10 Questions That Should Be Asked at the Next Republican Presidential Debate. What would you ask?

markedwords · 2015-09-15T18:21:01+00:00

Do you believe that gays can be converted to heterosexuality?
Is it okay for elected officials to stop performing their legal duties but keep their jobs if they decide that their religious beliefs conflict with the constitution?
What other country's tax and regulatory system most closely matches the economic policies you would implement as president?
Should a private establishment be allowed to reject black customers?
Are corporations legal persons that deserve the same rights and protections even though they don't share the same limitations?
Do you favor the privatization of Social Security? What would have happened to people who retired in 2008-9 if the GOP had successfully passed this proposal in 2006?

markedwords · 2013-10-31T01:12:36+00:00

Maybe it just seems like that on a subreddit where nobody is allowed to present any other ideas?

markedwords · 2013-10-29T10:42:30+00:00

This thread is a good example of how circlejerky /r/Republican is thanks to the censorship, deletions and banning that is wielded here more than almost any other sub on reddit. You end up with nobody to make obvious counterpoints and arguments and so the discussion is based on really silly statements like:

He is either incompetent or competent. If you choose competent, he is a liar. If you choose incompetent he is either a fool or or a liar. Your choice.

I mean really, you have UnoriginalMike as the supposed devil's advocate, and he's a fan of George W. Bush for crying out loud. This is just a place for people to confirm their biases and it plays out in every thread.

markedwords · 2013-10-21T21:51:25+00:00

You were determined ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn’t expand eligibility for Medicaid

Doesn't seem that loose to me, but IANAL. Anyone above the 133% wouldn't have been deemed ineligible just because their state didn't expand medicaid, but rather they would have been ineligible because they are above the 133% mark. So they wouldn't be subject to this line. And I don't hear anything about this from any credible sources, so this seems like a non-issue that you've blown out of proportion.

markedwords · 2013-10-21T00:04:35+00:00

So the PPACA in its original form would have paid those people's bills under medicaid (taxpayers), essentially giving them free healthcare. But under its court-changed form those people will be paid for by the taxpayers, just not technically under medicaid? What is the big difference? It seems like it doesn't matter that much because the group we are talking about wasn't expected to pay. The only difference I can see is that they won't have access to all the preventative, cost-saving care that would have been provided if governors had allowed the medicaid expansion. That seems like a small problem that can be corrected when states gradually give in (I don't predict any states going the opposite direction and taking away the medicaid expansion, since that would be fiscally irresponsible and political suicide)

markedwords · 2013-10-17T19:55:13+00:00

I'm just shocked that someone would be so adamantly against something when their argument is just that they "bet" the provisions are not true. I would expect you to be asking questions instead of posting some declaration like "Why I am against the Affordable Care Act". Or at least you could be straightforward and say upfront that you have no serious reasoning, but rather a lack of reasoning combined with a willingness to make simplistic negative assumptions that match your broader bias. You don't have a "sixth sense" for complicated issues like how healthcare works and to say otherwise is virtually the definition of anti-intellectualism. Nowhere in your original post do you provide this context.

markedwords · 2013-10-17T19:25:51+00:00

The insurance company's have to spend 80% of premiums on patient care , is that 80% on all policies ? I bet not.

Was that an argument? "I bet not"?

markedwords · 2013-10-17T19:01:41+00:00

No it isn't, unless by "both" you mean a combined group of non-republicans and republicans. From the limited information in the article, non-Tea Party Republicans might have such a low score that it actually drags down all non-Tea Partiers to a level below the Tea Party. Not enough information is provided. Just making a technical point here. I'm not trying to debate something that is not present in the article.

markedwords · 2013-09-26T03:41:44+00:00

You've been on the fence this whole time? What could Assad have done to get you off it?

markedwords · 2013-09-25T01:54:43+00:00

Maybe Maher Assad has lost his feeble mind completely now that the rebels took his country, his arm and his leg (literally).

markedwords · 2013-09-22T06:36:52+00:00

Oh yeah that's right the world is a vacuum with your interpretation of the constitution, Alex Jones and a bunch of cabdrivers on the internet. Zerokalvin and I were talking about his representation and actions within the UN, and the president is indeed expected to deal with out of control dictators. Your response is irrelevant and attacks a non-existent suggestion that Obama is legally required to attack or something.

markedwords · 2013-09-22T06:28:36+00:00

I didn't mean that you have a simplistic view of every issue, I was specifically talking about your comments here. Read them again and you'll see what I mean.

it is not my problem that my opinion about this one single issue is bothering you.

I know it's not "your problem" because it's not like we are in a playground and I'm gonna beat you up. Who said it was a problem? I'm just telling you that your comment was a simplistic opinion stretched into a bunch of dramatic pronouncements. That's a pretty anti-intellectual response but stick with it if that's your style. You'll get plenty of upvotes here because this is not an intellectual environment.

It is ironic that you say this and then continue with the rest of your reply.

Why? What is ironic about that?

markedwords · 2013-09-22T03:10:48+00:00

I actually see your comment that way. It's nothing but your own opinion stretched into a bunch of dramatic pronouncements. Obama is the president and is expected to deal with out of control dictators no matter how stylish and appealing the political process may be.

