The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

[publicunofficial]

Wow, almost completed my SJW bingo card now. Great honer!

[ElectionsGuy]

No, he hasn't. He's fine. You not liking his views doesn't make him a bad poster.

This is basically the "I put posts in here that I disagree with" thread.

Yes. Yes it is.

[Cashew]

I am not a Trump supporter. I didn't vote for him. But your only conversation with me is trying to label me as such.

Says the Australian.

[heatcharger]

I am not a Trump supporter. I didn't vote for him. But your only conversation with me is trying to label me as such.

Haha. Meclazine is utterly terrible.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You would think that for two people from a party that values originalism and the Constitution above all, the legal and political standing of the Courts would be understood.

[Cashew]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

What do you advocate that the state you live in do?

-I say let them remain untreated then, but wouldn't mind too much if the state legislature ignores my advice -they have careers.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Come on, Cashew, do you really wish every Republican was as honest as I or not? Conservatism is an ideology of the strong.

[Cashew]

Come on, Cashew, do you really wish every Republican was as honest as I or not? Conservatism is an ideology of the strong.

What gives you the authority to define what conservatism is? I could just as well go farther and define a true conservative as a supporter of monarchism. In the United States I would agree, social Darwinism is the dominant strain on the right, no matter how much they deny it, but most true right wingers worldwide are are their core collectivist, not classically liberal individualists.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Come on, Cashew, do you really wish every Republican was as honest as I or not? Conservatism is an ideology of the strong.

What gives you the authority to define what conservatism is? I could just as well go farther and define a true conservative as a supporter of monarchism. In the United States I would agree, social Darwinism is the dominant strain on the right, no matter how much they deny it, but most true right wingers worldwide are are their core collectivist, not classically liberal individualists.

-Monarchism is also an ideology of the strong (the princes in particular).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Come on, Cashew, do you really wish every Republican was as honest as I or not? Conservatism is an ideology of the strong.

I wish every Republican was as honest as you so the whole sorry collection of Spenglerians and gangsters would be at least marginally easier to pummel into the electoral oblivion it deserves. The Democrats can go next.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Come on, Cashew, do you really wish every Republican was as honest as I or not? Conservatism is an ideology of the strong.

I wish every Republican was as honest as you so the whole sorry collection of Spenglerians and gangsters would be at least marginally easier to pummel into the electoral oblivion it deserves. The Democrats can go next.

-The reason the party does not sink into the electoral oblivion is its politicians are either frequent practitioners of the art of compromise, or, as in the cases of Paul, Cruz, Flake, and Lee, just not powerful enough.

[Cashew]

Come on, Cashew, do you really wish every Republican was as honest as I or not? Conservatism is an ideology of the strong.

What gives you the authority to define what conservatism is? I could just as well go farther and define a true conservative as a supporter of monarchism. In the United States I would agree, social Darwinism is the dominant strain on the right, no matter how much they deny it, but most true right wingers worldwide are are their core collectivist, not classically liberal individualists.

-Monarchism is also an ideology of the strong (the princes in particular).

Not today. There was once a time when they would actually have to struggle for their role, and govern, which was somewhat respectable. What is more contemptuous is this "Divine right of kings" which is a blatant attempt to kick down the ladder of social mobility for future and more worthy rivals. Nowadays however they get subsidized for having accomplished nothing, and have no threat to their throne, nothing strong about that.

But anyway, I wasn't really disputing the monarchy thing, just pointing out how absurd it is for you to attempt to monopolize the definition of conservatism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

We going full Neitzsche? That ain't conservatism, buddy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Peak Wulfric.

The laughable state that YECers get themselves into with their whole "The earth is only 6,000 years old" shtick and the "God made some things look old, or rapidly changed rates of change, to deceive humanity and reveal who REALLY believes" line, and the whole "The flood split up panagea, and created 90% of the entire grand canyon, and created the appearance of magnetic changes, and made all our date methods be off by BILLIONS of years, and...." (the flood was global, but was tranquil in effect, or at least tranquil when compared to YEC assumptions of what it is/was capable of) thing is not science and should be called out for what it is: Utter stupidity. That being said, so is the Darwinist idea that humans are here solely through natural selection and luck. It is very clear that while Microevolution is a natural process, Macroevolution happens only through the direct command of god. Ultimately, the truth is that both Darwin and the YECers are wrong regarding the origins and early history of the earth, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The intersection of science and religion is inevitable due to the bible directly contradicting the idea that the creation of the world, from beginning to end, happened fully through natural processes. NOMA is a joke that, when revealed for what it truly is, is shown to be nothing more than a phrase teachers use to make religious parents less mad when they accuse the teacher of teaching atheism to their child through instruction in the theory of evolution.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Welp, landfill has been renamed again.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Peak Wulfric.

