date.  Should be more than simply booed. 

Raiders22
Politics > If a Democrat president tweeted what Trump did today...how long > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
France has the highest life expectancy in the world,
well over 80 years. But that is due to wine not their health care system..


Just to nitpick a tad.  They are very high on the list but not the top.  They crack the top ten.  8,9, 10 --- depending on source.  But interestingly, it is the women and not the men that move them up the list.  Like over a 6 year gap.  They also were saying a couple of years ago that France had a big dip for a couple of years as well.  Maybe something changed. 
But nonetheless, you cannot put it all on the wine.  They do say the studies show women tended to sip wine and at smaller amounts than other European countries.
You have to allow for something else.  And it does appear to be the healthcare system to a large degree.  French are encouraged to use it more and do so, etc. etc.  Same seems to be the case with the countries ahead of them on the list, that are not known as wine drinkers.

Raiders22
Politics > This is who you elected....thank you from the bottom of my heart for F'ing us all > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
My point is all things secular are tied to the base instinct of man and you are not really understanding religion if you think it does not breed/foster hate...it does.

For Christians the OT is FULL of this type of behavior...the "If you are not of Israel" then they go and wage war against them sort of thing...its the kill or be killed approach and it is squarely rooted in most all religions...not all but most.

The reason why religion is filled with hate and anger and war is because it is our carnal nature, it is how humans treat each other deep down. And it is why changing these attitudes and feelings is extremely difficult if not impossible.

Secular wars stem from power and hatred, many times the desire to wage war with another has to do with what those leaders were taught and the values/morals they have and that for sure is tied to religion. And MANY secular wars were backed/supported by religion.
I thought your point was religion killed more people than anything else. But if you want to change your point and say most killing is influenced by religion, I can't see that as true either. Certainly there are some that abuse religion as with any tool or power. I grant you that.  If you think religion fosters hate and bias, it could be argued very effectively that you truly do not understand religion either.  I also grant you that folks are born inherently evil --- no doubt about it.  Even those folks that have never even heard of religion as we are discussing it.  But for sure religion has done more good than bad.  Many more people that were bad and became religious have done good than people that used religion as an excuse to do evil.  And of course if you read the OT in a vacuum and select just what you want it can appear that way. But what about the good or the NT. Or even other religions. 
So now, no matter who is president, no matter the war --- they have to be excused by your logic.  Since all of wars and differences are deep-down religious based there is nothing any president (Bush, Obama, or Trump) can do right. 
I would also wonder the obvious question about your bias and hatred of CEOs, corporations, Trump, religion, and most republicans and their ideals. What religion led you to those? 

Raiders22
Politics > This is who you elected....thank you from the bottom of my heart for F'ing us all > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by Raiders22:

Sure there are a mixture of reasons and causes.  And some also involve religious and non-religious reasons.  But to plainly state that religion causes more deaths is incorrect is all I was pointing out.  Hatred and bias are not taught by religion either.  That is very much learned.  According to one quick check of a list I saw someone took the time to compile:   WWII by itself outnumbered all religious wars.  I am not saying a huge amount are not religious-based; just saying it is not most. 

The sum of all of the (maximum) values is: 74,672,001 deaths. (A lot of deaths caused by religion!)


This world is corrupt no matter how wars began. Wars are bad and pointing fingers at the people who caused them isn't going to solve our problems.

The sum of all of the values is 307,805,040 deaths.

74,672,001 < 307,805,040

Statistically speaking, the casualties of secular wars combined are greater than the casualties of religious wars combined. But war is not good in general. Instead we can solve our problems with peace.

The highlighted portion was the quote.  Realized that may not have been clear.

Raiders22
Politics > This is who you elected....thank you from the bottom of my heart for F'ing us all > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

This is 100% correct...and why post 63 isnt cut and dry at all.

Sure secular, cultural and geographic fighting happens, happened...but the root of many of these disagreements are the fragments of religion, the decisions made, the hatred in our minds are due to our upbring and biases ingrained due to religion.

So yeah I will say that religion kills more than anything else because people take their religious beliefs with them to work, engaging with others, how you treat your neighbors etc etc and religion often times teaches a very negative way of how to treat someone who does not believe what you do.

