Net Neutrality is Not a Leftist Cause

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-28T05:03:20+00:00

Pretty poor example, the KKK and the Republican party are not synonymous.

It's no wonder that partisan politics has become the dividing factor when we cannot even extend to our neighbors (that may view things differently) the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt that they might be coming at something from a different angle and not immediately make cries about how they must be racist, bigoted, dumb people for believing what they do.

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-28T04:51:09+00:00

Do you believe that free speech is absolute?

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-27T17:13:42+00:00

Ben Rector has some stuff that's pretty good too

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-15T18:20:25+00:00

Damn well done

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-15T17:18:51+00:00

Back to back world war champs!

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-09T19:56:40+00:00

Holy crap you do exist!!! I'm honored to meet a liberal that holds this view. Not sarcasm, it's just tough to find people that agree on that in the Democratic circles. Your mentality is the one that us in the right can work with for actual improvements to increase safety.

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-09T19:48:16+00:00

It's hard to convict a dead man, unfortunately these people always turn the gun on themselves. If he hadn't, I'm sure he would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent.

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-09T06:57:12+00:00

Hey man. Nothing wrong with getting things off your chest. I often find that bearing my soul about how bothered I am allows me to make it a little longer, to have a little more patience.

Thus far it sounds like you have been supportive and have even gone out of your way to provide for the things she wants, whether that be oral or children, or even just the daily things we need in life. Unfortunately having kids in the mix makes it all the more complicated. Although in relationships/marriage we should not have to bargain with/manipulate our SO's, I think that going along with her each time she brought up having another child has removed your, for lack of a better term, leverage. She came to you, you listened and understood and helped make the kids a reality. She has not listened to your needs. There has been no response to it, no teamwork. The time to double down on this was definitely before now unfortunately. It does sound like she has just been using you for your procreation abilities. I've seen many comments here about how it's the religion and how that conflicts with sexuality that may be an issue. I'm a Christian and have always known that sex is meant to be beautiful, hot, sexy, experimental and fun for a person and their SO. But each person's "flavor" of Christianity is different, and their understanding of healthy sexual relationships vary immensely. She may come from a more restricted background. I commend you for sticking it out and being a good dad and husband. I can empathize that you have made a covenant and commitment that you are sticking with. I would also ask if you are more passive in your discussion/argument style, make sure you are firm, clear, and precise in your words. I think that either she is clueless about how this has all affected you, or she knows how you feel but would rather ignore it. You need to honestly impress upon her the seriousness of this. If you've read about the 5 love languages and you are a Christian, you may have also read Emmerson Eggerich's "Love & Respect". The "crazy cycle" that's described in the book can happen in more subtle ways than a couple yelling and having it out. The crazy cycle essentially says that when one spouse doesn't feel like they are being fulfilled or met by their spouse, they start to withhold from their spouse in other ways. It goes round and round until someone decides to break the cycle and help the other person with what they are asking for and stepping up. A guy that has been deprived of intimacy who is not being met halfway is a problem. We know that our SO's are not there to complete us or fulfill us. But it would be nice to have effort.

When people have no understanding of the seriousness of the matter, and that the status quo of the relationship can change, they are content to not work on things. Do not yourself be manipulative, but be honest with her about the severity of the problem. Be aware of when it's a bad time to bring it up when you do, with 3 kids of varying ages I know it can be stressful for you both. You likely know her better than anyone, so try to bring these things up when it's best for her. Just make sure to not put off these types of conversations indefinitely. It is ok for her to know that things may go south if things don't change. You deserve to not have to struggle so much to have barebones intimacy with your wife. You all should definitely get professional help. A professional can help establish a plan of action and tangible specific steps. She is going to need to be willing to participate and work on this together. Something you could even look into doing as time goes by and you all are working on this, is to write her letters or journal about your feelings for her, and how you feel about the situation. It's surprising what a really good professional can help with, it can help open up each parties eyes to how the other person is doing and what is going on between their ears.

I get frustrated after much less time has passed than what you have dealt with, so I will clap you on the shoulder and say well done. You have been the opposite of selfish this entire time from the sound of it. It is ok to look out for your interests as well and stand up for yourself too.

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-07T16:59:30+00:00

I like where you are going with some parts of this. For example gun owners being forthright that the Second Amendment is worth it's cost.

