patrick.net

 
register or log in

#housing #investing #politics
10,854 registered users, 4 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, curious2, SubOink, zzyzzx
public post private group chat

Dan8267's comments

1   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:58pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Tenpoundbass says

http://www.patdollard.com/poll-exposes-nearly-2-million-illegal-aliens-registered-to-vote/

PatDollard.com is a fake news propaganda site. Pat Dollard has no qualifications.

The article you linked to is paraphrasing an article form the Washington Times. That Washington Times article is referencing some poll that it does not even have a link to, but claims was conducted by Old Dominion University, which is one of the most conservative colleges in one of the most conservative states, Virginia.

So basically, you reference an article from a propaganda site that references a conservative "news" outlet that references an unpublished poll allegedly done by some unknown persons at Old Dominion University, a right-wing activist college.

Let me explain that in terms that you might understand.

Imagine if Marcus stated that 13% of Republican senators were rapists and he based that on a blog of a social justice warrior who referenced a Salon article that referenced an unpublished poll allegedly done by some unknown persons at Berkley University who turned out to be this broad...

Can you see why that would not be convincing? You are doing the exact same thing.

Do you even know anything about the poll, itself like
1. Who conducted the poll?
2. Where was the poll conducted?
3. What questions were asked?
4. Who was asked the questions?
5. How does the poll taker know whether the person is an illegal alien?
6. Why would an illegal alien identify himself as such to a stranger?
7. If the organization behind the poll had a list of illegal aliens, wouldn't they turn that information over to ICE especially given their political agenda?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the claim "13% of illegal aliens are registered to vote" has been verified by checking the actual voting registration database against U.S. citizenship? You know, that would be trivial to do.

Put simply, given the "evidence", and I use that term very loosely here, that you have presented, there is absolutely no reason to take the claim that 13% of illegal aliens are registered to vote. This is a ridiculous claim backed by absolutely no evidence. Furthermore, if this claim were actually even remotely true, even a tenth of what you are claiming, it would be front-page news in every major newspaper.

I have to call into question your intentions. This thread is clearly cherry picking any fake news article that supports hysteria against immigration and not giving a damn about the truth.

The fact is that you and people like you are actually hurting the cause of limiting immigration, legal or not, by making our side -- yes, I'm for lessening immigration -- look like a bunch of dumb ass bigots with no grasp on reality who shouldn't be taken seriously. You are not helping. You are hurting the situation.

The fact is that there are rational, justifiable reasons for restricting immigration based on caps and various requirements, but these rational and justifiable reasons cannot be advanced if the entire conversation about immigration is dominated by false accusations that are easily debunked. As long as you and others continue to do this, mass immigration of both the legal and illegal kind will continue. The best thing you can do to limit immigration is to stop talking.

2   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:36pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick says

Even if Breitbart refers to a fact, it remains a fact.

True, a broken clock is sometimes right, but you still don't use it to tell time.

In any case, how many illegal ballots were cast as a result? The highest upper limit on this value I can find is 31 per billion. That's not swaying any elections. In contrast looks at the stolen 2000 presidential election. If any election should piss off people concerned about the integrity of our elections, it's that election.

The fact is that our elections are far more endangered by Die Bolt voting machines and corrupt poll workers and corrupt judges than by in-person voting fraud. It simply does not pay to commit voter fraud. It pays for a poll worker to discard 10,000 ballots for Ron Paul. It does not pay for a voter to spend hours in line to vote two or three times with different IDs or to take an enormous risk to vote illegally even once. One vote does not make any difference, and everyone knows that.

The problem with our elections isn't people voting who should not. The problem is that the majority of people who have the right to vote don't bother. That's the real scandal. So I object to thinly veiled attempts to prevent those few who do take the time and effort to vote, and legally so, from being prevented from voting by laws solely intended to do that under the disguise of fighting voter fraud. That's a disingenuous argument.

