Posts made by Spintendo

This is true! Just compare the two cities below:

Philadelphia, PA
Democratic run
Population: 1,553,165

Orderville, UT
Republican run
Population: 1,582

In a comparison of these two cities, it was found that the Republican-led city's students had a higher education from their schools than those attending schools in the Democratic-led city.

--
When a school's curriculum requires competency in subjects such as eternal progression and the Quorums of the Seventy, those students will have greater advantage over students who are otherwise unaware of the teachings of the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

This is true! Just compare the two cities below:

Los Angeles, CA
Democratic run
Population: 2,195,914

Tearwater, MS
Republican run
Population: 73

In a comparison of these two cities, it was found that the Republican-led city experienced less crime and murder than the Democratic-led city.

--
When there's only 72 other people to kill and steal property from, chances are you're not going to be involved in a whole lot of robbery and murder.

This is true! Just compare the two cities below:

NYC, NY
Democratic run
Population: 8,405,397

Boones Acre, WY
Republican run
Population: 45

In a comparison of these two cities, it was found that the Republican-led city was less polluted than the Democratic-led city.

--
A city of 45 people generating trash and going to the bathroom is going to be cleaner and smell a lot nicer than a city of 8 million people generating trash and going to the bathroom.

@manhandler
A good analogy for Critical Race Theory is the film THX 1138.

Many films follow the format of good person versus bad person to establish their narratives. Most films that use this make the two sides easy to identify. If you've seen THX 1138, ask yourself who the "bad guy" in that film is. It's not an easy question to answer.

While the protagonist, THX 1138, can easily be seen as the good guy, it's more difficult to spot who the real enemy is in the film. Some might argue that SEN 5241 is the bad character -- and he certainly does do bad things -- but he is able to do those things because of the system.

Others might argue that the police androids are the enemy. But they are really just following orders from a system. The agents of that system make life impossible for THX, from the characters who mistakenly operate the mindblock scene that gets THX arrested, to the characters arguing in THX's trial scene. No one character is really the absolute enemy. The entire system is rigged to make THX 1138 an outsider through no fault of his own.

Established views of racism would hold SEN 5241 or the police androids or many other singular actors are the bad of a system that needs to be singularly addressed/punished/handled. But critical race theory says that these individual parts are not really the focus and that punishing them does not really correct anything. The system is to blame.

If I had a degree in Russian history I could compare apples to oranges just like Ponasenkov does. Biden Vs. Hitler? Puh-leese. Lets try Hitler Vs Roosevelt!

• Both came to power in the same year (within 33 days of each other), while both died in the same month and year.

• Hitler was born to his parents as the 4th of 6 children, while FDR had 6 children.

• Roosevelt and Hitler's full names, when combined, spell the phrase "Devotional freethinkers R Lords hallo plan."

And that's just the beginning. I could go on for days comparing and contrasting these two historical figures, and easily weave the strangest (but absolutely true) BS about the both of them.

But what the hell would be the point?

Ponasenkov doesn't seem to have one, beyond denigrating a candidate who beat their opponent by 7 million votes.

"If masks work, why are there lockdowns?"

This question assumes two things:

• Masks are 100% effective

• Everyone wears masks when out-of-doors

Since neither of these assumptions can be proven to occur 100% of the time, the question cannot be given a definitive answer.

The only answer I can see is that mask wearing and lockdowns ought not to be seen as either/or propositions, but rather, as strategies which are adjunctive to each other.

FILM SPOILERS BELOW - FILM SPOILERS BELOW - FILM SPOILERS BELOW -

Now the questions. The film said that to counteract the wish stone, the people whose wishes it granted had to rescind their wishes. But the film did not specify what happened to all the people who didn't rescind their wishes (of which there had to have been many) so what, the stone works on minority rule?

And why exactly did Max Lord want to grant all these wishes… what did he get out of that chaos?

The film shows Max finally relenting when it appears his son will die during the nuclear exchange between the US and USSR. But are we shown any other examples of his son's love motivating his actions before this? Of course not. The film has him become a doting parent at the end of the film only, because the hackneyed narrative required him to. This is writer's fiat in all its splendour.

The NYTimes said it best when they noted how in 2017, when Wonder Woman's first movie came out and she was done saving the world, her horizons seemed limitless. Who would have guessed that her next big adult battle would be at a mall.

Well he wouldn't/shouldn't/couldn't be deported until his sentence was served, right? Since he was given life in prison, his deportation back home to Albania would be in a body bag, at which point his access to medications would no longer be an issue for him.

A bigger question is why he would want to take medication while in jail. Antipsychotics make people rational. How anyone could purposely want rationality in such a place is beyond me

I'm forced to agree with Raphjd. There is no reason why this individual shouldn't be deported to Albania after their sentence is served. Any future non-compliance in their medication use is ultimately Albania's problem to worry about, not the UK's. But as they were given a life sentence, I don't see how deportation is even being considered.