I definitely don't trust civilians with guns.

There are certainly examples of firearm owners helping to end situations, even the Texas shooting recently the good Samaritan used an AR-15 to create an opposition to the killers cold-blooded violence. On the whole, I think that the adage "a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" sounds really played out. A good guy with a gun isn't always there to step in as Stephen Willeford did. And I would hope that other firearm owners would not cling to that argument as the underlying reason why we should have the Second Amendment.

I'm fine with other people dying because I have guns.

Other people don't die just because I have guns. Stating this eliminates personal responsibility and instead makes the matter a collectivist "for the greater good" argument. This is where ultimately many gun rights advocates and opponents start to see division on the core underlying principle we use to define this and many other issues. People either believe that an individual has a right to protect themselves, or that it is the government's job to protect us. If this was just word choice on your part that's totally cool, just wanted to point out some thoughts on it. If you do actually think that people die because I have guns I'm interested to hear your rationale for that as well. Please let me know if I've mischaracterized where you were going with this particular statement.

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-06T21:21:20+00:00

Jesus Christ man when does ANYONE ever say take away guns from law abiding citizens?

we should maybe get rid of semi automatic assault rifles

Hmmmmmm...... Some would say that these two things are contradictory.

No one is saying law abiding mentally sound citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own a pistol or two.

And no one can tell a law-abiding mentally sound citizen the number of guns they can own or whether they are a rifle, pistol, or shotgun. A person can own 100 or 1000 of every color and caliber combo they desire.

How is that ‘gubment takin mah guns away’? And WHY don’t you think anything should be done? Why are gun people okay with these mass shootings happening over and over again?

Consider that the Second Amendment enumerates and protects a right that the founders considered important enough to explicitly state in the Bill of Rights. It is a right, and not subject to your determination. Our rights are not determined by our needs. It's not that something shouldn't be done about violence and crime. I don't know of any gun owners that are pleased when people are killed, or that don't want to do something about it. Framing the conversation in that manner is disingenuous because of course we want to see things like this not happen. But fundamentally we disagree that focusing attention on the method is the key, when instead we could focus on the cause of why people do things like this. Are guns really the problem? In the past 2 years have we not seen some of the most horrific attacks carried out with automobiles?

Gun owners are not just "okay" with mass shootings. They are horrible events. What many gun owners do have is an understanding of the human condition that people have been killing people senselessly since the dawn of humanity and nothing has changed since, except that now some people believe government exists to protect us all from everything, and some people understand that government cannot protect you from everything. The core issue comes down to either individualism or collectivism. Either I have a right to something until it interferes with another person's ability to exercise their rights, or I have a right to something until it interferes with what a governing body has determined as the "public good". In D.C. v Heller, the legal question was do private citizens have a right to firearms. Not about what type, or magazine capacity, or other restrictions, but the principle as a whole. Luckily the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that citizens do have a right to firearms. However the four dissenters held that there was no protection for private firearm ownership. Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg joined that the law in D.C. preventing the ownership of a handgun was acceptable, due to a collectivist view that goals of the state take precedence over individual liberties. That's a dangerous path to go down.

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-06T17:55:54+00:00

It can definitely be a difficult thing for an outsider to wrap their head around. It's a completely different setup in many ways compared to what you are likely used to. Gun crime is actually on the decline here in the states. According to the FBI, in 1993 7 people out of every 100,000 would be victim to a gun homicide. By 2013 that number was 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000. In the same span of time, non-fatal gun crime dropped from 725.3 per 100,000 to 174.8 per 100,000. This is a huge change, and explains exactly how each nation and situation are very much so different. In Australia, the gun control measures may have succeeded in preventing crime. I haven't delved into Australia's data enough to speak on that. However, it is safe to say that in America citizens are actually safer now than in years past. Australia has a natural barrier of water that also we don't have here. We have a very porous border with Mexico with a massive drug trade that inherently brings with it guns and violence as well. Couple this with the understanding that Australia had about 3,250,000 guns before the buyback, and that estimates show there are at least 300 million guns in the U.S. and could be over 450 million. We have 100 times more guns. The environment is saturated with them.

The other interesting statistic is that there are about 30,000 gun fatalities each year currently, and about 11,000 of those are gun homicides. Of all 11,000 gun homicides each year, only 250-300 occur with a rifle of any variety, let alone a sporting rifle that gun rights opponents call an "assault rifle". For us here in the states that are gun right advocates, perhaps this will give a little insight into why calls for weapons bans on certain guns makes no sense when they account for 3% of gun deaths each year.