There is no reason that any system designed to prevent illegal votes should ever prevent a single legitimate vote from being case unless that is the real intent of the system. We live in the Information Age. It's trivial to get the task of voting done right. It's also obvious that the existing voter ID proposals were all intended to rig elections by preventing people from voting who have the right to do so. To deny this is a blatant lie.

Also, the article you linked to does not give any person a reason to believe that there was any intention to encourage voter fraud. If fact, the article explicitly states otherwise.

Finally, the article has two paragraphs that states the core problems.

Submitting a fraudulent voter registration form is a felony in Nebraska, but the state has no screening system to ensure those who register are citizens.

Why should anyone have to register to vote? Do you have to register to pay income taxes? The state (federal government) knows who is eligible to vote and who is not. This information can be kept up-to-date in real time. There should never be a need to have anyone jump through any hoop including registering to vote.

"Any ballot that is cast illegally cancels out the ballot of a person who is legally entitled to vote," Murante said. "There is no such thing as an insignificant amount of voter fraud."

You know what else cancels out the ballot of a person who is legally entitled to vote? Not letting that person cast his ballot.

Any system that causes tens of thousands of legal voters not to be able to vote, regardless of the reason, for every one illegal ballot cast does tens of thousands of times more bad than good. Why would anyone propose a system that does so much more harm than good, if harm were not the intent?

3   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:17pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Ironman says

If you don't know the difference between Seconds and Minutes, well, that's on you.

Minutes is how long you can resist fucking a goat. Seconds is how long you last.

4   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:12pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Ironman says

Alarmists... all hype, no facts...

I'll take what NASA, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, and dozens of other scientific organizations around the world have to say over a random idiot posting on the Internet, any day.

5   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:11pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says

Having sex with donkeys is a part of growing up for some of the local boys on the northern coast of Colombia.

In other news, CIC is moving to Columbia. For the coffee, he says. That sweet moist coffee.

6   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:10pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Reposting again. Stating that you don't have the reading comprehension skills to understand my thoughts is a factual statement not an opinion and is empirically true. Therefore, it is not an ad hominem attack. I am refuting your straw man arguments.

NuttBoxer says

Ohh wait, Dan really believes

You have no idea what I really believe, because that knowledge requires higher reading comprehension skills than you possess. People with such skills know exactly what I believe because I've been completely honest in detailing what I believe and why. And I continue to believe those things that no one presents a compelling argument against. Your posts do not constitute compelling arguments, or even arguments in the sense of debate.

@Patrick, you need to simply take away this feature from some users. I'm not going to cave in to these trolls and I'll gladly repost and bump this thread an indefinite number of times. I could easily write a script that checks the thread and reposts every time this post is deleted. That's what, 10 minutes of work?

7   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:04pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

zzyzzx says

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

Lack of Sex is the #1 factor in most terrorism.

Did they run out of goats in all the Islamic countries?

Yeah, some asshole from NJ used them all up.

8   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:04pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick says

OK, it's back now. Was a typo.

And within minutes, the troll known as CIC began posting to my threads like a cat in heat. That says a lot about his lack of a life.

9   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:04pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Already piggy has demonstrated he cannot resist being an ass for even a few minutes.

10   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:03pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

NuttBoxer says

Ohh wait, Dan really believes

You have no idea what I really believe, because that knowledge requires higher reading comprehension skills than you possess. People with such skills know exactly what I believe because I've been completely honest in detailing what I believe and why. And I continue to believe those things that no one presents a compelling argument against. Your posts do not constitute compelling arguments, or even arguments in the sense of debate.

11   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   2:58pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

AI will end meaningless jobs

12   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   2:57pm today  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  


Southpark gingers have souls

13   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   2:48pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Tenpoundbass says

I know damn well it is, you do know I have a large extended illegal family and a few of them told me personally they were approached on how to vote if they wanted to.

