patrick.net

joeyjojojunior says

I was pointing out how people from all races and creeds in the US seem to have become babies that believe everyone is out to get them and see injustice around every corner.

Your perception is inaccurate. Acknowledging the very real forms of discrimination everyone has to deal with is not being a cry babying and over-perceiving problems. The fact is that human beings are quite often nasty to one another, especially to those more distantly related, and as an adult living in a country with 310+ million people who don't care about you, it's important to deal with these problems.

If poor people in the poorest neighborhoods commit crimes at 10 to 20 times the rate that employed people in better neighborhoods, I'm surprised it's not 100 times. Patrick thinks he's having a great insight.

Btw, I will agree that welfare has at times just made the problem worse (but it's not that simple), and that some of your issues here are justified. But you aren't seeing the deeper more complex picture.

Hey Patrick, have you ever heard of the cherokee nation, or the trail of tears ?

rando says

9. Homosexuality is learned, not genetic. Identical twin studies show a very low correlation of identical genes with identical outcomes.

Also this is hardly a proof. All the twin studies (if they are conclusive) would prove is that it's not a simple gene alone that determines it. We know that sometimes that behavior can be learned, from what happens in prisons. But common sense and people you may know, probably tell you that it's a combinations of factors. The idea that one of those factors is a genetic predisposition seems likely. Consider boys that were/are extremely effeminate or even feminine in many ways, even at the age of 10. The collective group decides they are gay probably as much as the individual does.

"And that is why you lost. Lost the Senate. Lost the House. Lost the Presidency. And with Trump's nomination, will lose the SCOTUS. America has had enough of Democrat scorn. You've been benched.
Unless your attitudes change, until the Democrat priorities shift to the people instead of the wealthy, the celebrities, the cultural fringe, Muslims, illegal immigrants, and the willfully indigent, you'll remain on the bench."

That's funny. I know that's how you like to think it is, but the truth is Dems will end up with 2MM more votes for President. They ran a moderate Republican with serious morality issues and still got 2MM more votes than the Republican did. They lost the electoral college--no excuses. The House is a joke with all the gerrymandering that state governments have done. Last I checked, Dems had received more House votes than Reps too.

Dems care FAR more about the people than Reps do. But propaganda works. And the Koch Bros. and Trump do it far better than the Dems do. No doubt about it.

Alarm clock went off this morning and I started counting seconds...

"...first Hispanic woman in a hijab..."

Only TWO seconds! I think that's a record for the shortest time until they mentioned "first N", women, Islam, etc.

Now that I've seen that NPR is mostly about identity politics and virtue signalling, I cannot unsee it.

@Patrick check email ;)

This just proves how dysfunctional and immoral the left has become.

joeyjojojunior says

They ran a moderate Republican with serious morality issues and still got 2MM more votes than the Republican did.

mell says

It's not happening any more or less than it has in the past 20 years and it is so miniscule that most people never will see an example of it and have to rely on often fake social media stories to enforce their belief/narrative. Everybody is racist by nature, very few openly exhibit it. The majority of those very few are just jerks, bullies that use this to be mean to others, mostly kids and teens, like they tease other kids for their looks or anything else.

Physical violence against women is also less than 20 years ago and you see more news in the media. Perhaps the general opinion is that it's morally more wrong than before?
Or is any (social) media saying that racism/gender violence has increased?
As long as it's not Trump trying to falsify data saying we are more insecure than we were before, I'm fine with it.

BTW, I thought all studies said that by teenage years stop teasing/harassing on peers differences (this is a kid thing, teenagers play with pacific social exclusion, what it may be worse). Just a side/curious comment. If you have any data, I'd be interested.

Patrick says

Then there was an article about yet another special program for women's health (and women alone, in case that wasn't obvious). Never a story about men's health on NPR, though men have consistently worse health.

Yes, and depending on what sports newspaper you read, you are going to find more information about team A or team B. I'm fine with NPR doing some bios on the news they broadcast. I happen to find multicultural problems more interesting that bathing benefits. I just want that when they choose a theme they don't fake data and they try to ponderate viewpoints, what they usually do.