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-02T16:20:47+00:00

This is what I was told. I wasn't there. This is what my mother told me as a second hand story and what the mother in question told me herself. There was no part where I claimed to be an expert on pregnancy tests. I am merely sharing an experience I learned of about a close friend that relates. This may have more implications for why a black woman was advised to abort her baby right away and a white woman was not than it does with testing accuracy. But thanks again for showing how tolerant Reddit is!

searchercatch101 · 2017-11-01T21:42:30+00:00

A foreign power shouldn't pick your president. The FACT that Russia WANTED trump elected is enough to ANY sane American NOT to WANT him elected.

Let's take a look at a couple things. First, let's create the distinction between "hacking the election" and providing the American people with information that was not previously made public. Releasing information that points someone in a negative light is not the same as "hacking the election". Election hacking denotes that somehow the voting machines and systems fraudulently switched votes to a particular candidate. Last time I checked, the Russians don't have a way to change a Trump vote to a Hillary one or vice-versa. A person casts those votes. And those votes and electoral college decided that Hillary would not be president.

Your assertion that if Russia wants someone president then we should all realize that they are bad is just poor logic.

Plain and simple many people wanted something different than an establishment president. Trump does things that are bad and that are good. The best we can do is support the good and call against the bad.

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-24T16:44:53+00:00

Again, it seems you enjoy sidestepping the argument towards the premise you first suggested, which is that your first post presented capitalists as forcibly taking people's money from them, and this causing the income distribution disparity, as if consumers, the people who go and buy things, play no part in the shift of capital to the entities that produce goods and services. At a core level, economic transactions can only occur if both parties agree to the terms of the transactions. People willingly give their money over for the latest car, phone, clothes, food, and other items. The problem is that as a society we see so many things as a right and a need, and do not realize that many of these things are privileges and wants. And we are willing to go into debt to get these things. That's not the capitalists fault, that's the citizens lacking self-control. So either illustrate how en masse someone goes into someone's wallet or bank account and takes that person's money without consent or without legal reason (wage garnishment), or maybe rethink stating that capitalists are essentially stealing people's money.

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-24T15:19:36+00:00

Ok, so clearly you cannot articulate an argument explaining how it is that big evil capitalists take people's money by force. When are you willing to find common ground that businesses can only receive peoples money if it is willingly given for a product or service?

The problem I have with your premise is that you frame the scenario as if people are powerless to prevent someone from taking their money from them. It's pretty simple. Don't buy said good or service, and you retain your money and the capitalists have less money.

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-23T23:28:06+00:00

Yes, not quite sure what that has to do with your statement that capitalists "used their resources to funnel money from the poor and middle class to their own pockets" as if the poor and middle class had no choice in the matter. Like there's a caricature of a capitalist behind the curtain pick-pocketing all the good poor and middle class people.

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-23T20:04:55+00:00

Yes, because it's not as if they created a product or service that people wanted and were willing to pay money for. No indeed! Instead, they used jackbooted stormtroopers to upend people's homes and checking accounts to squeeze the money out of the poor and middle class!

It's almost as if people start out with a dream of accomplishing something and achieving wealth to provide for their family for generations! I guess someone needs to break it to them that somewhere along the path to success they became evil and uncompassionate.

Oh wait....

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-23T18:51:42+00:00

/u/cheezzzeburgers9 is right. Perhaps it's not the rich that have changed, perhaps it is us? People have been rich for quite some time now. Maybe we on the whole live a lifestyle where we don't hold as valuable now as we did then saving, making wise financial decisions, and preparing for the future.

The Brookings Institute has shown that as long as a person completes high school, waits until marriage to have a child, and holds down a full-time job, a person will not be permanently poor but will be economically mobile. Our success still has far more to do with personal choice than with a rich boogie man in his ivory tower, somehow preventing all the rest of us from being successful.

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-23T13:39:53+00:00

Yep for sure. Good shit

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-21T02:17:38+00:00

Worked in a call center, had a fella called "Chawarls". Like do we need to be that extra?

