talking points that piss you off
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:56:03 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  talking points that piss you off
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
Author Topic: talking points that piss you off  (Read 29625 times)
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: June 28, 2012, 12:31:02 AM »

What he's saying is that people who aren't majoring in science, especially the hard sciences, should not make claims as to who, if anybody, is the "party of science".

And that's a rather dumb thing to say.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: June 28, 2012, 01:53:55 AM »

"The Democrats are the party of Science"

especially when said by liberal arts majors

It pisses you off because it's true. Wink

Only if all of the scientific world consisted of evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and global warming. All of that together isn't worth terribly much when the left is constantly trying to divert educational resources toward arts and humanities fields and encouraging people to major in something other than hard science since whether a field is practical or useful should apparently not be a consideration (at least according to most of the people on this board). Most of the liberals who are complaining about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't even understand why we would want to fund it instead of using adult stem cells.

The point is going over your head, I see. Democrats are the party of science because it's  overwhelmingly supported by scientists in a way that few parties around the world are.

If you look at college faculty by field of study, the hard science fields are significantly less favorable to Democrats than social sciences. The Democrats are really more of the party of English Literature.

I've seen that study and it doesn't surprise me but it doesn't discount my point. Democrats are supported by the scientific establishment almost exclusively and basically serve their interests in the same way that Republicans serve oil, logging, mining and the like. In this sense they are the party of science.
Logged
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: June 28, 2012, 05:16:50 AM »

More importantly, who cares who the 'party of science' is? I like my parties political.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: June 28, 2012, 06:18:13 AM »

More importantly, who cares who the 'party of science' is? I like my parties political.

This (a million times)
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: June 28, 2012, 12:29:18 PM »

"The Democrats are the party of Science"

especially when said by liberal arts majors

It pisses you off because it's true. Wink

Only if all of the scientific world consisted of evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and global warming. All of that together isn't worth terribly much when the left is constantly trying to divert educational resources toward arts and humanities fields and encouraging people to major in something other than hard science since whether a field is practical or useful should apparently not be a consideration (at least according to most of the people on this board). Most of the liberals who are complaining about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't even understand why we would want to fund it instead of using adult stem cells.

The point is going over your head, I see. Democrats are the party of science because it's  overwhelmingly supported by scientists in a way that few parties around the world are.

If you look at college faculty by field of study, the hard science fields are significantly less favorable to Democrats than social sciences. The Democrats are really more of the party of English Literature.

I've seen that study and it doesn't surprise me but it doesn't discount my point. Democrats are supported by the scientific establishment almost exclusively and basically serve their interests in the same way that Republicans serve oil, logging, mining and the like. In this sense they are the party of science.

I'm assuming by "serve their interests" you mean appropriate more funding (please correct me if I'm wrong in that interpretation). It is true in many cases that the Democrats have appropriated more funding to scientific research, this is not universally true. In fact, science spending increased as a percentage of GDP under Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush and decreased under Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. Overall funding increased under every President since Eisenhower except Nixon, Ford, and Clinton. So that part is complicated at best. I will agree that academics in general do support Democrats, scientists less so than other fields, but the Democrats still do have an edge there.

But, to then extrapolate this to the Democrats being the part of Science (as an institution not the magazine Tongue) is a bit much. Democrats' interests do not align with the science the way the Republicans' do with oil and gas because the Democrats also have other constituencies that take precedence over Science insomuchas science is a Democratic constituency, such as environmental regulations which are not always in line with science, such as The Precautionary Principle which establishes a burden of proof in a way that doesn't understand the scientific process. Or take nuclear energy or vaccination or GMOs or a wide array of other topics.

In addition, consider the "discussion" on the previous page about the importance of different fields and note the general Democratic response (okay, I'll admit I was trolling a little there; sorry for pissing everyone off in the pissing people off thread) but it shows a little insight into how other constituencies affect the Democrats' relationship with Science. Also notice the most of the people who took a more sympathetic view are libertarians; there are a ton of libertarians in science even though libertarians often want to slice funding apart more than anyone else! The reason is that science fosters some degree of objective impartiality toward outcomes; ie. I should not really be hoping for a test to turn out one way or the other when I conduct it, much the same way a libertarian is somewhat indifferent to what other people do.