1. Anecdotal evidence means nothing. This is a huge mathematical fallacy on your part.
2. There have been many independent scientific studies that have revealed that in-person voter fraud constitutes at most 31 ballots per 1 billion ballots. Even if you are not a math person, this shows that it is utterly ineffective and has had no effect on any election ever. By the way, that 31 parts per billion is including all suspect ballots including clerical errors rather than actual fraudulent ballots. It's an upper limit, and the clerical errors are likely 99% of the suspected ballots.
3. There is tremendous scientific evidence that other forms of election fraud are rampant like deliberate miscounting of ballots, hiding boxes of ballots, and deliberately discarding clear and valid ballots for purely political reasons. (See 4).
4. The only major case of election fraud in our country's history was the illegal discarding of ballots in Palm Beach, FL that voted for Al Gore. This blatant fraud changed the election and involved a multitude of government officials all the way up to the conservative members of the Supreme Court who decided to ignore their duty to uphold the Constitution and decided to exploit the criminal activity for political gain. The mother of all election fraud was committed by the Republican Party. That's a cold, hard fact.
5. Every single voter ID law proposed in the past 30 years has been obviously intended not to stop actual voter fraud but rather to suppress the rights of legal voters. All evidence on this subject matter confirms this. This is an indisputable fact and one that has been thoroughly investigated and documented. Such laws are paramount to treason as they undermine our very republic.

In the North Carolina case, the 4th Circuit panel agreed with allegations that North Carolina’s omnibus bill selectively chose voter-ID requirements, reduced the number of early-voting days and changed registration procedures in ways meant to harm blacks, who overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party.

“The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”

Finally, it would be trivial to pass a national ID that
1. Did not prevent any person from casting a valid vote even if they didn't have the ID yet. The ID can be generated in real time and verification of data can be done after-the-fact with contingent counting of the vote. This is technologically trivial.
2. Would prevent any in-person or mail-in voter fraud.
3. Would be absolutely free to every citizen. Every citizen gets the ID automatically without paying a cent. This includes homeless people and prisoners. The cost would be paid with revenue from the income tax.
4. Would actually increase voter turnout by making voting easier including automatically keeping ever qualified voter registered to vote. You would not have to register to vote any more than you have to register to pay income taxes.

Such a system would cause a lot more poor and minority persons to vote. And as such, the proponents of voter ID laws would absolutely oppose such a policy even though it does EXACTLY what those people claim to want. And that exposes their hypocrisy.

I strongly suspect that Tenpoundbass would oppose such a policy since it would triple the number of black and Latino U.S. citizens who vote. But hey, prove me wrong, Tenpoundbass. Advocate the policy I described to demonstrate that your intentions are good and you are not hypocritical.

14   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   12:45pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Quigley says

This could work well in a big city. Not so great when you go rural.

As long as TOR can access the carrier mobile phone signal, which is just IP packets nowadays, it would work anywhere you can get either a carrier signal or a hotspot signal.

15   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   12:33pm today  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick says

curious2 says

Some have suggested college applications should come with a warning label informing female applicants that completing a degree may reduce their chances of marriage and children.

Lol, excellent because it's true.

The only reason getting a college degree reduces a woman's chance of getting married and having children is because of female hypergamy. Women insist on marrying men who make more money, and in general, have as high or higher level of education and social status. Today more women than men get college degrees, and the college degrees that men get tend to be useful, but strangely of low social status in our fucked up society, than the ones pursued by women. So if women avoid STEM professionals and also insist that a potential husband is at least as educated as they are, then this reduces the pool of available mates.

By the pigeon hole principle, some women have to either go without mates or share mates with other women, which is not allowed under our current marriage laws. That is why more educated women are less likely to marry.

Do note that this is purely a female mating preference. There is no male who says "This woman is beautiful, rich, intelligent, and nice, but she has a more advanced degree than I have or makes more money than I do, so I'm not going to marry her.". This never happens. The more intelligent, productive, income-producing a woman is, the better wife material she is. The problem women create for themselves is that they insist, for reasons explained clearly and in detail by evolutionary psychology, that the man does better than she does.