Sure there are a mixture of reasons and causes.  And some also involve religious and non-religious reasons.  But to plainly state that religion causes more deaths is incorrect is all I was pointing out.  Hatred and bias are not taught by religion either.  That is very much learned.  According to one quick check of a list I saw someone took the time to compile:   WWII by itself outnumbered all religious wars.  I am not saying a huge amount are not religious-based; just saying it is not most. 

The sum of all of the (maximum) values is: 74,672,001 deaths. (A lot of deaths caused by religion!)


This world is corrupt no matter how wars began. Wars are bad and pointing fingers at the people who caused them isn't going to solve our problems.

The sum of all of the values is 307,805,040 deaths.

74,672,001 < 307,805,040

Statistically speaking, the casualties of secular wars combined are greater than the casualties of religious wars combined. But war is not good in general. Instead we can solve our problems with peace.


Raiders22
Politics > The UN Speech by President Donald J Trump > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by sports_Network:
Your opinion has no merit whatsoever, actually it's a ludicrous statement, shared by a few very delusional Americans as yourself; the United States is a great nation, actually, it's a Super Great Nation, could you by chance name a nation on this planet 'greater, or more powerful, that contains peace, over the USA????? hey! to each his own, if that's what you truly believe, maybe you have watched CNN wayyyyy to long, switch channels, there's two sides to a coin, and 63m Americans who support the President, and refuse to 'take a knee'  He's calculated, and tactical, and says what he wants, when he wants, and could give a rats azz about the media, and their bestowed propaganda, enjoy the next seven years, should be extremely interesting WWIII included.
 
I am pretty sure he was being sarcastic. 

Raiders22
Politics > This is who you elected....thank you from the bottom of my heart for F'ing us all > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

There has been more lives lost due to religious differences than ANY political misunderstandings or differences.

Nothing kills faster than religion. 

I would ask your definition of 'political' here.  It depends on what all you include.  It is akin to the folks that claim religious wars have killed more people than secular wars.  Obviously that is not true, and not even close.  But if you say 'strictly politics', that is one thing; but if you say 'social, political, cultural, power, territorial, etc.' differences, that is a whole different deal.  People oversimplify things.  It is human nature to do this because it makes it easier to understand and deal with.  But I am not so sure it is that simple in this case.  If things worked out well we should give credit to the folks that helped it happen.  If things did not work out so well, it is okay to lay some blame at their feet.  They are big boys.  They can take the heat. 

Raiders22
Politics > Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by Ktrain:

I'm all for cutting taxes. But there has to be some sort of spending cut to coincide with it as well. Kansas is an example of your theory not working. Brownback cut corporate taxes and the state basically went bankrupt. It didn't have the trickle down effect people were hoping for. 

So where do you want to cut spending at? Are you in favor of Trump's wall? Do you want to cut military spending? Welfare spending? There has to be some balance here. 

But if you are disagreeing.  Most of this comes from the folks that are not for TDT, of course.  But as the other side will claim, rightly so, it is not a closed system. There was/is a reason Kansas was put in this situation.  There are also many examples of successes.  So, even if one example did not work it would not make it something to totally abandon in all cases.  But you have to examine whether or not it really did not work and/or if it was given a legitimate shot at success.  You will always have folks that are gleeful to jump at any chance to denounce something they do not want to see work when it appears to struggle; but they rarely admit when they are pleasantly surprised at a time when it did work.  It is just human nature, especially when something is not done in a lab-environment.

Here is a very simple article that retorts to one opinion piece about Kansas.  Read it and follow through with researching what some of the Econ guys say online pro and con.  Then let me know from a pro-standpoint --- not a con-view --- what you think. 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Don-t-blame-Kansas-woes-on-trickle-down-11234144.php


Raiders22
Politics > Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by Ktrain:

I'm all for cutting taxes. But there has to be some sort of spending cut to coincide with it as well. Kansas is an example of your theory not working. Brownback cut corporate taxes and the state basically went bankrupt. It didn't have the trickle down effect people were hoping for. 

