70,000 / 1,000,000,000 = lurker
Excuse me, it’s 72,620 / 977,224. Get your facts right, Frink.
Frink is prolific, but is he 7% of OT.com ?
Numbers don’t lie.
70,000 / 1,000,000,000 = lurker
Excuse me, it’s 72,620 / 977,224. Get your facts right, Frink.
I expect this thread to get locked soon.
That would be pointless. We’d just discuss it another thread if that happened.
Then they will lock that thread too. They locked the banned thread, they obviously do not want threads of this nature.
Every thread on this site would be locked.
No, just those where we discuss bannings.
If they locked this thread, we’d probably discuss bannings in the Random Thoughts thread is my thinking.
I expect this thread to get locked soon.
That would be pointless. We’d just discuss it another thread if that happened.
Then they will lock that thread too. They locked the banned thread, they obviously do not want threads of this nature.
Every thread on this site would be locked.
I expect this thread to get locked soon.
That would be pointless. We’d just discuss it another thread if that happened.
It has come to our attention that some of the recent screen shots posted by Team Negative1 are from a scan of a print that has been obtained by unethical means without the owner’s knowledge or consent. The administration of originaltrilogy.com would like to make it clear that this behavior is totally unacceptable and has no place in our preservation community. We have therefore decided to ban the Team Negative1 account permanently.
Wasn’t there also something about them unethically obtaining a print?
also please take note of general rule 2.
The irony.
Your local delusional, ignorant, deplorable, shithole assface pile-o-what’sit here, saying that I was quite fond of our president’s State of the Union Address.
What did you enjoy about it?
I think this speech matters more than I expected, because I think this immigration section is important. Trump has leaned very hard into his vision of immigration reform. He has used rhetoric that Democrats will hate, like “Americans are Dreamers too.” I think he has hardened the divides on this issue.
On another note, I was wondering how long it would take for Trump to say “wall.” Took about fifty minutes.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/abolish-the-state-of-the-union-address.html
I don’t see what is so offensive about the President addressing Congress (and the people that are watching on tv) about the state of the union once every year. I have no idea how it could be considered monarchical. I don’t get the problem. Of course, I will certainly disagree with a lot of what Trump will say tonight. But to disagree with the idea of the President addressing Congress and the country about the state of the union every year? I don’t get it. I don’t have a problem with ide of the speech. It is also tradition(since Wilson anyway).
I don’t really care about the monarchal tone of it. I just find that it so pointless. It rarely moves the needle on polling; in fact, the average change of a president’s approval rating before and after at State of the Union is zero. Yep, zero. It’s also the worst of American politics on display: Washington suits jockeying for seats just so that they can have a handshake with the president, how politicians bring in Real People to suit their own message, the canned responses afterwards, the whole media circus around it and the typical media over analyzation, and so many other things that are bad about it. Nobody cares after noon on Wednesday anyway.
I say this, of course, as I will be watching the State of the Union in two hours!
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/abolish-the-state-of-the-union-address.html
This guy checks out. Here’s his original account.
A thing on timelines here: The two main storylines in TLJ start at different times. The escape storyline starts a week after the events of TFA; the Ach-To storyline happens immediately after the events of TFA.
Is there a confirmation of this anywhere?
No, it’s just my theory.
-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want
Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.
It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.
Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.
Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!
The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.
Either/or fallacy. Nice.
Well many Republicans did support Trump, and I think he is a scumbag.
I think he’s a scumbag too, and for that reason, I left the party. But is it really down to exactly those two items? No, the reality of the situation is that many Republicans do not like him, but they felt he at least was better aligned with their views than Hillary on issues that were important to them, abortion being a fine example.
And many people are ignorant and do not believe that Trump really says or does the things he says and does. They believe that the media is actually portraying the president in a negative light simply to make him look bad. We were given a terrible choice in our last presidential election cycle, and some people falsely saw him as the lesser of two evils. When you have an electoral system that only gives two parties a reasonable chance of winning, it makes it difficult to choose someone who really stands for the same things you do.
But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”
It doesn’t take much tweaking to turn that statement true, however. Either you support him because he’s a racist or you support him because you believe the issues he’ll advance are important enough that his racism is an acceptable risk. Winston Churchill was a raving anti-Semite, Susan B Anthony was racist as shit, Thomas Jefferson owned and raped his wife’s half-sister. But people supported their causes and history still treats these people kindly because we still do.