This doesn't mean bios itself is cannot subtitling perverse. But Patrick, please, don't just quote annecdotes. Did you investigate what are the different media choices by sectors (e.g. NY times, NPR, Fox news, Glen Beck circus) in proportion to the GDP each sector generates? That would be something ;-)

"This just proves how dysfunctional and immoral the left has become"

No, it shows that the Reps ran a candidate with even bigger problems, and that Evangelicals are very large hypocrites.

joeyjojojunior says

the truth is Dems will end up with 2MM more votes for President. They ran a moderate Republican with serious morality issues and still got 2MM more votes than the Republican did.

And that means precisely dick, the rules of electing a POTUS being what they are and have been for over 200 years. No, this was the weakest "consolation prize" ever seized upon by a disgraced political party, its membership desperate for any sort of validation at all.

"And that means precisely dick, the rules of electing a POTUS being what they are and have been for over 200 years. No, this was the weakest "consolation prize" ever seized upon by a disgraced political party, its membership desperate for any sort of validation at all."

Actually it means they lose the Presidency, as you stated. My point was that there is no evidence that "America" is done with Democrats. Not sure how you can even make that argument when Democrats received 2MM more votes than did Republicans.

My thing is, the Democrats did little to actually advocate for any groups. They ignored the inner cities and laughed at the idea that they were dangerous because they expected their votes by default. They ignored former factory workers as if NAFTA didn't outsource all their jobs. They campaigned on the idea that they are going to simply raise taxes to make your life easier. How that happens without them lowering my taxes is beyond me. The only thing Clinton made sure to do was to collect tons of campaign contributions from big corporations and wall street firms. I wasn't surprised at this outcome of the election. Trump was drawing big crowds while Clinton and Warren Buffet's little shin dig couldn't even fill half of a high school gym.

ja says

Physical violence against women is also less than 20 years ago and you see more news in the media. Perhaps the general opinion is that it's morally more wrong than before?

Or is any (social) media saying that racism/gender violence has increased?

Yes, the general narrative in media and social media for years now has been that it increased, despite data suggesting the opposite. And esp. since the election the claims have even gotten worse as they doubled down on that narrative, and many stories were proven as hoaxes or unverifiable. In fact any natural male energy has been vilified and tried to outlaw by the left, which is a huge problem not only for men but for boys, hence the trend towards over-medicating them. All the while female violence and the prerogative to being verbally abusive has been left completely unchecked, so the roles have been slowly switching with the female becoming the dominant party which - in the end - leaves both parties unsatisfied as it goes against nature.

mell says

Yes, the general narrative in media and social media for years now has been that it increased, despite data suggesting the opposite. And esp. since the election the claims have even gotten worse as they doubled down on that narrative, and many stories were proven as hoaxes or unverifiable.

Yep the NYT considers Racism more of an issue today, after Obama's 2008 Campaign or during the Civil Rights era.

Briefly tuned in to NPR on way home, Terri Gross interviewing some Transgender and their plight and challenge ahead in the "hostile" environment of the future Trump administration. They are already "strategizing" - say what?? So far there is ZERO indication that Trump will be passing any laws to harm them or change existing laws. If you knew nothing about the US and its politics and politicians and just tuned in you'd think the American people elected "literally Hitler" zomg!

mell says

Terri Gross interviewing some Transgender

But you'll have to admit that one of the wonderful byproducts of the election is that transgender restroom silliness has been out of the news for awhile.

joeyjojojunior says

Not sure how you can even make that argument when Democrats received 2MM more votes than did Republicans.

2.6 million more in California, which means that in the other states, there was 600K more in favor of the Republican candidate.

Lets keep doubling down on the popular vote logic though and ignoring facts that have been stated several times here.

mell says

So far there is ZERO indication that Trump will be passing any laws to harm them or change existing laws

correct. but that is what is bothering this special interest group, namely, the lack of action

joeyjojojunior says

Reps ran a candidate with even bigger problems, and that Evangelicals are very large hypocrites.