So where do you want to cut spending at? Are you in favor of Trump's wall? Do you want to cut military spending? Welfare spending? There has to be some balance here. 

Yes.  You are correct.  As I said before, you can treat it exactly as you would your own personal situation.  I am not sure if you think you are disagreeing or just reiterating?  Obviously, if you cut income, you have to cut spending.


Raiders22
Politics > Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by Ktrain:

I'll question it. A business doesn't necessarily grow and hire more people because of a cut in capitol gains tax or corporate tax. It will only hire more people if it can make profits as a result bringing in more people. There's no guarantee too it. 

Profits don't necessarily go up because of hiring more people and producing more of a product or service. There is an optimal level to for a business to run at. After that, hiring too many people or over producing/expanding can be detrimental and costly to a business. 
This is mainly correct.  As I have said before, it is not a scientifically-proven experiment by any means.  That is why it is called a theory.  But my point is still the same.  There is evidence it works.  But it may have to be coupled, as RWR did, etc.  But economically, it makes sense. Hard to argue against encouraging companies to stay here, to hire folks, and pay more.  

Raiders22
Politics > Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
I think our main disagreement what ecomonic and job growth, if any, comes from massive corporate tax cuts. I've read a lot on the subject, i've looked at a lot of numbers, and I just haven't seen anything to support it. Of course there is some measurable growth but nothing commensurate with the level of corporate and capitol gains tax cuts. I'm not advocating for higher income tax rates for the wealthy. Personally I would support a flat income tax if economist deemed it feasible. What i'm against is large corporations who make money hand over fist not paying their fair share. Like i've said, the numbers don't reflect that it leads to significant economic growth.
Yes. That is where a lot of folks disagree, including economists.  As I said before the argument is always that we didn't go far enough or stick with it longer. But I will post a few quick links that hit the basics.  When you get a few free minutes, read through them and maybe go to some of the links they refer to.  These are pretty simple articles.  There are some more complex ones that are way in-depth.
Anyway, read them when you get time and let me know what you think.

http://theweek.com/articles/444861/why-corporations-shouldnt-pay-taxes--zero-zilch-nada

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/22/corporations-do-not-pay-taxes-they-cant-theyre-not-people/#13383aa76222

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/10/why_do_we_tax_corporations.html

https://www.atr.org/corporations-dont-pay-taxes-brpeople-a3203

Raiders22
Politics > Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda? > View Post
Okay. But I am not sure why an organized labor class would cover it at all. And I am certain they did not cover it as extensively as an economy class or a good book or three would. Of course, it has been proved to work to  a certain degree. Absolutely it leads to businesses hiring more people and the economy growing.  There really is no question of that. 
The issue that democrats can't see around or don't like is that it also greatly benefits the wealthy.  The wealthy hire more people, they spend more, they invest more. All of which add money to the system. But the money also grows more for the wealthy.  Democrats see this as unfair.  Democrats want a situation that actually takes from the rich and gives to the poor; not a situation that works to increase the whole.  Of course, if rich are hiring and producing more --- they make more for themselves. But now someone who didn't have a job has one or someone who had a lesser paying job now has a higher paying one, etc. Of course, the point is it has never been tried completely in an absolute way.  Even Laffer-types admit that you obviously don't want 0% tax on folks. And no one wants 100% tax.  So, there has to be a middle ground.  When the rate has dropped from the 90s or the 70s down to the 30s or even the 20s --- look at what happened. It can very easily be argued that it got us out of recessions.  Obviously profits go up if you hire more people and your business produces more.  More for everyone. But a 1% gain for a broke person is not nearly as much as a 1% gain for a person making 200k/yr. 
But the issue is the same as most things like this. If people don't want to see it or admit it, they won't no matter what evidence or argument you present. 
I would ask what articles or books you have read that advocate it?  That is almost always the best way to see how someone stands on an issue and how they came to their conclusions. 