The solution, quite simply, is for women to abandon hypergamy. It's easy for any woman who isn't completely disgusting to get laid by high status men. This has nothing to do with how likely those high status men are to marry the women they sleep with. The high status man will have sex with over a hundred women and consider maybe a handful to be potential wife material, and can ultimately only marry one of them at a time, and he's only looking to marry once anyway. Put simply, there is therefore zero correlation between a high status man having sex with a woman and considering her a real wife possibility. Most women, foolishly, do not realize this. They have deluded themselves into thinking if they can sexually attract a man, they can convince him to marry them. This is empirically false.

Men with good jobs and finances like STEM professionals can take advantage of this, but I've always considered it taboo to pretend to be interested in someone as a long-term mate if you are not. I've never led a woman on like that, and I never would, simply for ethical reasons. I don't want to be that kind of person. I'm all for short-term relationships and friends with benefits if, and only if, both sides are honest about their intentions.

If the ethical argument isn't compelling, men should consider how many false rape accusations are the direct result of women believing they were duped by a man only interested in short-term sexual relations. Such fake accusations, of course, are a terrible atrocities and should be prosecuted, but the reality is that most men get screwed over by the mere accusation. Our society and legal system are very unjust and unconcerned about justice. And ultimately, no pussy is worth that much trouble, especially since you aren't really getting the biological benefit, reproductive access, as all women are voluntarily infertile until they decide they want to reproduce, typically after marriage or age 35, whichever comes first. So all your really getting is the illusion of fulfilling your lifecycle.

Sure sex can be fun, but the fact is that it is the most overrated thing in our world, and the older you get, the more bang for your buck you can get from things other than sex. For women, that means the only successful strategy they can use is to cash in while they are young, 20 to 25, and with rare exception 26-29. For men, that means the optimal strategy is to bang as many chicks while your young and poor, and then be very choose and crazy-avoidance when you are older, financially establish, and have more to lose and less to gain. That flip happens at age 30. And I'm not talking about a 35-year-old man dating a 35-year-old woman. I'm saying it's far easier for a 35-year-old man to bang a 25-year-old woman than it was for that same man to bang a 25-year-old when he was 25.

Anyway, I don't know if you want to call the knowledge in this post red pill, blue pill, green pill, or whatever. I call it scientific fact because that is what it is. It is objective factual statements verified by all of biological and psychological sciences and game theory. There are no judgements here, just the facts. Any judgements to this conversation, you bring yourself. They don't change how reality operates. The important thing is to first understand reality. Don't let your political or social agenda prevent you from understanding reality, or whatever choices you make will be bad ones regardless of what your political or social agendas are.

16   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   11:22am today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Breitbart is like the bastard offspring of Wikipedia and Fox News. Merely referencing it invalidates your opinion. It's an outright propaganda machine whose readers, like the Fox News audience, is actually more misinformed and uneducated than people who literally get no news whatsoever.

Here's the thing about referencing political propaganda, whether you're a leftist or rightist... Although you might get cheers from the brainwashed people on your own team, everyone else just thinks you are a moron for listening to such obvious crap. If you actually want to persuade someone of a point who is not already religiously convinced of it, then it's best to can the propaganda and provide honest, accurate, verifiable, and compelling evidence. Using reputable sources helps a great deal in doing this.

I'm not going to take a "scientific study" on climate change paid for by the coal industry seriously. I'm not going to take a wage gap claim backed with zero evidence and coming from a feminist SJW website seriously. I'm not going to listen to anything from news organizations with a history of telling outright lies seriously, or new organizations backed by the same assholes like Rupert Murdoch who are behind the former organizations. If an organization makes a seriously stupid claim that contradicts many independent lines of evidence, then they better have some serious and verifiable counter-evidence. If they present junk science, they poison their reputation and indicate malicious intent.

Brietbart is such an obvious propaganda machine, that it not only garners zero credibility, but it destroys the credibility of anyone using it to make a point. But, of course, Tenpoundbass does not have any real point. He just wants to call Democrats and liberals -- and he makes no distinction between the two -- asshats. He's just throwing poo as he always does.

