The Irony Oremine

[Mr. Smith]

Kerry obviously would have won had OH had moved to touched screen alot sooner. Dimpled chads were alot confusing to voters and it was still a problem in IL and OH. We will never know, but one can only hoped it to be so, since the state was so close and some provisional ballots werent counted.

BS...OH's PVI would have to be solid D for Kerry to win. Ohio has never had a D+ PVI.

For Kerry to win Ohio, the PVI would have had to have been nearly D+3. Something OH has never been.

Too bad you reject math and statistics in favor of partisan emotion

[Mr. Smith]

The embodiment of the partisan hack, makes DWS blush.

Says the  resident anti-Hillary hack

[Mr. Smith]

The Clinton hacks on here are unbearable....

[Mr. Smith]

You're literally starting the same thread every single day lol.

[Mr. Smith]

far-righters are so easily offended good lord

[Mr. Smith]

You know that I voted for Sanders right?

And yet you felt compelled to make this thread for some reason.

He probably just wanted to forge consensus on what kind of side effects your unrelenting propaganda and shilling are having on the kind users of Atlas.

Why am I singled out for all the propaganda on this site?

Must have something to do with the fact that you're a borderline psychopathic dick.

[Mr. Smith]

Damn! You Berniebots really don't take criticism very well.

http://vocaroo.com/i/s14BWkgpl1xp

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

Dude, wtf? Are you implying that there's something inherently wrong with thinking of the children? Just because Republicans have used it as a strawman on *different issues* does not mean that the psychological health of children isn't important. There's nothing wrong or ironic about that post.

Also, I like how you use "a type of marriage." So because I support gay marriage I'm obligated to support all types of marriages? What about marriage between adults and children? What if I oppose that because of the effect it has on the children? Am I "ironic" because I'm a social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic in "this day and age?"

You're being disingenuous. There's a very good reason "think of the children" is quoted, obviously because of the old '90's GOP Moral Panic tactic which is exactly what is being employed in context.

Obviously you're not obligated to support all marriages, but you should at least hear out ones that involve unions between legally consenting parties who love each other without resorting to the type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine.

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

A social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic, especially to condemn a type of marriage in this day and age is nothing but ironic.

Dude, wtf? Are you implying that there's something inherently wrong with thinking of the children? Just because Republicans have used it as a strawman on *different issues* does not mean that the psychological health of children isn't important. There's nothing wrong or ironic about that post.

Also, I like how you use "a type of marriage." So because I support gay marriage I'm obligated to support all types of marriages? What about marriage between adults and children? What if I oppose that because of the effect it has on the children? Am I "ironic" because I'm a social liberal using a "think of the children" tactic in "this day and age?"

You're being disingenuous. There's a very good reason "think of the children" is quoted, obviously because of the old '90's GOP Moral Panic tactic which is exactly what is being employed in context.

Obviously you're not obligated to support all marriages, but you should at least hear out ones that involve unions between legally consenting parties who love each other without resorting to the type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine.

LOL.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psychological+effects+on+children+polygamy

Literally from the first link, a thoroughly cited and well written paper:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the second link, an actual academic paper examining the considerable body of research on this subject:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the third link, another academic paper on polygamy in Syria:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, these papers are all "[the] type of argument one would expect from a soccer mom who can't grasp the idea of two grown men raising a kid just fine." It totally isn't a thoroughly researched and established fact that polygamy has negative psychological effects on women (all three links go into extensive detail on the negative psychological effects polygamy has been documented to have on women as well) and children.

Those are all studies of societies that are highly patriarchal from the outset and with shoddy human rights records, which makes all the difference. Unambiguous consent from sides is likely not much of a priority.

Excellent cautionary tale of what nearly unrestricted polygyny can do certainly [and that clears intentions up a little bit ].

However, it just can't account for all the doors that would be opened in the Western World where polyandry, gays and lesbians taking multiple wives and husbands, and bisexuals taking multiple spouses would all have to be considered. There's also a lot more human rights safeguards to consider that will drastically change the psychological effect.

For now, the closest (but imperfect) actual examples would be to look at the effects of polyamory on children.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201301/is-polyamory-bad-the-children

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201510/fear-damage-children-in-polyamorous-families

These suggest that any flaws in those families (and by extension what polygamy would more likely look like by the way the culture wars are going) come from the people themselves rather than the practice, and that there are strengths as well as weaknesses.

And I'm writing no more on the subject (neither here nor the topic in IP), because frankly I'm mostly ambivalent anyway on the topic that started this whole thing (at least until it becomes mainstream debate between partisans)...I just seethingly loathe the "think of the children" line most of the time, especially in regards to alternative families.

[Mr. Smith]

Crooked Hillary was just trying to be funny and failed miserably. Nothing new here.

I mean, even if you're using that nickname in jest, you're quoting a known racist, bigot, xenophobic nationalist smart businessman with a tremendous intellect and political instinct who speaks his mind and doesn't care for political correctness and that reflects poorly on you. I hope you seriously re-evaluate your life choices and end up exerting better judgement in the future.

Fixed for you

Uh, my mom taught me when I was like 4 to keep my comments to myself, and I would get slapped when I didn't, not praised for "speaking my mind." Is Donald Trump 4 years old? Does he need a lesson in how words have consequences, the same way first graders do? Honestly not surprised that some white guy from Germany finds bigoted and racist dog whistling funny.

[Mr. Smith]

For God's sake, he could win a 45 state landslide somehow and you'd still say he ran a terrible campaign. You can't even admit he's a worthy adversary when he's literally beating your candidate?

He's a media mastermind and that's why he is doing as well as he is. Does that mean anything to you? He is manipulating the public in negative, self-aggrandizing and self-adulating ways.

But the QUALITY of his campaign, the quality of the things he says, the quality of his character all suck swamp water.

And that's why he's running a terrible campaign and is an unworthy adversary.

And is Hillary any better character wise? Really? Really?

Yes she is if you took the time to do the research and find out, rather than just buy into all the negative hype of the "cartoon character" the GOP [and I would add the media] has created about her these past 25 years. (Bill Clinton's brilliant characterization from last night at the DNC.)

]
What is it with Democrats and conspiracy theories? The media is rigged against Hillary! Putin is trying to make America a satellite state! Did Donald Trump invent AIDs and crack cocaine to kill Democratic voters too? You guys are spooked!

[Mr. Smith]

Are you sure you don't want to say "Believe Me" in that Tony Danza accent one more time you ignorant huckster? Want to yammer on in spanish some more?

Geesh, 2016 Blue and fake green avvies are really hitting it tonight.

[Mr. Smith]

I just put OC/Da-Jon on ignore as well because I couldn't take it anymore. The Congressional Board is basically unreadable because of him.

[Mr. Smith]

That was essentially unreadable.

The correlation between Nathan's perception of the intellectual gap between himself and his debate opponent, and the level of pretentiousness he employs against them, is near perfect.  I suppose it's an effective strategy, as anybody reading it must just assume that Nathan won the argument.

Yeah, pretty much any latte liberal vs Nathan comes off like this.

[Mr. Smith]

Yeah, the comments in the Iowa thread are the disgusting ones, not IceSpear's.

You'll get no apology from me!

If you want to be a cuck/white knight for a bunch of people you don't know, fine, but know that I literally have family members who are farmers in Iowa. The idea that I cannot insult a state that looms large in my biography, even though I have never been there, and that voted for a man who poses a threat to my existence is, well, hilarious.

This PC garbage is totally out of control imo.

[Mr. Smith]

Pot meet Kettle

Same goes for you.

Seriously, if saying that makes me a delusional hack, then fine, I am a delusional hack.

Did I say you were a hack because of that, no.  You, in general, are a damn hack who seems to think he isn't one.  Hence the comment.

[Mr. Smith]

I wonder if the moderate cubicle slaves in the silicon valley will still come out to vote if the Sanders/Warren wing takes over.

It's not like we need them. The Democratic coalition is big enough that we can afford shedding some dead weight.

Coalition building: alienating a culturally influential and decently sized part of your current coalition in an attempt to appeal to a less reliable group of rural whites that aren't even common in your state.

Apparently elitism and dismissive attacks on a group of people is okay if you don't like them.

[Mr. Smith]

Gee, that's stupid. Hands off the Johnson Amendment. President Pussygrabber obviously doesn't like the first amendment that much. Maybe the first amendment people can do something about that.

You go from being a Trump supporter to using Runeghost's names for Trump?

Says the guy who voted for Sanders, once talked about the working man...but now supports monarchy, Trump, libertarianism, and the type of healthcare that ALWAYS screws over the type of person.

[Mr. Smith]

The recent glorification by the left of the warmongering/neocon/evil to the core segment of the GOP simply because they oppose Trump is pathetic.

-Agreed. These people are sick. Cults of anti-personality (or cults of personality!) are never my cup of tea.

[Mr. Smith]

I skimmed the first two lines and saw the words "Seattle", "Tacoma" and "gangs".

Didn't read after that.

Of course you didn't.  Don't want to challenge your views?

This doesn't make him wrong in context, but it's still rather amusing anyway to make it worth the mention.

[Mr. Smith]

What makes Paul Ryan especially bad is that he's a sort of anti-Trump in that, while he's no less prone to lies and theatrics, his lies and theatrics are aimed squarely at fooling political journalists, almost all of whom are ignorant and credulous enough to believe him. Who could ever forget that fawning, cringe-worthy interview that Ezra Klein gave him just a few years ago?

That's very true. I remember in 2012 how he seemed to repeatedly get away with the most blatant lies. He's a terrifying person tbh.

sounded bad enough to get me to vote for obama in 2012.

[Mr. Smith]

Wonderful news! I hope these are real liberal churches that  also actually preach the message of Jesus Christ and not some watered down spiritualist crap.

[Mr. Smith]

Me thinks it's time to lock, Hash. Please.

Yeah, I'm ignoring the trolls now. Sorry.

[Mr. Smith]

Obviously there are many women in horrible situations around the world, but to imply that men in the west regularly have sex with women who really don't want to do it but consent to it because they feel men are "entitled" to it is just freaking insane to me.  Have you met a western woman since 1963?

I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Given that rather disingenuous little article that was supposed to represent rural America and then this...