Basically, the talking point that the "Democrats are the party of Science" is irritating because its used to make Republicans look like moronic country bumpkins while ignoring the complexities of the matter. The reality is that neither party is the party of Science and neither likely ever will be.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: June 28, 2012, 01:26:58 PM »

It doesn't really matter that much which party, if any, is the "party of science".  There is plenty of scentifc evidence for a variety of both liberal and conservative views.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: June 28, 2012, 01:51:14 PM »

Democrats are the party of science because they are so often contrasted with the specific wing of the Republican Party who think that science is full of crap because they come up with things like evolution.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: June 28, 2012, 02:14:15 PM »

Democrats are the party of science because they are so often contrasted with the specific wing of the Republican Party who think that science is full of crap because they come up with things like evolution.

Being considered the 'party of...' something like science by process of elimination is stupid, I think is the point that's being made.
Logged
BritishDixie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: June 28, 2012, 04:14:46 PM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: June 28, 2012, 04:28:31 PM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

It takes...um, a Hell of a lot for a country to 'go the way of Rhodesia'.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: June 28, 2012, 07:00:59 PM »

I don't think I've seen this one mentioned yet: "Democrats are weak on defense."  Just because nothing can be further from the truth.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,148
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: June 28, 2012, 07:18:37 PM »

Appeals to base emotions, such as ad campaigns that make voters fear the opposition.  That is politics at its most disgusting.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: June 28, 2012, 07:41:09 PM »

The newest one:

The Supreme Court's ruling on ACA is bad for Barack Obama/good for Mitt Romney.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: June 28, 2012, 07:57:32 PM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: June 28, 2012, 09:37:09 PM »

Hate groups that use the word family in their name.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: June 29, 2012, 04:49:04 AM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

BritishDixie is pretty clearly a racist troll who think South Africa and "Rhodesia" (ROFL) were awesome countries a couple of decades ago.
Logged
BritishDixie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: June 29, 2012, 05:38:36 AM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

BritishDixie is pretty clearly a racist troll who think South Africa and "Rhodesia" (ROFL) were awesome countries a couple of decades ago.

So Zimbabwe is now better off than it was when it was Rhodesia. You do realize that 75% of the Rhodesian Armed Forces were black. Or that Morgan Tsvangirai praised Ian Smith as "Zimbabwe's greatest Prime Minister". Or that the struggle was mainly a conflict between supporters of the Smith government on one side, and Marxist terrorists on the other, not a clear cut racial conflict. How many white Rhodesian Farmers have been butchered or had their property destroyed under the Mugabe regime. The Rhodesian Army never did that to black Rhodesians.
South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: June 29, 2012, 07:49:40 AM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

DA, COPE, IFP, etc. are all fairly active, with the DA actually controlling the governance of Western Cape. And yes, when someone's shooting at you and violently oppressing you support the people who shoot back.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: June 29, 2012, 08:21:01 AM »

Ok, I know its not quite a talking point, but when anyone tells me to "wake up" I want nothing more than to beat them over the head with some sort of blunt object. 

Oh, to clarify I mean something like "wake up sheeple" not "wake up, you're late for work".
Logged
BritishDixie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: June 29, 2012, 08:28:19 AM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

DA, COPE, IFP, etc. are all fairly active, with the DA actually controlling the governance of Western Cape. And yes, when someone's shooting at you and violently oppressing you support the people who shoot back.

Unlike the ANC, the South African Police and Army never went out into areas where blacks lived and either bombed or necklaced them. Many of the black deaths during the apartheid era were caused by people on their own side, killing what they thought were "sell-outs" (read people just trying to make their way in life). One final point, if South Africa is a beacon of multi-racial democracy, why doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain, who used to pal around with terrorists, return to live there.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: June 29, 2012, 08:51:23 AM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

DA, COPE, IFP, etc. are all fairly active, with the DA actually controlling the governance of Western Cape. And yes, when someone's shooting at you and violently oppressing you support the people who shoot back.

Unlike the ANC, the South African Police and Army never went out into areas where blacks lived and either bombed or necklaced them. Many of the black deaths during the apartheid era were caused by people on their own side, killing what they thought were "sell-outs" (read: people just trying to make their way in life). One final point, if South Africa is a beacon of multi-racial democracy, why doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain, who used to pal around with terrorists, return to live there.


Are you familiar with the Sharpeville massacre? A crowd of unarmed black protesters was fired upon by South African police. 69 dead, 180 injured. Many of them were shot in the back as they were fleeing.

How about the Soweto Uprising, where 176-600 unarmed students were shot dead by police while protesting educational changes?