What Tenpoundbass should do -- and I have zero confidence that he will man up and rise to this challenge -- is to present an intelligent, adult idea for a policy change regarding elections. This is not hard to do. It requires the intelligence and writing skills of a sixth grader and a few minutes of effort, if indeed you have any idea worthwhile to offer. I'll even help you understand how to do this.

The first thing you do is identify the problem you thinks exists. I take it TPB thinks in person voter fraud is a problem. You gather real, verifiable evidence that this problem exists. It doesn't in this case, so that's a problem, but for the sake of this example let's assume it actually did.

The second thing you do is understand the problem from all perspectives. You build a mental model of the problem and then translate that model into an English description so that everyone else can build the same mental model. That way you and the audience are on the same page. This description should concisely, but completelly and in detail, describe the problem including how it works and what the effects are.

The third thing you do is present one or more solutions to the problem describing fully the solution, how it solves the problem, how it is implemented, and all adverse affects of the solution.

Then you sit back and watch as people attack your solution. If you did step 3 correctly, then the solution you came up with should withstand any attacks. If not, then people will show that your solution causes more problems than it solves. In this case, a bad solution would disenfranchise millions of legal voters to stop five illegal voters. That's not a good trade-off. And if disenfranchising voters who you think aren't going to vote your way is the intention of the policy, as it clearly is for many voter ID initiatives, then that's a pretty damn good objection.

If you solution is suboptimal, and let's face it, most of the ideas presented by partisan people will be highly suboptimal, then your opposition will come up with a better counter-plan that does everything you claim is important to you while completely destroying your hidden agenda. Then you will look like a fool if you attack the more effective counter-plan. So it behooves you to not even bring attention to the "problem" if your intentions are not pure.

17   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   9:23am today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Quigley says

Canucks legalize Marijuana!  

Not enough people in border states already hoping over to Canada for pharmaceuticals? Looks like it's time to invest in the Canadian tourism industry. I expect an upswing.

18   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   9:21am today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Leftists are conservatives, not liberals, as your story clearly demonstrates.

I am a liberal. I'm pissed off that the girl's rights were violated and she was harmed. Liberals have empathy. Conservatives don't.

When liberals hear this story, they thinks of the girl's interests. When leftist conservatives hear the story, they think about how they can spin it to not discourage immigration, legal or not. When rightist conservatives hear this story, they think of how they can spin it to anti-immigration propaganda to pass laws preventing immigration, legal or not. Neither the left nor the right conservatives give a shit about the girl, and are only using her as a political pawn. The left and the right are essentially the same. Only liberals care about the girl.

So, no, you don't get to pass the sins of your fellow conservatives unto liberals. If liberals were running the conversation, then the immigration debate would be honest. It's not about illegal immigration as it's trivial to make all immigration legal and documented, and would be cheaper to do so. The immigration debate is about ALL immigration including legal immigration. It's about the use of temporary migrant, unskilled workers. It's about quotas and caps. It's about education, skill, financial, and language requirements. Conservatives, both the left and the right, need to stop being pussies and start debating the real issue of immigration instead of trying to use political talking points and emotional pressure points to manipulate people. Those tactics don't deserve respect.

When you want to have a real immigration debate let me know. I'll show how a liberal would lead the discussion. We liberals have balls, so we can address the core issues instead of using political distractions. Does any conservative, left or right, have the balls to engage in such an honest discussion? We'll see.

19   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:45am today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick says

The solution to this is probably technical rather than political.

Agreed. Politicians will always sell out the American citizen. The solution is universal adoption of TOR to prevent the ISPs from having this power. An independent and even better solution would be a TOR-based nationwide WiFi network composed of everyone's phones forming ad hoc wireless networks and distributing the load. It would kill the centralized ISP model. Unfortunately, this solution requires cooperation that Americans have never been able to muster.

20   Dan8267   1088/1107 = 98% civil   3:39am today  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

female porn sites

home   top   users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker: