The Irony Oremine

[Mr. Smith]

Highland Park is 25 miles north of Chicago in a different county.
Anyways this aged well.

It's still "Chicagoland".

Whatever. Still had to find an excuse, didn't you?

You're totally unwilling to honestly discuss the issue of who's shooting who and who's being shot when discussing the totality of gun violence in America.  But don't you worry; I've started a separate thread for more honest discussion lest your precious narrative be "derailed".

To the irony thread.

[Schiff for Senate]

And stating obvious facts - that as far as we’re all aware, Atty. Gen. Holder has not murdered anybody - is not ‘condescending’ towards you. Do better, and perhaps stop with excessive hyperbole if you don’t want people to correct/‘condescend’ you.

Nobody is arguing that he did. You are the one pretending like Holder's actions are an opinion-based argument. The fact that you're even arguing that "I said he helped corrupt businesses" shows you haven't done your research. Eric Holder's Justice Department directly let criminal fraudsters and launderers get away if they were a part of a big bank. This is a fact.

Eric Holder had the chance to prosecute those responsible criminally,  prosecutors recommended taking it to a criminal trial, and he went for a civil trial instead. In HSBC's case, the fines were almost $2 billion, a drop in the bucket from the $66 billion in revenue they had for 2013.

If we compare the ratio to the median income, the fine HSBC got for money laundering was equivalent to a misdemeanor possession charge. Again - I'm not going to get into a dick-measuring contest about whether murder or mass fraud is worse. But Holder letting big banks off the hook was historically awful, and it's not hyperbolic to say that this qualifies as him allowing bank fraud. It's the truth.

This is the last I will say on the subject. This type of unwarranted condescension is why people don't take you seriously. I thought you had dialed it back, but I guess not.

(This is after he asked "what's the difference" between Eric Holder and a literal murderer)

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

And stating obvious facts - that as far as we’re all aware, Atty. Gen. Holder has not murdered anybody - is not ‘condescending’ towards you. Do better, and perhaps stop with excessive hyperbole if you don’t want people to correct/‘condescend’ you.

Nobody is arguing that he did. You are the one pretending like Holder's actions are an opinion-based argument. The fact that you're even arguing that "I said he helped corrupt businesses" shows you haven't done your research. Eric Holder's Justice Department directly let criminal fraudsters and launderers get away if they were a part of a big bank. This is a fact.

Eric Holder had the chance to prosecute those responsible criminally,  prosecutors recommended taking it to a criminal trial, and he went for a civil trial instead. In HSBC's case, the fines were almost $2 billion, a drop in the bucket from the $66 billion in revenue they had for 2013.

If we compare the ratio to the median income, the fine HSBC got for money laundering was equivalent to a misdemeanor possession charge. Again - I'm not going to get into a dick-measuring contest about whether murder or mass fraud is worse. But Holder letting big banks off the hook was historically awful, and it's not hyperbolic to say that this qualifies as him allowing bank fraud. It's the truth.

This is the last I will say on the subject. This type of unwarranted condescension is why people don't take you seriously. I thought you had dialed it back, but I guess not.

(This is after he asked "what's the difference" between Eric Holder and a literal murderer)

This post does not belong here.

[Schiff for Senate]

And stating obvious facts - that as far as we’re all aware, Atty. Gen. Holder has not murdered anybody - is not ‘condescending’ towards you. Do better, and perhaps stop with excessive hyperbole if you don’t want people to correct/‘condescend’ you.

Nobody is arguing that he did. You are the one pretending like Holder's actions are an opinion-based argument. The fact that you're even arguing that "I said he helped corrupt businesses" shows you haven't done your research. Eric Holder's Justice Department directly let criminal fraudsters and launderers get away if they were a part of a big bank. This is a fact.

Eric Holder had the chance to prosecute those responsible criminally,  prosecutors recommended taking it to a criminal trial, and he went for a civil trial instead. In HSBC's case, the fines were almost $2 billion, a drop in the bucket from the $66 billion in revenue they had for 2013.

If we compare the ratio to the median income, the fine HSBC got for money laundering was equivalent to a misdemeanor possession charge. Again - I'm not going to get into a dick-measuring contest about whether murder or mass fraud is worse. But Holder letting big banks off the hook was historically awful, and it's not hyperbolic to say that this qualifies as him allowing bank fraud. It's the truth.

This is the last I will say on the subject. This type of unwarranted condescension is why people don't take you seriously. I thought you had dialed it back, but I guess not.

(This is after he asked "what's the difference" between Eric Holder and a literal murderer)

This post does not belong here.