How about the squalor and slums of the Bantustans many black South Africans were forced into under apartheid?

How about the forced removals of tens of thousands of civilians from District Six and the bulldozing of their homes?

How about the political prisoners of Robben Island?

How about the destruction of Sophiatown, the occupation of Namibia (South-West Africa), the executions at Vlakplaas? You're attempting to defend an indefensible regime.

As for Hain, he seems to be pretty established politically in the UK, and (except for the alternative medicine thing/donations scandal) seems like a FF.
 
Also, I saw your comments in the thread on Louisiana and thought you'd appreciate this.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
BritishDixie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: June 29, 2012, 09:04:59 AM »

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

DA, COPE, IFP, etc. are all fairly active, with the DA actually controlling the governance of Western Cape. And yes, when someone's shooting at you and violently oppressing you support the people who shoot back.

Unlike the ANC, the South African Police and Army never went out into areas where blacks lived and either bombed or necklaced them. Many of the black deaths during the apartheid era were caused by people on their own side, killing what they thought were "sell-outs" (read: people just trying to make their way in life). One final point, if South Africa is a beacon of multi-racial democracy, why doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain, who used to pal around with terrorists, return to live there.


Are you familiar with the Sharpeville massacre? A crowd of unarmed black protesters was fired upon by South African police. 69 dead, 180 injured. Many of them were shot in the back as they were fleeing.

How about the Soweto Uprising, where 176-600 unarmed students were shot dead by police while protesting educational changes?

How about the squalor and slums of the Bantustans many black South Africans were forced into under apartheid?

How about the forced removals of tens of thousands of civilians from District Six and the bulldozing of their homes?

How about the political prisoners of Robben Island?

How about the destruction of Sophiatown, the occupation of Namibia (South-West Africa), the executions at Vlakplaas? You're attempting to defend an indefensible regime.

As for Hain, he seems to be pretty established politically in the UK, and (except for the alternative medicine thing/donations scandal) seems like a FF.
 
Also, I saw your comments in the thread on Louisiana and thought you'd appreciate this.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was joking on that thread. I'm not a racist, but I can empathize with the old South African Government's dilemma. Ending minority rule, especially before the 1990's, would have consigned whites (and probably coloureds and asians) to permanent second class citizenship. Even with the concessions De Klerk managed to wring from the ANC in 1994, those are now steadily being chipped away. If you were white, and living in South Africa, and could see what was happening across the rest of the continent, would you want to risk your priviledged existance in the name of equality. My guess is not. But I am not a racist, I do believe that we are all one people under God. But I'm not blind to the majority rule posed in Africa. If you look at what happened to Rhodesia, or Kenya then you can see why the whites were not inclined to hand over the reigns of power to the majority.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: June 29, 2012, 09:13:45 AM »
« Edited: June 29, 2012, 09:15:42 AM by Iatrogenesis »

British Dixie's posts.

The chances of RSA turning into Zimbabwe are ridiculously tiny (admittely, greater than zero but not much greater).

Of course, I can't leave without pointing out that Zimbabwe isn't actually exactly what it is in the imaginations of most racists (ie. The vast majority of the victims of Mugabe have been blacks).
Logged
BritishDixie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: June 29, 2012, 09:28:19 AM »

British Dixie's posts.

The chances of RSA turning into Zimbabwe are ridiculously tiny (admittely, greater than zero but not much greater).

Of course, I can't leave without pointing out that Zimbabwe isn't actually exactly what it is in the imaginations of most racists (ie. The vast majority of the victims of Mugabe have been blacks).

I know, which is what makes the whole thing even more sad. We aided and abetted Mugabe's rise to power, only to find that he began murdering his own people.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: June 29, 2012, 09:29:49 AM »
« Edited: June 29, 2012, 09:31:40 AM by Irish Dixiecrat »

Not necessarily a talking point, but people who act like only bumbling idiots would oppose the idea of "Global Warming".  I mean really guys, there is a reason why people have started calling it "Climate Change" instead.

"The two parties have reversed since the 1960's!"
Ignores a large amount of ACTUAL "history".

"The Republican has always been non-racist because they supported Civil Rights even in the 1860s!"
Ditto.  Also makes fallacy assumption that just because somebody supports Civil Rights they are not racist.

"Slavery wasn't an important issue in the Civil War."
Seriously?

"The Civil War was waged over slavery!"
It was ONE of the issues, but not THE issue.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.111 seconds with 11 queries.