Raiders22
Politics > Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

I think the bank bail outs, which some people did like but many also didn't, I think the bail outs constituted a different form of "trickle down". Likewise, as did the auto industry bail out. I just don't subscribe to massive corporate tax breaks just to pad the pockets of CEOs and share holders. That money sits and collects interest and almost never "trickles down" to stimulate the economy. Where as when you put back into the pockets of the people, it goes immediately back into the system. I don't get how politicians sell their constituents on this whole concept of "we're against doing things like raising the minimum wage because it'll be a "job killer" then let's give tax breaks to the rich and it'll be a "job creator". And it's just not so. And people who are poor let spin doctor politicians sell them on these concepts. I just shake my head. I've stopped caring. I make good money. I'll be ok. 
TDT mainly is two-fold: if it benefits, or seems to benefit mainly the wealthy or business, in the short-term; and, it benefits, or seems to benefit the poor in the long-term. This stems from way before RWR, which democrats mainly associate it with. So, yes, a lot of different things can be seen as TDT or used as examples. So, you may or may not agree with some of it; but it is hard to dispute all of it. That is all I am saying. 
The assumption that tax breaks 'are just to pad the pockets of CEOs' simply falls apart to logic.  It doesn't work that way. For example, think of how very, very few CEOs there actually are in the country. It is about WAY more than that over-simplification. That money does not sit and collect interest. That is exactly what it does NOT do. It does more of that the other way around. This is proven many times over. But, again, it is not about the rich guy --- in the short-term; it is about the poor guy --- in the long-term. 
You told me you are an independent. And I told you I will take you at your word for that for a while. Because I haven't discoursed much with you at length before. But the minimum wage thing and the tax thing are always used as a copout by democrats.  The two are distinctly different issues, economically and politically. 
It is the same rationale democrats used during, and well after the depression,  when it took so long to stabilize the economy and turn things around.  The democrats always say we actually didn't spend enough and do enough.  When TDT doesn't work the week after, the republicans always say it wasn't allowed to last long enough.  Both can never be proved.  The interesting issue is when it is studied with a lagging effect.  Things are seen in a whole different light. 
I sincerely recommend reading up on it if you are interested; instead of just listening to democrats that advocate against TDT or tax breaks. It is a very interesting topic and way more complicated than a quick news segment would have you believe. 
And it is not about you; it is not about any one individual. That is actually the same attitude you accuse big business or CEOs of having. 
Good for the ones of us that have done well.  But you have to look long-term if you care about the country or the next generations, etc.  
Nice that you are discussing it. But I think you would be pleasantly surprised if you were to read some decent articles or books on an even keel about it. 

Raiders22
Politics > Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
And Raiders22, trickle down economics has never worked. It's a scam Republicans use to justify massive tax cuts for the rich. 
Not sure why you assume that I was saying it did. The converse can be said to be true as well.  Also, some aspects of it have certainly been proved to be true.  A lot of folks liked the bank bailouts. And of course when the tax rates are lowered and the federal receipts go up --- it is dicey to argue against it. Some basics are covered by Laffer-type stuff if you get interested in studying up on it.  And of course anywhere there will link you to more in-depth things to look at.
But either way, that was not my point at all.  My point was addressing the guy's issue with cutting taxes while two hurricanes are around.  The two issues don't have anything to do with each other. Just as your personal financial situation. You have to use some common sense, even as a government.
But always any side of economics can be called a scam by folks that don't agree.  I do understand that. Like they say about economists and weathermen --- only two professions where you can be right half the time and still keep your job. But always wanting to tax rich more just because they have more money has never been proven to work either.