It's unserious to suggest there's no difference between Eric Holder and somebody who literally killed somebody else. He then called me unserious for pointing out there is in fact a difference between Eric Holder and a murderer because (as far as we know) only one of them is a murderer. So yeah, I think it fits over here pretty well.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

And stating obvious facts - that as far as we’re all aware, Atty. Gen. Holder has not murdered anybody - is not ‘condescending’ towards you. Do better, and perhaps stop with excessive hyperbole if you don’t want people to correct/‘condescend’ you.

Nobody is arguing that he did. You are the one pretending like Holder's actions are an opinion-based argument. The fact that you're even arguing that "I said he helped corrupt businesses" shows you haven't done your research. Eric Holder's Justice Department directly let criminal fraudsters and launderers get away if they were a part of a big bank. This is a fact.

Eric Holder had the chance to prosecute those responsible criminally,  prosecutors recommended taking it to a criminal trial, and he went for a civil trial instead. In HSBC's case, the fines were almost $2 billion, a drop in the bucket from the $66 billion in revenue they had for 2013.

If we compare the ratio to the median income, the fine HSBC got for money laundering was equivalent to a misdemeanor possession charge. Again - I'm not going to get into a dick-measuring contest about whether murder or mass fraud is worse. But Holder letting big banks off the hook was historically awful, and it's not hyperbolic to say that this qualifies as him allowing bank fraud. It's the truth.

This is the last I will say on the subject. This type of unwarranted condescension is why people don't take you seriously. I thought you had dialed it back, but I guess not.

(This is after he asked "what's the difference" between Eric Holder and a literal murderer)

This post does not belong here.

It's unserious to suggest there's no difference between Eric Holder and somebody who literally killed somebody else. He then called me unserious for pointing out there is in fact a difference between Eric Holder and a murderer because (as far as we know) only one of them is a murderer. So yeah, I think it fits over here pretty well.

No, not someone who I say helped rich corrupt businesses. Someone who did, through the objective facts of the case, help rich corrupt businesses avoid real accountability. Someone who did not participate in the fraud, but actively allowed it. A cursory Google search can give you this. It's not "excessive hyperbole" - it's the truth.

I'm not concerned about whether murdering someone is worse than allowing people to defraud millions of Americans, or allowing businesses to conceal murderers' money. They're both very, very bad. I'm not going to get into the dick-measuring contest about which Holder is more immoral because they're both awful, immoral people.

You really aren't getting what he's saying.

[Hindsight was 2020]

When things are tough, always look at the fake Kherson offensive

Which settlement to be exact have Ukrainians taken there in recent days?

Good people also keep on supporting Ukraine when things get tough and never surrender to evil.

People are free to support anyone they choose, it's just amusing how much are blindsided by their support.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Given what they post about Republicans and the GOP they really don't have anything valid to say about Mark Levin's rants on how the Democrats are Evil.  Now I agree that some of that is "Excessive Hyperbole" as well, but these people want a one-party state.  It doesn't work that way.

Wisconsin is so gerrymandered but Republicans that the Democrats can’t win a majority without a 20 point majority. Millions of people have no say in their state laws because of the Wisconsin Republicans. Your party is attacking Americans and making us go from “I might vote for them depending on my circumstances” to viewing you as terrifying abusive people.

I do want you to never hold powers. It’s because I think you’re Wahabbists who want to take the vote away.

Do you have ANYTHING you can say in response to that example of anti-democratic values and what I am supposed to think about it except that you are a foot soldier of people who want to take my rights away?

Yes, I do have some things to say.  One is:  "Get a grip!".  The other is:  "Seek help!".

If you really believe this about me, then you need help, either to get you to see people who disagree with you as something other than your enemy, or to recognize your exaggerated sense of what you are entitled to from the Government and from other people, including people you disagree with.

Your last post is unhinged.  

[Joe Republic]

…

I should be tut-tutting and moralizing.  Alas, it's not happening.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Her parents are responsible for that child as well under Louisiana Law, at least until she is fully dead.

A human life has been saved.  Glory to God!

You might wanna read that again, champ

We have to respect all human life, including those born without a brain.

Very important advice when on Atlas forum.

[7,052,770]

They used to make sense and make reasonable arguments, but that was then and this is now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

They used to make sense and make reasonable arguments, but that was then and this is now.

[Boobs]

They used to make sense and make reasonable arguments, but that was then and this is now.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

[Kleine Scheiße]

They used to make sense and make reasonable arguments, but that was then and this is now.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt wake up and smell the asphault you insane goldbug!

[Joe Republic]

Are you trying to be the densest and most hackish poster on the forum?  You've been succeeding at this for quite a while, now

[Battista Minola 1616]

The pile-on in the original thread has been significant already but this post absolutely deserves to be here for its sheer length and arrogance, pure gold.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/404414/gop-political-winds-back-2022.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

It should be more than obvious at this point why 1998 and 2002 turned out the way they did. And why this year will NOT be similar.