Lets not forget that many republicans voted for the other candidate.

ja says

Did you investigate what are the different media choices by sectors (e.g. NY times, NPR, Fox news, Glen Beck circus) in proportion to the GDP each sector generates? That would be something ;-)

it would be something, feel free to make a thread on it.

joeyjojojunior says

And the Koch Bros. and Trump do it far better than the Dems do. No doubt about it.

Koch Brothers dislike Trump and didn't directly fund his campaign.

If anything, they only focused on maintaining a Republican majority in the House and Senate and many of those candidates did not endorse Trump.

"Koch Brothers dislike Trump and didn't directly fund his campaign.

If anything, they only focused on maintaining a Republican majority in the House and Senate and many of those candidates did not endorse Trump."

Yep, that's why I said it in response to your comment about Dems losing the Senate and House.

"Lets not forget that many republicans voted for the other candidate."

Did they? Source?

joeyjojojunior says

Dems care FAR more about the people than Reps do

Dems PRETEND to care far more than Reps. Throwing a bone (welfare) is what limousine liberals support to assuage guilt. But they don't really want them to get ahead at their expense. When have you ever heard about the widespread movement of getting ghetto kids to go to schools that are 9 or 10 on zillow?

No, most limousine liberals don't want that at all. Welfare is just a vehicle to keep the deplorables on their side of the tracks.

Time to revive this thread, Forum this morning, some bitch warning against the rise of xenophobia and nationalism in the face of renewed attacks, demanding actions against the European citizens by the European government. Even the other guest doesn't give give any counterbalance. Fuck you NPR!

This morning I turned on NPR briefly, listening Michael Krasny on attacks in Germany.
One guest was trying to absolve Islam saying the driver was mentally unstable and not all attacks are jihadists. (mentioning white supremacists and Oklahoma bombing).
The deliberate nature of the obfuscation was obvious, and unopposed in the debate. The raw obscurantism was more than I could take.
I turned off the radio.

Heraclitusstudent says

This morning I turned on NPR briefly, listening Michael Krasny on attacks in Germany.

One guest was trying to absolve Islam saying the driver was mentally unstable and not all attacks are jihadists. (mentioning white supremacists and Oklahoma bombing).

The deliberate nature of the obfuscation was obvious, and unopposed in the debate. The raw obscurantism was more than I could take.

I turned off the radio.

Same. Look at the comments, they are alienating their last non-hardcore leftists common sense listeners.

https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2016/12/19/suspected-terror-attack-in-berlin-kills-9/

Heraclitusstudent says

The deliberate nature of the obfuscation was obvious, and unopposed in the debate. The raw obscurantism was more than I could take.

Yeah, anybody who does shit for religious reasons probably has some mental shit going on. Whenever there's the rare Abortion Clinic shooter, you never hear the MSM go on for 10 minutes about his struggles with emotional damage or mental illness, and how that was 'really the cause' of his actions.

We don't even really know who the driver was at this point. I think the Afghan or Paki they picked up wasn't the (main) perp.

Just a reminder to Islamophobe Asserters: More people have been killed in the United States in the name of one religion, that no more than 2% of the US population subscribes to, than all other political or religious causes combined (tax protester, alien cult, abortion, left or right wing politics), since 9/11.

Isis apparently claimed the attack.
You would think that would shut-up the islamo-apologists but it didn't after last attack:

www.youtube.com/embed/45m9F3e1k3w

Full disclosure: I took this video from Zerohedge, which is likely Putin propaganda.
All he has to do though, is to show the facts.

Facts are propaganda!
Lies are truth!
Belief in lies is mandatory!
Any reporting that can be proven true or seems to make logical sense is foreign meddling and "fake news!"