I'm also confused about the second part….. are the EU "Human rights laws" against forcing a free person to take their meds being mentioned here to highlight the disparity between free people and prisoners, or the disparity between EU and UK applications of human rights? This Albanian appears to take their meds voluntarily, according to that same DailyMail article.

@raphjd:

Destroying 33,000+ subpoenaed emails … I was just pointing out that the DoJ doesn't always investigate crimes, even when they are right in front of them.

???

If these emails were subpoenaed, how exactly was the DoJ not investigating them?

Who issued the subpoena - was it the DoJ in the course of their investigation?

What you meant to say was that the DoJ did investigate these emails, but that you didn't agree with what you think are their findings.

But then, what exactly were those findings? Do you remember how the DoJ in their report stated that her testimony about some of those emails was false?

My guess would be no, you don't remember. What you remember about their investigation was that there was no investigation.

A sportswriter raised in Maryland who in the past has referred to the streets of Compton as a "wilderness" - this is your leftist journo? LoL. The guy wrote for ESPN Magazine, not Mother Jones.

The Texas Sec of State later rescinded the advisory issued by his office which had questioned the citizenship status of those voters.

Tess Roby
Beacon

Cut Copy
Standing In The Middle Of The Field

Donovan Woods
Burn That Bridge

@raphjd:

You are blaming the "right wing" media

Close, but I'm blaming all the media. That shouldn't be too difficult for you to grasp, for it's a tune you've sung many times before. In fact, there seems to be sometimes a disconnect from the raphjd I'll speak to on one day, as opposed to what you've expressed before on the subject. It's as if your a different person sometimes. The "other" Raphjd has been very vocal on this subject. I think it might be instructive to speak, through the forum logs, to that other raphjd. He might be able to make more sense of this topic. So allow me to summon him to join us now.

Other raphjd! we need your guidance and your wisdom…. If you can hear us, answer me here.... We're talking about the corrosive and exploitation-based aspects of popular media..... What is your take on this, on what the media are after, in instances like this?

@raphjd:

All of this was planned for effect and the media jumped on it like a gold digger on a cock made of $100 bills.

Hmmm, interesting. And so what about this so called rape by Lena Dunham? Apparently shes said that she was responding to her sister sticking rocks in her vagina, and that no assault ever happened. Lena chose to discuss this episode of her life in her new book and yet, people condemned her. Who would you suggest that we believe? Is Lena's sister a victim?

@raphjd:

When we go with the JUST BELIEVE concept, we end up with the shit we have been seeing over the last 20 year of false rape claims blowing up in international media.

Wow that is really surprising! What sort of things have happened to people accused of assault?

@raphjd:

People's lives were ruined by "just believe".

"Take back the night" girl claimed she was raped and named the supposed rapist. She only changed her tune when he sued her. She now claims that she got caught up in the moment and wanted to join in. She doesn't believe she should be held responsible for falsely claiming he raped her and how that ruined her life.

Mattress Girl had her claims of being raped dismissed by the police and even the college which is extremely anti-male thanks to the Obama administration's "Dear Colleague" letters. However, she was still allowed to drag it out with her mattress girl routine.

Duke LaCrosse players are still stained by the false rape claims by a hooker/stripper who lied for whatever reason.

The head of the IMF (Strauss-Cohn [sp?]) was brought down and totally ruined by a gold digging bitch. She was recorded talking to her boyfriend, who was in jail at the time, talking about extorting money from Strauss-Cohn in exchange for dropping the rape claims. The rape never happened, but it ruined him.

Wow, those are some pretty sobering stories. It sounds as if a person like Lena Dunham, an admittedly oddball-type girl who's just trying to pay her mortgage, is being silenced. The media doesn't understand what shes trying to communicate, and in turn, don't want other people to read her book, so they construe her words to sound like rape. What do you think about people like Lena who are being treated this way?

@raphjd:

Throughout the west, we have criminalized speech. In most of Europe, it's illegal to cause offense. Canada has gone a similar way. US cities and states are too.

If they don't like what you said or might say, they believe they are fully within their right to physically assault you. Clearly, the opposite does not apply.

So tell us Raphjd, what should we do when we hear instances of people in the news being accused of sexual crimes?

@raphjd:

Let's ignore that mainstream media, the DNC, social media, western government, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc all enforce this shit.

So I guess what you're saying is that for us, a story like Lena's shouldn't be a problem ?

@raphjd:

Is that how you are gonna justify what she wrote in her book?

Because Lena Dunham is the ultimate judge of Lena Dunham's actions, she's the only one fit to offer up justification. The irony here is that you wouldn't have been demanding justification had the right wing media kept their mouths shut about the story.