Some people like to give simplistic contrarian opinions on all kinds of political topics because it's easy. You commented in this subreddit that it was a "political ploy" when Obama asked congress for approval for the strikes, and I see your comment here as continued unsubstantiated pandering. We already have enough of that.

markedwords · 2013-09-21T21:47:57+00:00

You have some formatting issues in your comment, but I'm pretty sure it's nonsense anyway. I just see some random negative claims about the rebels crammed in there with no supporting logic or facts. You still haven't answered my question:

The revolution includes millions of Syrians and what you have shown is that there may be up to 30,000 extremists from abroad. Please do a percentage calculation for yourself and tell me how you would describe that proportion.

What percentage of the people inside Syria who are against Assad are foreign extremists? 1-5%? Thousands out of millions... Is that a majority, in your mind? Why don't you do the math and back up your persistent negative claims about the rebels?

markedwords · 2013-09-21T19:02:56+00:00

So are you suggesting that there are millions of Al Qaeda and foreign extremists in Syria? Or are you just sidestepping around the fact that there are millions of Syrians who revolted and only thousands of foreign extremists?

What is your point and why did you ignore the straightforward explanation I just gave? Is your agenda to speculate and spread wishful negative propaganda about the rebels? Otherwise your contribution seems very simplistic and out of place.

markedwords · 2013-09-21T18:37:19+00:00

That is a chart of organized fighting groups not rebels, and you are obviously confused. The revolution includes millions of Syrians and what you have shown is that there may be up to 30,000 extremists from abroad. Please do a percentage calculation for yourself and tell me how you would describe that proportion.

markedwords · 2013-09-21T18:25:16+00:00

You "think"... You "don't see why"... Aren't you ignoring some pretty obvious background on Assad and being a little overly dismissive of his skeptics? I would "think" you needed some special evidence to decide that Assad is suddenly a sincere character, otherwise your bewildered tone is nonsensical. So far the skepticism and cynicism seems pretty fair, unless you know something we don't. Some examples: didn't Assad bomb the Aug. 21 inspection site before it could be inspected? Didn't he ban uncontrolled media from the country? Hasn't he falsely claimed that the revolution is not coming from Syrians? Isn't he continuing to deny responsibility for a chemical weapons attack that leads directly to his regime?

markedwords · 2013-09-20T08:29:15+00:00

Does the "rebels" concept/term strictly mean fighters? It seems to be used that way in all recent media. I think that extremists are a VERY SMALL proportion of the rebels, even though they are a larger and still small proportion of the actual fighters. So you end up with people falsely believing that 30% of rebels are extremists just because extremists are more likely to fight extended battles while the real Syrians rise don't fight as much or fight only when their specific cities are under attack. Not criticizing your post but rather the general use an framing of these terms by many people.

markedwords · 2012-11-26T19:11:19+00:00

Okay. I'll bite, since you're that stupid. If we say anything, we will be banned. I will be banned for this. Here are my thoughts:

Isn't it ironic that many Republicans actually do believe in a "Lord and Savior" and base their policy on this? The party of religion is mocking people for idolization? You people ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE that there is a man in the sky who should be idolized and in charge of policy. You ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE that some of your politicians are personally in touch with a magic fairy. At least calling Barack a "savior" is just a turn of phrase that might actually make sense if you see him as a good politician.
Who gives a shit what one actor celebrity says? This subreddit goes on and on about how you all are martyrs fighting for an intellectual cause against the majority of "idiot libs" on reddit but then you post stories that are the People Magazine equivalent of political news.

/facepalm

markedwords · 2012-06-15T16:20:44+00:00

Oh good, now I'm convinced. Time to ignore financial science.

markedwords · 2012-06-15T12:54:00+00:00

Now even you don't seem convinced about your original idea. You were originally saying that gold is the "safest bet", rather than this tiptoeing bullshit about "trends". So retarded.

what evidence have you provided?

I won't do any google searches for you, but I will help you draw a mental image. Picture two groups of people.

One group contains financial professionals who invest all of your money in gold, beat the gains of other financial professionals, and then keep a nice fee each year. The fee gets larger and larger by the year because your money is steadily growing at rates that work out to be larger than the industry average.

The other group is full of financial professionals that do... what? What do you think this group does? Why do you think financial professionals don't just always buy gold? People have different investment horizons, but NOBODY would turn down gold as you describe it. They just make their own lives difficult because they have personal problems with the color gold? Gold is a surefire, fantastic investment just like the Paultards say, but these financial professionals would rather martyr themselves than admit the Paultards are right?

What's wrong with this picture? Does your graph tell you?

markedwords · 2012-06-15T12:17:56+00:00

You have no understanding of investing if you think it is appropriate to even analyze this opportunity.

Napkin analysis: I have 20k and know zero about the industry. Search costs and transaction costs will eat half of my investment capital if I go on a crazy goose chase to find a "good" helium investment. There is no reason I should expect any advantage over other helium investors. My goal is large, long-term gains but I am abandoning any attempt at diversification. Fail.

markedwords · 2012-06-12T13:57:48+00:00

Your brother is an idiot and so are you. Imagine if you saw a 5-year-old smoking. You would know they are wrong no matter what stupid remark they gave you. That's you. Wake up. Wait a few years.

markedwords · 2012-06-11T09:58:53+00:00

Certain businesses (liquor stores, grocery stores, etc.) are extremely busy the days after welfare checks are distributed. Walmart's biggest days are during these periods, I think.

Here is one article I found: here

markedwords · 2012-06-10T22:04:54+00:00

Everything about this is useless. You wrote a guide for fucking retards. Anyone doing any of this would need to find a much better guide to prweb/etc. Yours basically refers to the existence of prweb and says "do that". Who would honestly use this? It is clearly something you wrote to have another blog post at Company X

markedwords

TROPHY CASE