In fact, this looks almost exactly like 2014 in many ways, just with even more groupthink and institutional bias in favor of the Democrats. Presidential approval looks nearly the same (also identical to Trump's approval in 2018). Economic conditions are on par with 2010 (!) and worse than 2014, actually. Generic ballot polling is now 10 points more Republican than 2020 and slightly more Republican than 2014's final average. And multiple Senate and Governor races are moving more Republican late as "undecideds" who overwhelmingly don't like the state of the country and Joe Biden decide, and shockingly they're going Republican! So the election mafia can save face and pretend like they never said Democrats were almost certain to keep the Senate at one point, and might even have a good chance to keep the House. Now they can point to their late forecasts/predictions as plausible deniability, which will still overestimate Democrats but look more reasonable in comparison. Maybe Dobbs helped juice the Democrats' turnout by a few points, making the impending Republican wave slightly weaker, but it did not persuade independents, and it never was going to change the overall forecast for this election.

I'm also noticing a recurring talking point popping up recently, that "GOP polls" are "distorting" the averages. Of course, these are the polls that were MORE accurate in 2016-2020 than their top-rated polls from their favorite forecasters who have on average overestimated Democrats in battlegrounds by 3-5 points (in some cases, more!). But nonetheless, these same people will fall back on polling "averages" to try and excuse the polling from YouGov, Sienna, Morning Consult, etc. when it's badly wrong again in a week. Also, if that's the case, why aren't media/universities (which of course are not partisan!) putting out more polling to help "even out" that average? It's going into the final week, after all. I wonder why... I'm also seeing talking points that early voting is somehow good for Democrats so far, as if we didn't live through 2020 and 2021 when the early vote was also used to forecast inaccurate Dem-friendly results. Do people still not get that Democrats need a massive lead in early voting to overcome what will be a massive Republican election-day margin? Slight Democrat leads are not going to cut it. They also conveniently underestimate how many people still vote on election day (as they did in 2020). Early voting actually looks good for Republicans so far, given the context.

How many election cycles do we have to go through this? Is anybody curious why this keeps happening? Or do Democrats and the media just enjoy this narrative war too much where they can make people think they're winning all the time?

[John Dule]

I've never met a religious person in real life and had any kind of a lengthy conversation with them. Maybe someday.

The vast majority of the world's Muslims are extremely patriarchal, sexist, homophobic, and fundamentalist. We have nothing meaningful in common with them.

High-IQ John Dule is here and really shows how very knowledgeable he is about the spooky scary mudslimes. He hasn't met one before (or actually any religious person ever), but he does know how different they are from regular people. He knows that the mudslimes don't have senses of humor and are incapable of empathy. They may even have horns that they hide under their skullcaps! Yikes! Good thing he hasn't met one, they'd probably melt away or shake in violent rage in sheer awe of Dule's brain.

Cringeworthy Muslim Attempts To Distract From The Innate Radicalism Of His Religion Episode #6,402,957,021

What's funny is that if I based my views on interactions I've actually had with Muslims, you'd accuse me of unduly extrapolating from personal anecdotes. It's almost like there's no right way to criticize Islam! Funny how that works.

[John Dule]

I've never met a religious person in real life and had any kind of a lengthy conversation with them. Maybe someday.

The vast majority of the world's Muslims are extremely patriarchal, sexist, homophobic, and fundamentalist. We have nothing meaningful in common with them.

High-IQ John Dule is here and really shows how very knowledgeable he is about the spooky scary mudslimes. He hasn't met one before (or actually any religious person ever), but he does know how different they are from regular people. He knows that the mudslimes don't have senses of humor and are incapable of empathy. They may even have horns that they hide under their skullcaps! Yikes! Good thing he hasn't met one, they'd probably melt away or shake in violent rage in sheer awe of Dule's brain.

Cringeworthy Muslim Attempts To Distract From The Innate Radicalism Of His Religion Episode #6,402,957,021

What's funny is that if I based my views on interactions I've actually had with Muslims, you'd accuse me of unduly extrapolating from personal anecdotes. It's almost like there's no right way to criticize Islam! Funny how that works.

"Innate radicalism" LOL

Wow, very surprising some of these 90%+ Muslim societies want to see their system of morality legislated into law and a majority of these then only wants to apply to members of their religion. Truly radical!

Ok cool, I don't feel the need to add anything else here. Endorsing religious law in any capacity is incompatible with being an American. You're an extremist and I don't care about your opinions.