Raiders22
Politics > Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Would you like to comment on th OP please and leave me out of it? Please comment on raising taxes and pushing it through as two hurricanes destroy our South coast!
Hard to leave you out of it when you asked the question. The guy asks a legitimate question in return. In other words, what would anyone else do differently?  The assumption is, whatever Trump is doing or asking to do, you don't like the plan. So what would you recommend?  Or what would your candidate do differently?  Do the same thing all other politicians have been doing?  A lot of folks are disillusioned with the normal politicians.  That is why the oddball candidates like Sanders and Trump were able to get so much traction. 
Your whole premise to the topic is faulty and there are more issues than the one you are trying to connect. Hurricanes don't have anything to do with taxes. It is the same with you and your household. If you live beyond  your means it catches up to you. If you have to cut back you can't let every crisis be a reason to keep spending more; you simply cut back on less important things is all. There will always be a next perceived crisis and a reason to keep spending more if you don't start cutting back sooner or later. 
Corporate taxes and tax on wealthy are two very different issues as well.  One has little to do with the other. Basic economics show the cost from corporations being passed down to the consumer is all. I would not charge companies any taxes at all --- there simply is no point to it. 
Higher taxes on the wealthy has never been good for the economy or the poor either.  The assumption is twofold:  rich make more and, therefore, deserve to be taxed higher; and that it would ease the burden on the poor and make things more affordable for them. Both of which are false.  It just seems like the thing to do.  It is just usually jealousy and laziness.  People see that the rich have more and don't think it is fair. They also feel sorry for the poor and want them to share in the wealthy folk's fortune. It simply does not work that way.  Always the wealthy find a way to simply hold onto their cash and not spend it. Therefore, slowing the economy down. You should want their money in the system, making jobs or spending cash where folks work. Not trying to take it from them to use as you see fit.  Encourage them to use it. I never understand why people are so jealous of wealthy people in America. Go back and look at some of the outrageous tax rates on the rich in the past. Just ridiculous to think the average person would think that is right or fair or would help the system at all. Many better ways to get their money than to overly tax then for it. 
Sure, help the folks that want to live in hurricane and flood-prone areas out if you like.  But don't take from the rich or anyone else to do it.  As bad as we need to cut back, we can still help out and cut taxes. We just have to prioritize the funds is all. Very basic. 

Raiders22
Politics > Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins pardon from Trump > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by zelo123:
 


Trump pardoning patriots,Obama pardoning drug dealers     

Yeah, apparently lotta folks look at it this way. I heard a guy on the radio say it like that.  He was comparing some of Clinton's and Obama's pardons.  He basically said, "Clinton and Obama pardoned people that broke the law; Trump pardoned someone that was upholding the law."


Raiders22
Politics > Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins pardon from Trump > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

 Arpaio and his repeated, multi-decade long abuses of power.


What other abuses do you refer to?  All the media is harping on is the profiling issue?


Raiders22
Politics > Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins pardon from Trump > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Pot kettle..

Read his message, there lies your answer big guy.

When someone comes in and throws blanket generalities which are erroneous like sundance did, what do you think is going to happen that we give handshakes and back patting? I will leave that up to you.

With regards to giving the answer, I did that many times above if you were following the thread. It is very very obvious sundance has no idea what he is talking about in every single reply he makes...he is uninformed and gaining his information from biased sources...maybe you are the same I dont know. At SOME point a person needs to research for themselves and form their own opinions if they really want answers. sundance needs to learn how to research and find out if the sources he lazily relies on are really legitimate or not. In this case they are not, in the cases earlier in the thread they were not.

Do you know the answer to the trial by judge issue? Was it some Obama payback blah blah blah???

For example, I would have tempered or changed some of those bold words. 

And sometimes it is not as simple as researching and forming opinions. Why does it have to be opinion?   Why not fact?  If it is fact-based, a lot of opinion-forming can be left out.  That is why I said you should cite sources for him.  Otherwise, he can simply say your sources are biased as well.  Right?

It would seem to go over so much better by saying you are closer to the situation and such-and-such is your viewpoint from there.

At any rate---Thanks for discussing.  Because I am interested in this subject as well. 


Raiders22
Politics > Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins pardon from Trump > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Pot kettle..

Read his message, there lies your answer big guy.

When someone comes in and throws blanket generalities which are erroneous like sundance did, what do you think is going to happen that we give handshakes and back patting? I will leave that up to you.

With regards to giving the answer, I did that many times above if you were following the thread. It is very very obvious sundance has no idea what he is talking about in every single reply he makes...he is uninformed and gaining his information from biased sources...maybe you are the same I dont know. At SOME point a person needs to research for themselves and form their own opinions if they really want answers. sundance needs to learn how to research and find out if the sources he lazily relies on are really legitimate or not. In this case they are not, in the cases earlier in the thread they were not.