"Just a reminder to Islamophobe Asserters: More people have been killed in the United States in the name of one religion, that no more than 2% of the US population subscribes to, than all other political or religious causes combined (tax protester, alien cult, abortion, left or right wing politics), since 9/11."

Honest question. What's the solution? Because I agree this is an enormous problem. America was founded on freedom of religion--how do you lawfully discriminate against one religion? Can you declare that Islam is not a religion? Seems like a slippery slope exists there.

What is the criteria for something to be considered a religion, so that it can be protected as religious freedom?

very easy.. anything whose God that doesn't go against the laws of men

Like Pastafarian

Time for the daily bump. 10 minute fake news about Trump's 'unsubstantiated' crowd size/voter fraud claims (no world news whatsoever) followed by a segment of 'rising' 'hate crimes' against Muslims who show up for self defense classes, even interviewing somebody from the utter useless splc hate org. Npr surely has jumped the gun. All they see is orange.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-budget-proposes-killing-funding-pbs-npr-national-100158848.html

Trump Budget Proposes Killing All Funding for PBS, NPR and National Endowment for the Arts

President Donald Trump made good on a long-time conservative goal in his first proposed budget Thursday morning, targeting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities for complete elimination.

Trump’s budget would zero out the $445 million budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a relatively small source of funding for programming and broadcast operations on public TV stations and NPR radio stations nationwide, per the Washington Post.

joeyjojojunior says

"Just a reminder to Islamophobe Asserters: More people have been killed in the United States in the name of one religion, that no more than 2% of the US population subscribes to, than all other political or religious causes combined (tax protester, alien cult, abortion, left or right wing politics), since 9/11."

Honest question. What's the solution? Because I agree this is an enormous problem. America was founded on freedom of religion--how do you lawfully discriminate against one religion? Can you declare that Islam is not a religion? Seems like a slippery slope exists there.

Islamic terrorism is not a religion. So the question is, how will we identify the terrorists?

Yes, I call this the AIDS problem with the Constitution.

Just like the AIDS virus infects your immune system itself (white blood cells), Islam infects the freedom of religion provision of the Constitution.

I think the best solution is to use Freedom of Speech:

All people, and especially Americans, must constantly point out, over and over in public, that Islam causes terrorism. It is a direct causal relationship, and unique to that religion alone. Everyone has a responsibility to do this. If you're afraid to do it, then they win.

But also:
* We should call out Saudi Arabia in particular as the source of almost all ideological and financial support for Islamic terrorism (which is most terrorism, worldwide).
* We should limit the number of visas for people from Islamic countries. We have the right to do this because they are not citizens.
* Propagation of the idea that we should replace the Constitution with sharia must be prosecuted as sedition, and visa holders who support the idea must be expelled.
* All immigrants must be asked if they support the replacement of the Constitution with sharia, and if so, denied entry.

We denied entry to communists for decades. We can definitely do the same for the much more direct attack on the Constitution by advocates of sharia.

Patrick HIV is a good analogy with respect to how Islamic Terrorists could potentially exploit the Constitution to further their efforts of terror and destruction.

Another analogy would be cancer in an otherwise healthy body. There is a prominent world religion which behaves like a cancer. It sometimes sits dormant for years but occaisonally and with growing frequency it mutates and the mutant cells not only quit performing their basic functions but also start to attack and disrupt the function of other healthy cells. The only solution is to remove the cancer before it spreads.

Remember also that even the bill of rights is not without limits. Freedom of speech is limited when it poses a risk to the safety of others (yelling fire in a crowded theatre for example). The government has enacted laws that limit the ability of people to bear arms (average Joe can't have their own rocket propelled grenades for example). So it may needs be that a religion known for establishing the basis for radical terrorism will have to be singled out and dealt with as the threat that it is.

rando says

All people, and especially Americans, must constantly point out, over and over in public, that Islam causes terrorism. It is a direct causal relationship, and unique to that religion alone. Everyone has a responsibility to do this. If you're afraid to do it, then they win.

Well said! I want to see this on the front page of every paper, website, and news broadcast.