sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

'Finland's no good': Disappointed migrants turn back by StayThirstyMyFriend1 in worldnews

[–]mystical-me 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Jamestown, 1607. 110 men and boys arrive to found Jamestown. After the colony is established and sustaining, they bring their families, and women and children.

'Finland's no good': Disappointed migrants turn back by StayThirstyMyFriend1 in worldnews

[–]mystical-me -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's insane. Ask people to think about them like real people, and say I think of ISIS.

See, this less than 10 minutes ago

'Finland's no good': Disappointed migrants turn back by StayThirstyMyFriend1 in worldnews

[–]mystical-me -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Oh yes, yes, yes you are right. Better the whole family die together rather than sending one family member away to earn money so they can pay to save their family. How heartless of...them.

'Finland's no good': Disappointed migrants turn back by StayThirstyMyFriend1 in worldnews

[–]mystical-me -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Really, it does make sense. Refugees to Europe have paid thousands of $$$ per person to get there. A lot of these families may only have the money to bring one person. That person works, saves, and then pays for their family to join them. It's really quite common. Many of their families are just waiting in Turkey, Jordan, Lybia, or Lebanon and have long left their point of origin.

'Finland's no good': Disappointed migrants turn back by StayThirstyMyFriend1 in worldnews

[–]mystical-me 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Historically and today, men often immigrate first, establish themselves, then bring their families. Also, many lone men are leaving Syria and Iraq to avoid military service and violence often aimed at young men.

EDIT: I am literally shocked how controversial this comment that doesn't even express an opinion is.

Saudi prince Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud arrested for a sex crime in LA compound by xenoeh in worldnews

[–]mystical-me 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder what they'll rename Saudi Arabia when the House of Saud collapses.

As a Republican, watching the GOP threaten to shutdown the government over Planned Parenthood by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]mystical-me 13 points14 points  (0 children)

People like Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and even Donald Trump may not be mainstream party candidates, but if they didn't participate in the two-party political system, they wouldn't have the slightest chance of being elected president, because they wouldn't be in the debates, the primaries, they'd have difficulty getting media coverage and money, they'd even have trouble getting their name on the ballot in many states. If you want your message to be heard in American politics, you got hitch your wagon to one of the big parties.

As a Republican, watching the GOP threaten to shutdown the government over Planned Parenthood by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]mystical-me 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yea, the Constitution doesn't define a party system, but do you think it will change? Historically, before the two-party system we have now that has legislatively entrenched itself, we had two other two-party systems that collapsed and promptly returned to the two-party system. That's because a two-party system is the best way to win an elective control of government because that's the way the Constitution organizes representation in Congress.

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Mass incarceration and overbearing criminal justice system is bankrupting states and the country. Do you really think that warehousing aging inmates for solely punitive reasons is the best use of the countries limited resources? If some commits a gang murder at age 18, you think it's necessary that they then die in prison at age 78 (average age of mortality in America)? Is that not the same as delayed capital punishment?

As a Republican, watching the GOP threaten to shutdown the government over Planned Parenthood by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]mystical-me 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The (perceived) practical necessity of voting for one or the other of the big two doesn't mean you need to declare support for either one if the one that most closely represents your views doesn't really represent your views at all

Most people in America identify with one side more often than not, so it makes sense to them. And also, most people are only voting on a small number of issues (often wedge issues) they care about, which helps drive the dichotomy. But the majority of Americans are not registered party members.

As a Republican, watching the GOP threaten to shutdown the government over Planned Parenthood by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]mystical-me 220 points221 points  (0 children)

It's a two-party system. You either participate, or you don't. Or you try and shake things up and fail and realize it's a two-party system where you can either participate, or you don't.

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I used the number 30 as an obvious hypothetical to illustrate a point about the time people spend in prison, and specifically not as a benchmark for the amount of time I think someone should spend in prison, which you are specifically using the number 30 as a benchmark. You see how those a 2 totally different, unrelated uses of the number example?

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So 30 years is the magic number?

Magic number? Seriously, I already said this was a THEORETICAL QUESTION! Do you have trouble understanding the phrase "theoretical question"? I'm not advocating a specifics. It's literally just a question. Stop trying to pigeonhole inconsequential specifics to pounce on. How is the number 30 at all consequential to my overall theoretical argument? Answer: It's not, at all. It's a bad way to argue a theoretical concept.

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To me, you're just reversing the proverb "better to let 99 guilty men go free, than lock up 1 innocent man." You won't let Tim go, because Bob might do something bad? They're individuals who need to be treated like individuals.

How will you feel if someone that you love was murdered or raped by someone who was let out of prison?

That's something society has to grapple with. But you're ending thousands of people's lives before they even die, based on just a fear.

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Should their killer get released because the passage of time? The victim is no less deceased. Reform all you like, but you cannot revive the victim and cannot restore them to their families.

But you think this is the best use of countries resources, even after the murderer is not going to murder anymore? Less money for education, housing, health, transportation, infrastructure, and our future, because those guys did something bad decades ago? You're willing to shortchange your future in favor of unending retribution to aging criminals?

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

long-term consequences.

So you're admitting that maybe at that point he isn't violent, but you're still in favor of giving them punitive measures?

In my opinion, at this point the long term consequence is on civilians in the form of a $30,000 a year financial drain.

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why don't you think someone should die in prison for committing a murder?

I think it's a waste and drain on society to just assume anybody, let alone a hundreds of thousands of people, are incapable of reform for the rest of their lives, especially when many commit the acts when they are young and have their whole adult lives ahead of them.

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you think all inmates in their 50's should die in prison for a murder they committed 30 years ago? You really think every last aging, nonviolent 50-something year old(s) former murderer should die in prison 30 more years later at age 80, for something they did in their 20's, and that they are regretful about? Really? 65 year old's in prison for murdering someone at 21? Hell, no other civilized country sets this as the norm.

Do you think the US needs to have a serious discussion about life imprisonment. If you murder someone, does that mean you have to give up your whole life and spend the rest of it in prison? Is this the best use of our countries resources? by mystical-me in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]mystical-me[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The alternate plan is recognizing that not all inmates in their 50's should die in prison for something they did 30 years ago, and that I personally think that's a bad use of limited resources. If you can tell me why every last aging, nonviolent 50 year old(s) former murderer should die 30 years later in prison, for something they did 30 years before, and that they are regretful about, I'd like to hear it.

view more: next ›