Do you know the answer to the trial by judge issue? Was it some Obama payback blah blah blah???

Did he abuse Americans with a legitimate US birth certificate?

That was the only question I saw that he asked.  Of course, it was only answered tangentially.  I thought maybe he had some others from a related thread about this that I had not seen.

As far as your attitude---sure, I think you should be more civil.  Simply because you are a linesman here.  I think you should be able to discuss things here without being belligerent about it is all.  Whenever we have discussed a topic you have never resorted to name-calling and calling paste and copy names and accusing me of generalities.  I think you are one of the few Liberals on here that try to have a decent conversation about things.  I did not think his question or implied questions were out of line.  I feel the conversation should always start by gently telling someone how and why you disagree is all.  Anyone can get frustrated because someone disagrees with their point of view.  I just feel it is appropriate to civilly discuss it first.  People are more apt to understand your viewpoint if you do that instead of resorting to ranting and raving and putting them down.

So, since you live there, what would you prefer to see done to curtail the problem with the illegals?  I really do understand when Liberals do not want a group of folks profiled.  I also understand the Conservative point of why frisk granny in the airport view point. I even get that some people want open borders.

So what do you suggest should be done?  And from a political point, citizen point, and policing point?

Details and examples would be nice as well.

I understand you are very passionate about this.  So, could you explain your point of view?  I truly would like to hear it.  I used to be in and out of Tucson when I would go back and forth to Mexico --- and I used to wonder about this from time to time.  So, someone that lives there may have a solution. 

Thanks. 


Raiders22
Politics > Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins pardon from Trump > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

If you get off right wing blog sites and actually research the why, you would find your answer.

The trial by judge here was not some Obama payback, that is so absurd and wacked out I cannot even believe you really believe that.

Research it....sheesh do some generic, unbiased research and you will find out the answer. Stop listening to biased media sources and find out answers for yourself.

What question?  What questions did he have?

Why be so negative and condescending to folks.  If you know the answer to his questions or the links, why not just post them or explain it coherently---instead of snapping?


Raiders22
Politics > North Korea backs down after President Trump's Warnings > View Post

QUOTE Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
 

...deecinnigreated ... 

  This is a good one.  I will use it from time to time.


Raiders22
Politics > mattbrot principle at work here gents > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by mattbrot:

for the millionth time - why do you care my political affiliation. Why do I have to prove it to you? Why don't you comment on the story?

Who cares about the story? Post an anti-Left link.  Then we can decide if you are independent or not.  Otherwise, it is wrong to keep proclaiming something we all know to be untrue to lead your post with.


Raiders22
Politics > we have not had a good mattbrot principle story lately > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by mattbrot:

That's cute. I have answered your question many times. I do not need to prove to you that I am a bipartisan independent. And besides whether I am a democrat, republican, non-partisan independent or just simply indifferent to politics in general how does this change the story? How does that impact whether or not this is a classic example of hypocrisy and is the very very definition of the term Fake News? 

Please explain...

Not being cute.  Just asking for any examples that show that you are not a democrat. You have never answered that at all.  For example, I asked which of the many Republican candidates did you support last Presidential election? There were a lot of varied ones. Who was the last Republican you voted for in Presidential race?  Where are any of your link to a pro-conservative article instead of a pro-liberal article?  Why is the only hypocrisy you see on the right?  Why in the forum do you always side with the Left on every issue and never the Right?

I always contend that almost all 'Independents' are Liberals that don't want to admit it.

But you get the general idea.  Just interested in why you really think you are independent but nobody else seems to think so?

It just seems a cool thing for folks to claim to me.


Raiders22
Politics > we have not had a good mattbrot principle story lately > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

I'm an independent and pretty squarely down the middle. I have in recent times found myself more on the conservative sode of a lot of these covers debates but i'm extremely liberal on many issues as well. The thing about covers, and our country in general, is that actual issues aren't debated anymore. It's all name calling and hypocracy. My favorite is when one side calls into question a media source and then proceeds to cite a different, equally biased media source. I'm always the one to say all media is full of merde. It's all extremely biased and agenda driven. And it all leans to one side or the other. That goes for television, internet, printed new, ect. but especially cable television and internet.