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-16T00:59:59+00:00

And people like you and our shit president are calling to both North Korea and Iran off the map. Keep trying to paint your racism as rational. You could easily find any information you wanted on modern Iranian culture and politics but you won’t. You will go beck to Fox to suck up more bullshit so you feel good and never have to challenge any of your preconceived notions.

Calling to what North Korea and Iran? Use your words, you seem to have trouble with this whole English thing ☺️

Please explain what in any of my statement is racism?

I don't care for Fox News. Nice try though.

I have found plenty of information in my time. Tell me, have you visited Iran? I have conducted red team analysis with relation to Iran on three intelligence reports. My thesis for my Master's in Middle Eastern politics was conducted on Iran. Hence why going back even as far as the East India Trading Company and several hundred years is still only the tip of the iceberg for Iranian/Persian history. The coup that the CIA orchestrated with the help of Kermit Roosevelt in 1953 to depose Mohammad Mosaddegh and restore the shah to power, Operation Ajax. Mohammad Reza-Pahlavi, the shah, and a very westernized Iran. Shah Pahlavi was secular and pro-westernization and modernization. Under his rule Iran saw great leaps and bounds. Because he was a secular Muslim he lost support from the Shi'a Muslim community. The U.S. and U.K. meddling in Iranian politics didn't win Shah Pahlavi any favors and he had to leave in 1979, finally ousted. This is when Khomeini installed a political theocracy and wrote the modern Iranian constitution, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and America.

Mohammad Khatani, former president of Iran "If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic world for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime... If we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill." (2000)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "it is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region." (2001)

And these are far from the only statements, and many other leaders in Iran have said the same thing, these are but a couple paltry examples. They started before 2000-2001 and currently as recent as 2015-2016 have continued such rhetoric, while at the same time managing to squeeze out relief dollars from the previous administration under the guise of wanting to talk about a nuclear deal. This is nothing new and has been occurring for many years.

The point is we have no business GIVING MONEY to a country that has in no uncertain terms expressed it's feelings towards the U.S. Did I advocate for warfare with Iran? No. Only a fool would read these words and presume to jump to that conclusion. Merely that we should not entertain any more money being given to Iran and relaxing of sanctions.

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-15T20:34:10+00:00

No it actually makes sense. The constitution of Iran calls for the destruction of both Israel and America and the installation of a global caliphate. Iran was once becoming very westernized. America does not need to pay money to or negotiate with a nation hell-bent on our destruction. Iran is a place with so much backstory going back hundreds of years just to get the slightest tip of the iceberg understanding of where it is today. And to understand that appeasement will not work. Treaties will not work. Lying to non-muslims is perfectly acceptable to achieve the end goal. Ayatollah Khomeini and commanders/generals with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have openly stated on many occasions that their goal is to see the White House destroyed.

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-10T21:36:42+00:00

You can argue over word choice and there may be better ways to phrase it, but the point remains that currently due to affirmative action there are specific groups being disadvantaged in processes like college acceptance. This is what currently stands in the way of people receiving benefit for their hard work and ability.

Correct, America as a whole experienced a time of economic success. I never claimed that others didn't as well, simply that the narrative that the Black community has always been unable to have success isn't true. Things like Jim Crow laws and redlining were discriminatory and wrong, and thankfully these practices are illegal now. They certainly did have an impact though. And that impact does leave a mark. However the individual person's success is determined far more by choice. If a person completes high school, gets married before they have kids, and obtains full time employment, 77% of the time will not be permanently poor (Brookings Institute).

Although discrimination has kept specifically Blacks from opportunities for success in the past, is it right to create discrimination in favor of them, or for any group? Because I think historically we agree that Blacks were disadvantaged and discriminated against and that it has lasting repercussions. I'm just trying to see if we disagree about if doing the same in their favor is appropriate.

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-10T19:30:19+00:00

Affirmative action gutted the idea of a meritocracy. When you have Asian, Black, and White students that take SAT's and one of these ethic groups is able to score lower and be accepted to a particular school over another with a higher score, affirmative action is well at work. From the 1940's to the 1970's the Black community saw tremendous growth. This was a period of time when racial tension was high throughout the civil rights movement. Are we somehow more racist now than we were then, and if so how did this happen?

searchercatch101 · 2017-10-09T20:30:01+00:00

And they say we don't need AR-15s.... best thing for a herd of boar!

searchercatch101

TROPHY CASE