[John Dule]

Literally nobody is saying that religious law should be enacted in the US, and in fact Muslims are religiously obligated to follow the law of the land in non-Muslim societies as long as there's no contradiction.

Personally following religious commitments and not enforcing it on anyone else harms nobody, and this is what American Muslims like me do. My citizenship is here to stay whether you like it or not

Maybe you should've voted for Trump if you want me deported so bad 

You're an extremist and I don't care about your opinions.

Oh no, Dule just called me an extremist!     

Do I threaten your rights by existing? Maybe you should do something about that! 

Lol, you were just making excuses for the multitudes of religious fanatics in this world who want to enact religious laws. This is an illiberal mentality and it has no place in the United States.

[John Dule]

...in their own countries, not in the United States

You're in the United States and you're defending them.

Just log off bro. I'm not gonna accept the light of Allah no matter how many emojis you throw at me.

[John Dule]

...in their own countries, not in the United States

Just log off bro.

Translated: "I'm logging off because I just realized I don't believe in self-government"

So if I oppose Putin, am I opposing Russia's "right to self-government?" Lol!

[John Dule]

This doesn't make sense because Russia doesn't democratically elect their leaders,

What, and Saudi Arabia does?! Inshallah you shall come to your senses.

Anyway, taking aside the religious discussion, I'm actually curious what you think should happen to these places in the Muslim world. What is your ideal solution in your ideal libertarian utopia?
Do you think they're unfit for democracy? Maybe a "benevolent" secular dictatorship until everyone forcefully is made to forget about Islam and can successfully be integrated?

I don't support any intervention in their governments if that's what you're asking. I think the US should lead by example and provide moral and sometimes financial support to dissident movements, but that's about it. I think we could be doing more to support the recent protests in Iran, but that doesn't mean invasion or anything close to it. Change can only come from within.

It's not like there's anything about the people of the Arab World that makes them predisposed to theocracy. Someday liberal secular capitalism will take root there and drive God from the public sphere. It is inevitable.

[John Dule]

This doesn't make sense because Russia doesn't democratically elect their leaders,

What, and Saudi Arabia does?! Inshallah you shall come to your senses.

I don't support Saudi Arabia though, they've done immense damage to the religion in many ways.

Someday liberal secular capitalism will take root there and drive God from the public sphere. It is inevitable.

Interestingly, I fully agree with this "God being driven from the public sphere" being "inevitable". We believe this will happen too all throughout the world (at least twice). It might not be liberal secular capitalism (maybe it'll be fully automated luxury gay space communism  ), but over time people will stray farther and farther from God until the Mahdi and Dajjal (known to Christians as the Antichrist) arrive, and the second coming of Isa (AS) (Jesus Christ).

The final time this will happen is during the End Times as the Major Signs of Yaum ul-Qiyamah are happening right before Judgement Day.

Of course you think this is the ramblings of a deranged desert madman, but they've never been wrong so far.

Every generation in history has believed it was living through the End of Days in some capacity. Hegel thought so. Fukuyama thought so. The Romans during the collapse of the Empire thought so. And yet time marches ever-onwards.

Pattern recognition is a very good survival trait, but in some humans it has gone absolutely haywire.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Just log off bro.

This fits here pretty well.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

...in their own countries, not in the United States

Just log off bro.

Translated: "I'm logging off because I just realized I don't believe in self-government"

So if I oppose Putin, am I opposing Russia's "right to self-government?" Lol!

Abdullah has Woodbury-level views on Ukraine-Russia, so probably.

You really think its surprising that a place where 90%+ of the population follows the same religion doesn't want elements of that in their governance (and moreover they only want that governance on themselves and rightfully believe in freedom of religion) and that makes them radicals then I have a bridge to sell you

No state with a 90%+ Muslim-majority populace has freedom of religion for other religions.

For some reason the vast majority of American Muslims seem to be fine with a county that allows religious freedom for others.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

No state with a 90%+ Muslim-majority populace has freedom of religion for other religions.

This is quite blatantly false, nearly all countries in the world provide for religious freedom for religions not in the majority, including the vast majority of 90%+ Muslim countries (and in many these minority religions are growing).

In fact, Pew Research in 2018 rated government restrictions on religion being lower than France's (a country you dedinitely wouldn't consider to not provide freedom of religion, and this is four years ago, with the recent push it'd probably be a lot more countries) in Bangladesh, Jordan, Palestine, Somalia, Niger, Mali, and Senegal, all of which are 90%+ Muslim.

French law is more restrictive on religion- for instance, banning religious clothing is common- but most Muslim-majority countries would be extremely judgmental and bigoted against non-Muslims compared to the same circumstance in, say, Sweden.