I think the problem people on the Left have with Trump is that we thought society moved on a little bit further on racial issues than we really had, so we thought these historical examples didn’t apply to the present. Turns out, not so much.
There are slight differences, though. Trump made racism the centerpiece of his political campaign, and had no other coherent policy positions other than racism, so supporting him to advance a policy position that wasn’t inherently racist was an act of faith, rather than weighing the relative values of concrete ideals.
But you have to also understand how things are perceived. Gosh, I am not even trying to defend Trump; I can’t stand the man and I think he has permanently damaged conservative causes, as the prevailing opinion of this thread demonstrates.
Don’t worry; conservative views were already damaged for us before Trump ever came down that escalator.
My point to this is that, while Trump is clearly a racist, I believe the majority of his supporters have deluded themselves into believing he is not. This is not because they too are racists (or at least not tremendously so). This is more because of their confirmation bias that has led them to believe that Trump is being misinterpreted by the media and he just is a little too outspoken.
Delusional isn’t that much better either.
Some assorted thoughts:
For god’s sake, in writing, just spell out the swear word. You’re not fooling anybody by it. The only reason I do it is because of the forum rules.
I hate when people try to tiptoe around the word “racist” by using euphemisms like “racially charged” or “some people maybe think this is racist.” Just say the word. The media’s definitely guilty of this.
Our view of what’s racist and what’s not racist is kind of messed up. Most people think you have to be some outright segregationist to be a racist. No, there’s more to it than that. And we’re heavily biased towards racist word than racist actions. See: the reaction to the shithole comment and the reaction to actually racist policies.
darth_ender, the thing about “slightly different wording” is nonsense, but you do have a point about the additional sentence.
The most powerful tool you have in a democracy is your vote. Therefore, you shouldn’t waste it on a bigot just because you like their tax plan. Sometimes you won’t really like either candidate, but, sometimes you just have to learn to grow up and just do the right thing.
yhwx said:
This is the same reason that Star Destroyer falls into the Death Star in ROTJ.This reason was that it looks cool. Same thing applies.
This is also correct, in addition to what I said.
But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”
If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.
That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”
Sorry, you missed again. Firstly, that was something Clinton said once, while Trump’s racism has been confirmed by every second of his existence. Secondly, you misunderstand my position. I said that if you voted for Trump, you’re a racist or fine with voting for a racist. Under this statement, you cannot make the example you made—key word: “share.”
But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”
If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.
-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want
Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.
It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.
Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.
Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!
The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.
Either/or fallacy. Nice.
Fallacy fallacy. Nice.
We can play the fallacy game all day long. Ultimately, nothing would result of it.
Except that you actually did create an either/or fallacy. But you’re right, if you insist on pointless games, nothing will result from it.
I have no mercy for those that vote for or excuse racism, no matter what’s in their heart. The children with parents being deported don’t care what some guy in Wyoming had in their heart when they were voting.
-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want
Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.
It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.
Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.
Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!
The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.
Either/or fallacy. Nice.
Fallacy fallacy. Nice.
We can play the fallacy game all day long. Ultimately, nothing would result of it.
Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?
I assume a percentage are for the same reasons in Frink’s story or for other medical reasons
I assume a percentage just couldn’t make up their minds until after 20 weeks
I assume a percentage has to do with rape.
Perhaps there is a percentage that had a sudden drastic economic change in their lives past 20 weeks to the effect that they change their minds on wanting a child.
Perhaps a percentage of women were in a medical situation (like a coma or something) where they were not mentally able to make decisions until after 20 weeks
I assume a percentage is for reasons I can’t think of right now.
the exact value of each percentage? I do not know.
I wasn’t asking for an exact percentage. The whole point of the question is to find out what people think the percentages are.
A thing on timelines here: The two main storylines in TLJ start at different times. The escape storyline starts a week after the events of TFA; the Ach-To storyline happens immediately after the events of TFA.
The bomber: People complained about how the bomber thing was unrealistic because there’s no gravity in space. That pedantry is inaccurate. The bombs fell due to the gravitational force of the Star Destroyer underneath the bomber. This is the same reason that Star Destroyer falls into the Death Star in ROTJ.
-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want
Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.
It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.
It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.
You’re great at these non-responses.
Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?