Recent Statuses

3 yrs ago


User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

I just saw someone claim that if you tell someone they should speak english in the United States, you are a racist because there is no official language in the U.S.
"Racist" claim aside, shouldn't someone learn english in the U.S. based upon percentages of english speakers?

I mean to be fair, there's a difference between 'should learn English' and 'telling someone they should speak English.' As if the very presence of another language was a threat to the statue of liberty's virtue.

In a non-confrontational way, yeah, you should speak English here for practical and social reasons. In a legal sense, it's a requirement for citizenship (with numerous exemptions). Also you should speak Spanish if you wanna live in the US, and also you should probably learn Chinese if you wanna live in this solar system fifty years from now. Very few people are going to learn all the languages they should, so it's kinda dumb to hold it against anyone -- like, I get it, English is tough. It can be learned through thorough thought though.

From Israel. Because, you know, they're trustworthy on this issue. /s

Yeah who can trust them, they're just the ones Iran has been bombing and promising to destroy. You can't take their word that Iran is violent.

Furthermore, the information Israel presented is old. Like, really old. From 2003 to 2004 when Iran was building a spherical weapon of some sort. Development of the weapon ended in 2004 and there is no evidence that they have continued development.

Well, I.... didn't go into it. But the very act of preserving that research is a violation of the agreement, so.... nyeh?

You can't knock an article from a few months ago by presenting evidence of a project from 2003. C'mon, bruh. Even the article you posted mentions that the documents are useless and outdated.

I just grabbed the first link. Netanyahu's point is, Iran never came clean about their program before the deal.

I think it was a good deal, but regardless of what you think, a deal is a deal. When you break deals you hurt our credibility and our standing. It is not the least bit surprising that North Korea is having second thoughts. Not to mention we had a deal before. Now we have nothing.

This is the deal. It requires very little from Iran, and relinquishes all safeguards within eight years. The EU+3 is granted authority to 'discuss solutions' to violations, and also forbidden from responding to them (Iran is expressly allowed to 'cease performing its commitments in part or in whole'). Nobody thought it was going to work, btw. Note that we never ratified this shit -- it was never voted up through Congress and wouldn't have passed -- and also we're totally allowed to unilaterally leave, it's part of the deal. So like.... if this deal demands so little and requires permanent bypass of democratic processes in the US to stay valid.... what was the goddamn point of it?
Back in June, Politifact did a breakdown that I thought was pretty fair. It highlights some small infractions by Iran, but shows that for the most part Iran has been compliant. Bear in mind this article is old.…

<Snipped quote>

<Snipped quote>

<Snipped quote>

In short, the infractions Iran has committed are so small and technical, that it would be a reach to say they violated the deal.

Um.... You may be out of date.

But it doesn't really make a difference -- they could've followed the agreement to the T and had nukes by.... what was it 2025? I don't remember what the deal said exactly. It was a shit deal.
So apparently the Senate might restore net neutrality.

Rule #1: the senate never does anything useful

Therefore, if they restore net neutrality, then NN must be irrelevant. Is.... is that right?
I don't think civil is in the cards. Anyway, here's something that's going on in my neck of the woods. It's pretty interesting, though I do not know how to feel about it due to some dubious claims on Thanedar's ethics.

Shri Thanedar leads Democrats in latest Michigan governor's race poll

The latest poll on the race for the Democratic nomination for governor puts Shri Thanedar ahead of Gretchen Whitmer by about three points — 29.6 percent to 26.3 percent. Abdul El-Sayed polled at 6.6 percent, while Bill Cobbs was at 2.5 percent.

Though the Detroit Regional Chamber gubernatorial poll put Thanedar ahead, it's worth noting that it found 34.5 percent of the 400 Democratic voters it polled undecided.

The poll suggests that a series of controversies and attacks from El-Sayed's camp didn't have much of an impact. That includes an article in The Intercept that questioned whether Thanedar is a true progressive.

Prior to that, polls put Thanedar slightly ahead of Whitmer, or vice versa. El-Sayed's polling numbers remain about the same. RELATED Poll shows gov candidates Thanedar and Whitmer neck and neck in Dem primary race. However, the polling was conducted from April 20 to April 22, three days before a story a widely read story about Thanedar abandoning dogs and monkeys at a former pharmaceutical facility he owned. The animals were rescued from the facility after Thanedar's company foreclosed in 2010.

Thanedar is a millionaire who is largely self-funding his campaign and running on a progressive platform. He's offering proposals like legalizing pot and using the money to help fix the roads, implementing a $15 per hour minimum wage, implementing universal health care, eliminating tax subsidies for the rich, and banning for-profit charter schools. He's refusing to take corporate cash to fund his campaign, as is El-Sayed.

El-Sayed supports similar policies, and his campaign bills him as the race's "real progressive." El-Sayed came out of Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan's administration and picked up endorsements from several progressive groups, like Our Revolution.

Whitmer, the former Michigan Senate minority leader, is seen as the establishment candidate. She's received endorsements from all major unions, and notes that while she is accepting corporate cash, most of her money comes from small donations.

Voters will choose a Democratic candidate on Aug. 7.

Oh gosh, polls have El-Sayed ahead? Pack it in, it's over.

I don't really pay attention to out-of-state primaries. How's Michigan handling the economics question? Would be interested to get a manufacturing-heavy/NAFTA-affected democrat take on the issue.
<Snipped quote by mdk>

Y'mean why the Rob-Liefeld group of Bedlam, Bloodshot, Shatterstar, Deadpool, Cable, and Domino aren't dead?

Um... Rob had problems drawing feet... or drawing anything consistant... making fun of this was and still is cool... so long as ye respect the fact that he near-single-handedly pulled MCU out of a really shitty time... MCU is kinda doing that again.

what language is that
<Snipped quote by mdk>

Not really.

1. The Infity-crisis already happened in comic form. So to the bigger rage-happy fans, this is no bigger spoiler than "Snape kills Dumbledore"... PS: at some point Thor ends up being a girl after this.... long story... Not even gonna hint at what happened to Nick Fury and Captain America...
(those were things that pissed-off fans, although they'll probably retcon the "Captain Hitler" arc... wich was wierd and cringy...)

2. The Vision was powered by an infitiy-stone... the entire plot of the Infinity-gauntlet is that it has ALL the stones... so that means at some point Visions skull is gonna get rekt.

Right, but cool people didn't read the comics, we just tagged along with the films when they got popular. And anyone who wasn't watching the sequel schedule has cause for alarm, especially given, um.... more recent, more popular characters who were possibly given specific cultural prominence.
was it not good or something? havent seen it yet but my friends are all giving me super mixed reviews lol

It was a match for the hype, which isn't to say it was great, just big and good and a solid watch. The events within this big, good, solid movie should upset assloads of MCU fans though.
Presuming I'm "the other guy in the thread," that's not accurate. I know I'm not allowed to quote you, but am I allowed to disagree with you over what my own positions are? Especially since (once again) the misinformation is being used to cast a certain.... let's say 'racial attitude,' which, again, is fabricated by (not me).

At risk of devolving the new thread back into the old thread, I know. So how bout, if you're interested in what I think, feel free to ask, and if not, please just remove that (and/or clarify who you're talking about, if not me) from your previous post and we can go about our lives. I don't wanna ignite some kind of firestorm, but also, I'm not gonna let those kinds of allegations slip. I feel like I've been pretty hands-off, and I'm perfectly fine keeping it that way. I don't wanna get dragged into a whole thing.
© 2007-2017
BBCode Cheatsheet