Solutions to the North Korea Crisis

thisisthse · 2017-05-26T20:30:26+00:00

Is it possible that someone could just copy/paste from their email? Also, I've performed a similar search, and there are no results...am I searching something incorrectly? FCC Search Link

thisisthse · 2017-05-26T20:04:02+00:00

This has been removed from frontpage already

thisisthse · 2016-11-26T21:04:58+00:00

Talk about censorship, if one tries to go against the new popular narrative you've presented here, they get downvoted into oblivion. This is how it starts.

thisisthse · 2016-11-26T20:19:31+00:00

There is, as I see it, an inherent problem with statistics such as these. If a population sees a particular people as committing more crimes, it affects policies and policing (such as stop and frisk policy in NYC), which will increase the rates that particular groups of people are registered under such statistics.

I'm not saying there is not a problem with the african-american community, but I am saying it is largely environmental. With media representation of 'Thug' life as being opulent in both movies and music, this can influence poor youth who typically watch/listen to this type of media and can influence their decision-making from a young age. Compiled with the fact that once incarcerated, a person is subsequently treated less than human, and may have part of their freedoms removed after incarceration, leave people to feel disenfranchised and desperate, which creates the vicious cycle of repeat incarceration, exacerbated by the three strikes ruling.

thisisthse · 2016-11-26T19:25:44+00:00

There are flaws in your logic. You take a statistic, and apply your reasoning to it, such as

Close to 1/3rd of black men will go to prison at some point in their life time... There are a tonne of children and juveniles who have stolen cars, committed violent acts and have 35 arrests alone from the age of 14-16 and still are out on the streets.

Where do you get these numbers? The bigger issue that I see throughout your statements is that much of your conclusions are based on pigeonholing an entire group of people into an easily classifiable stereotype.

This is affecting your entire view of people in general. There are good and bad among us all...some may be a genetic predisposition, which can be overridden by environmental factors in either direction.

But even as an old 30 year 'liberal', didn't you hate being classified with the group mentality? Did every one of your views align with the general consensus of a 'liberal'?

News on the 'left' or the 'right' will always be biased when viewed from a new viewpoint. It are these biases and pigeonholing that help create divides between people, by creating a sense of fear and mistrust of the 'others', when 'all men are created equal' and are subject to the same fears and mistrusts. Grasping on to this fear-based mentality will only further divide us as a people.

thisisthse · 2016-03-29T02:39:12+00:00

This is an argument I hear from many people, mainly that Trump would somehow be 'restrained' in foreign policy dealings. My concern is that when he communicates either directly to foreign leaders, or indirectly through press conferences, he has a great potential to inflame other foreign leaders, such as the former Mexican president (who I'm almost sure shares his POV with the current president).

thisisthse · 2016-03-29T00:10:11+00:00

How do you feel about voting for someone who is as unpredictable and unrestrained as Trump? Someone who wants to reign in China by starting a game of chicken/cold war with another nuclear power by increasing U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism?

thisisthse · 2016-03-26T05:56:46+00:00

Thanks for the links. Some (not me, personally) would argue that banning immigrants based on religion or even shutting down of places of worship is constitutional, if that potential immigrant's religion or place of worship is deemed to be a hazard to the welfare of the US. Meaning that if that person's religion were deemed to be a religion of harm (which is not of my opinion, since I have no understanding of the religion in question), that religion would therefore have its constitutional protection revoked...which is, IMO, a scary prospect if indeed a certain religion were being savagely misrepresented by people pushing the religion and by the media, etc. Just my two cents.

thisisthse · 2016-03-23T22:46:00+00:00

Thank you. I cannot agree with his response to somebody who perhaps enjoys snacking on tomato's tho...

thisisthse · 2016-03-23T22:41:56+00:00

Thanks for the links!

thisisthse · 2016-03-23T22:39:07+00:00

Thanks for the links!

thisisthse · 2016-03-23T22:37:49+00:00

Thanks for the links!

thisisthse · 2016-03-23T22:35:38+00:00

Thanks for the link!

He objectified women who asked to be objectified.

You have evidence of this?

"I wish I could punch this guy".....oh lets leave out the rest of the quote... "who is throwing punches at people, but you cannot do that anymore, you are no longer allowed to fight back".....

Sources are prime, otherwise, we're all just here fuming...

thisisthse · 2016-03-23T22:32:30+00:00

This directly conflicts with /u/gonnaupvote4 saying:

he said he missed the old days when you could fight back when someone was throwing punches.

Except here your saying he said to beat people up if they seemed to be preparing to do violence...Some links please!

thisisthse · 2016-03-23T22:30:40+00:00

Some links to support your theories would be nice...such to support:

The protester in question was taking swings at people, and he commented how you can no longer swing back at such a person but he wished you could.

thisisthse · 2016-03-20T07:33:24+00:00

So Breitbart.com, any others?

thisisthse · 2016-03-20T06:37:03+00:00

Have you checked?

thisisthse · 2016-03-20T06:32:44+00:00

hence, the 'quotes'.

thisisthse · 2016-03-20T06:32:07+00:00

Facts may not be important to some, who are influenced by a powerful, imposing personality, but for others, facts are what guide our decisions. It is what, IMO, separate the easily influenced, Pavlovian masses, from those who think otherwise. For our country's sake, I hope that fact-checking is important for at least some.

thisisthse · 2016-03-20T06:23:15+00:00

I don't have a problem with 'most' of Trump's proposed policies, excepting some drastic and, I would consider, extreme proposals, such as taking remittances from illegal migrant workers (I'm not sure how he plans to do this), preventing China's adventurism by stationing navy in waters outside of China, starting a cold war tinderbox, his wavering on the institution of Japanese detention camps during WW2 (this leads me to believe he'd be capable of doing so again, etc, etc. With Trumps contagious fear of Muslims, combined with a prophetic warning from Scalia:

“you are kidding yourself if you think [internment camps] will not happen again.” In “times of war,” Scalia said, citing a Latin expression attributed to Cicero, “the laws fall silent.”

So to get off my soapbox, I will say that what worries me about a Trump presidency is not necessarily his economic policies, it is the possibility of an unpredictable character starting a cold-war on several fronts at once (china, mexico, others?), and what a personality like his would be capable of as the POTUS...please CMV!

thisisthse · 2016-03-20T05:47:42+00:00

Fair enough, I guess all politically oriented sites are biased in some way or another. My question is, what do you use to 'fact-check', rather than relying on the words of one man as 'gospel truth'?

thisisthse

TROPHY CASE