The laughable state that YECers get themselves into with their whole "The earth is only 6,000 years old" shtick and the "God made some things look old, or rapidly changed rates of change, to deceive humanity and reveal who REALLY believes" line, and the whole "The flood split up panagea, and created 90% of the entire grand canyon, and created the appearance of magnetic changes, and made all our date methods be off by BILLIONS of years, and...." (the flood was global, but was tranquil in effect, or at least tranquil when compared to YEC assumptions of what it is/was capable of) thing is not science and should be called out for what it is: Utter stupidity. That being said, so is the Darwinist idea that humans are here solely through natural selection and luck. It is very clear that while Microevolution is a natural process, Macroevolution happens only through the direct command of god. Ultimately, the truth is that both Darwin and the YECers are wrong regarding the origins and early history of the earth, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The intersection of science and religion is inevitable due to the bible directly contradicting the idea that the creation of the world, from beginning to end, happened fully through natural processes. NOMA is a joke that, when revealed for what it truly is, is shown to be nothing more than a phrase teachers use to make religious parents less mad when they accuse the teacher of teaching atheism to their child through instruction in the theory of evolution.

-Only the second paragraph is correct.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Welp, landfill has been renamed again.

Yup. That's what you get for posting social Darwinist drivel.

[Higgs]

Hillary, without hesitation. Better the horrifying neoliberalism of Hillary than outright embracing fascism.

Apparently voting for Tulsi Gabbard is embracing fascism.

[Higgs]

Signature: "President Trump, get used to saying it."

and?

[RFayette]

Peak Wulfric.

The laughable state that YECers get themselves into with their whole "The earth is only 6,000 years old" shtick and the "God made some things look old, or rapidly changed rates of change, to deceive humanity and reveal who REALLY believes" line, and the whole "The flood split up panagea, and created 90% of the entire grand canyon, and created the appearance of magnetic changes, and made all our date methods be off by BILLIONS of years, and...." (the flood was global, but was tranquil in effect, or at least tranquil when compared to YEC assumptions of what it is/was capable of) thing is not science and should be called out for what it is: Utter stupidity. That being said, so is the Darwinist idea that humans are here solely through natural selection and luck. It is very clear that while Microevolution is a natural process, Macroevolution happens only through the direct command of god. Ultimately, the truth is that both Darwin and the YECers are wrong regarding the origins and early history of the earth, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The intersection of science and religion is inevitable due to the bible directly contradicting the idea that the creation of the world, from beginning to end, happened fully through natural processes. NOMA is a joke that, when revealed for what it truly is, is shown to be nothing more than a phrase teachers use to make religious parents less mad when they accuse the teacher of teaching atheism to their child through instruction in the theory of evolution.

As a theistic evolutionist, it's sad to see Wulfric butcher it so badly.  The idea that microevolution is "natural" but macroevolution is only possible via direct intervention from God (which, by the way, I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive, but that's a different story) is silly, considering that the entire definition of macroevolution is that small adaptations over time guided by natural selection eventually lead to the creation of new species (and higher taxonomic classifications).  While it certainly can be the product of divine intervention, the mechanisms of "microevolution" are perfectly sufficient to produce various kinds over time.  

It's also amusing because the genetic similarity between humans and our closest extant relatives (chimpanzees) is closer than that of say, gorillas and chimpanzees, a divergence which many might consider "microevolution."   

[Dr. Arch]

Welp, landfill has been renamed again.

Yup. That's what you get for posting social Darwinist drivel.

True. JJC has never gotten even close to the point of saying, "Well, let them die."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Click for context:

Yes.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

-Great idea! We should allow criminals into the U.S. to finally transform it into an open sewer like Haiti!

[Intell]

Hillary, without hesitation. Better the horrifying neoliberalism of Hillary than outright embracing fascism.

Apparently voting for Tulsi Gabbard is embracing fascism.

She is a fascist hindutva supported, who was in Syria, based upon an anti-semitic group, and meet a foreign dictator, that kills many of it's citizens.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think her vote for Carson as well as vote against Canadian drug imports will come back to haunt her, and while people are saying she'll fire up the base, you can't win with just the base as we saw last year with progressives staying home. She certainly lost any chance I'd support her with the above votes.

Warren didn't vote against Canadian drug imports.