 Okay---fair enough.  Haven't kept up with that closely.  I take you at your word.  Also, good points. 


Raiders22
Politics > we have not had a good mattbrot principle story lately > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by mattbrot:
As a full disclaimer I am a well known non-partisan independent. 
  This always cracks me up. I have asked many times for examples of it. Never been answered. Didn't even bother to click on article. Pretty sure it was a solid left one. 
There are not any independents on here. At least, none that I've seen. 

Raiders22
Politics > How Can Trump Be So Wrong So Often? > View Post
Yes. It was a guy answering a question in a forum?  Unless I missed something. Like I said, I could care less about the Trump stuff.  I was more interested if you had found anything on the Ivy League school allegations. No biggie. Thanks though. 

Raiders22
Politics > How Can Trump Be So Wrong So Often? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by Midnight1:

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/18/donald-trumps-questionable-intelligence-all-those-false-claims-about-his-academic-record-and-derision-of-others-bespeak-profound-insecurity/

https://www.quora.com/Do-rich-people-really-pay-their-way-into-Harvard

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h957.html

http://listverse.com/2013/01/20/10-poorly-educated-but-incredibly-successful-people/

There are plenty more examples but chew on this for now.
The first one I could care less about. That is just a disgruntled person writing about Trump and saying Trump is not intelligent.  That's crazy. Of course he is intelligent.  Folks said the same thing about Obama and Bush.  Reagan and Carter also had the same said about them. All of them were intelligent. They certainly wouldn't have gotten as far as they did otherwise. 

The third one was just an article on JDR?

The fourth was slightly wrong. It is titled 'poorly educated'. But really should say 'not college educated' or something along those lines. I certainly believe folks can be successful without going to college. I also believe they can be intelligent without going to college.  People sometimes confuse 'college' education with intelligence.  Of course college and intelligence all help you be successfull.  But perseverance and drive also go into it. So, not too interested in that one either. 

The one I was most interested in was the second one. And it was the least informative and most disappointing.  People always say that rich people (or sometimes people, in general) buy their degrees.  Where are the stats?  Where are the studies?  Where is the evidence?  
This link was just some random dude's opinion, answering a question online. 
No evidence. I always hear his about Ivy League schools mainly. The inference is always that, if it is done that much at all, it is much more prevalent at Ivy League schools.  I simply have to put it down to jealously or lack of good arguments against the person they wish to defame, so they default back to this lame claim. 
I thought there might be actual studies on it or evidence where people were charged with fraud or something. 

Raiders22
General Discussion > Has anyone been to Cuba? > View Post
QUOTE Originally Posted by vetdrm:
Leaving  next month.

Want to see it before it becomes to American.

Should be fun. Spending a few days in Havana, and the rest on a beach at a cheap all-inclusive.

Back off Trump
To answer the original question here.  Yes, I have been maybe 7 or 8 times. Work took me to some out of the way places and this was one.  It is what you expect if you stay in the touristy areas. But there are some sketchy areas as well. But I found good food and friendly folks. There are a couple of museums and art things to see/do.  Also, some historical stuff. And there are always the beaches. 
The time of year you are going is risky for bad weather. I was there during a hurricane once. But hot and humid any time of year. 
But if it are even considering it, I assume you have a good idea of what to expect. Hopefully, you have talked to friends that have been.  I see some of the guys on here have commented on some of the things to expect.  But for sure it is not Florida. You can expect a little culture shock. But that is a lot of places outside USA. 
Good luck to you!  And report back. Maybe a lot has changed since I was last there. 

Raiders22
General Discussion > Has anyone been to Cuba? > View Post
But not to take anything away from reducing cases.  Was just amazed to me when this came out a couple of years back.  It just seemed propagandish. But of course if you say that it looks as if you are belittling a great achievement by a fantastic socialist healthcare system. So I dunno. Just was a weird article to me. With no real numbers or reasoning behind it. Maybe quarantining measures and mandatory exams for sure have something to do with it. And for sure good for them on that. 
Forums
Desktop View: Switch to Mobile View