Lena Dunham's molestation story serves as example for a very sound argument that you have made before in the past — that the media brings up and then focuses on the most absurd topics possible.  I suspect if the right wing media outlets who have been screaming about her book would have just ignored it and not made it into such a big deal, no one apart from a few random lesbians in Mendocino Valley would have even noticed the thing.

This shows how the media fascination with reporting garbage is a fault shared both by the right as well as the left.

If you were offered 3.5 million for your life story, and even part of you hoped that it would be interesting enough to warrant a followup, I'm sure you too, would have confabulated some kind of salacious story from your past to sell copies of it. That's called paying the bills.

Lena Dunham selling a horrible book of B.S. is not your problem.

When you describe Susan B Anthony as a massive racist I begin to wonder, by massive, do you mean like big-time, majorly-in charge kind of massive racist… the kind that could easily answer anyone who demanded of her "Oh yeah Susan?.... You and wHaT army?"

Somehow the idea of Susan B Anthony enforcing her racism on others via her own personal army doesn't sound right. General Lee, now that fits better because, well, he had an army. Marion Barry had an army too, so to speak, but they weren't soldiers. As mayor, his army consisted of civil servants, social workers, city managers and attorneys. Anthony's army were suffragettes but unlike Lee and Mayor Barry's followers, her army had little actual power.

The enemies that Barry and Anthony waged conflict against were the kind of poverty that results from being treated differently. Barry's struggle was against the physical poverty of those in the black community treated poorly because of their skin color. Anthony's struggle was against the intellectual poverty of minds like her family members and peer group, who treated women differently because of their gender.

Both Barry and Anthony also faced themselves as enemies — Barry facing his own ugly demons of addiction — and Anthony facing her own ugly demons of racism. Despite facing their own demons, neither of them surrendered. They actively tried to change society towards the direction they thought it should be going in — women attaining votes where they had none and black people attaining economic security where there was none. Those Confederate military leaders after their surrender couldn't really claim to have had the same success with their goals, now could they?

Republicans Search for Proof Their Tax Plans Will Pay for Themselves
by Jim Tankersley of The New York Times
Nov. 12, 2017

Republican leaders keep insisting that their plans to cut taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next decade will not add to the national debt — yet economic analyses of the Senate and House proposals keep predicting that the plans will do just that. The disconnect is prompting House and Senate Republican leaders to hunt down — and promote — more optimistic forecasts, even if they exclude large parts of the tax bills from their analyses or assume growth-boosting features that are not, in fact, in the bills.

"When you’re in a political organization, you’re constantly model shopping," said Kent Smetters, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, who is now the faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania.

Republican leaders have said the tax cuts they are planning will essentially pay for themselves. Lawmakers gave themselves, via their 2018 budget resolution, space for $1.5 trillion in revenue losses from tax cuts, but they have promised those losses will be offset by increased economic growth spurred by the tax overhaul. Finding a model that supports the ambitious economic growth projections is critical to their ability to pass a tax cut along party lines. The House and Senate bills have been introduced and amended at a rapid clip, and economists are only now beginning to plug their details into sophisticated models that predict how much additional growth the cuts might produce. So far, every so-called [desc=Also known as dynamic scoring, dynamic analyses predict the impact of a fiscal policy change by forecasting the effect of an economic agents' reaction to incentives created by policy.]dynamic analysis[/desc] that scrutinizes the full details of the bills and factors in economic growth finds that those plans would add at least $500 billion and as much as $1.7 trillion to the deficit.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan insisted last week that the House bill would not add to the deficit, even after an analysis by the independent Tax Foundation found that the bill would add $1 trillion to deficits over a decade. The Treasury Department has not yet released any economic analysis of the congressional plans. Economists at Goldman Sachs said last month that they expect tax cuts to generate enough additional growth to offset about a fifth of their revenue losses, equating to $1 trillion of net tax cuts losing $800 billion on a dynamic basis.

Dynamic scoring is inexact in the best of circumstances. As a result, only a few models have churned out consistent dynamic analyses that attempt to account for all the provisions of the House and Senate bills. The Tax Foundation has one. Mr. Smetters and his Penn Wharton team have another. Perhaps the most important scorekeeper on that front, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, is due to weigh in this week, with an analysis of the bill pending in the House. Ironically, the models that so far have produced the least optimistic forecasts for the Republican plan are the ones that most closely track the assumptions conservatives have long espoused about the economy: that racking up deficits and debt will hold back growth.

That is the case with the Penn Wharton model, which finds that the House bill would lose between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion over a decade in revenue. The Tax Foundation’s more optimistic model projects the Senate bill would lose $500 billion in revenue after growth effects. The one model so far to suggest that the bills could fully pay for themselves makes some growth-boosting assumptions that differ from the bills as drafted, and it excludes the impacts of personal income tax changes on the economy. That model has been criticized by economists who warn of the seven deadly sins of overly optimistic dynamic scoring models. This particular one commits Sin No. 2: Using estimates from 'similar' tax plans which are not actually similar.