Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
43 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

When ICE raids a plant and say ten people are rounded up, there likely will be 1 us citizen wrongly swept up, there likely will be 2 cases of immigrants that really should be here that are law abiding and productive and the rest will likely be really horrible people that never should have been here and need to be deported post haste.

Racist little pigfucker, go fuck yourself.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This is the foundational problem.

Reporting on simple facts, like "the temperature data gathered in the Gulf of Maine over the past 50 years shows that the body has reached a temp 4 degrees warmer than its long-term average" is liberal slant/bias.  You have a POTUS firing the head of the BLS because....it reported and adjusted job numbers using the EXACT same methodology it has used forever, including during his first term, Obama's term, Biden's term, etc.  Reporting of ACTUAL FACTS is...to use the exact word from the leader of "conservatives" is "rigged."  

A society never gets over that.  We are going to gut every single entity that gathers or reports on objective data and facts.  Because....objective data and facts are enemy #1 of an authoritarian government.  It's not any more complicated than that.

Agree with a lot of this but you are over simplifying and ignoring context.  No serious person ever bitches about reporting of increased temps in the Gulf of Maine.  Some may question the methodology of the temp data or question if the data is raw or smoothed, but most every serious person will agree with the findings to some degree.  It is the opinion of what caused the increase or what that means for the future that is debatable.  I remember the very old thread by MOP (I think) talking about the prediction of an ice free arctic.  There was wide spread coverage of the issue.  The implications were catastrophic.  Now, a few decades later, Arctic ice extent is within a few percentage points of its mean and I haven't seen a show or read an article about arctic sea ice in years.  My guess is that if someone did simply report that "for 2024 the arctic sea ice extent was within 5% of the historical average of testing" (which is true) that it would be met with conservative, climate denying slant/bias.

Your last point is just too stupid.  There is so much more information available today than in any point in the world's history.  To suggest an "authoritarian" government can gut these entities is just ridiculous.  The numbers are provided to everyone.  The government has no control of the numbers or their dissemination.  All of the data collected gets shared with the entire freaking world.  The govt may get a first look but all the info gets out.  If Trump decided tomorrow to completely eliminate the BLS, all of the information that the BLS publishes will still be available.  Hell, AI could analyze payroll data of virtually every company in the world in almost real time and give us a much better picture of what is going on.

Posted
1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

But not one single article about the positives.  Not one.  Just throw in one article out of 20 that details the deportation of hardened criminals, rapists, human smugglers etc. 

Because we have almost always deported convicted criminals upon discovery?  Nothing novel about that.

And Trump's immigration sweeps clearly have nothing to do with deporting criminals.  It's a pure accident if they happen to deport a convict.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Hell, AI could analyze payroll data of virtually every company in the world in almost real time and give us a much better picture of what is going on.

At which point the publisher of the conclusions of that AI would be sued by the administration for defamation.

You either really, really don't get the game here, or you're being purposefully obtuse.  And we know which one it is.

If we as a Republic -- governed by a REPRESENTATIVE government (including the executive) -- believe that "bias is bad, and truth is good," you'd see SOME action by this government to rein in the insane and obvious lies promulgated by the conservative media sphere.  You see....zero.  Instead, you see only active coordination between the government and those sources to promulgate objectively false information.

I'm not "suggesting" an authoritarian government can quash speech it finds unfavorable, I'm flat-out saying it can and will.  Such governments have done so in the past, and this government is actively working to do so in real-time.  Will there be counter-information out there, underground, spoken about on password-protected websites and such?  Of course.  There always has been.  That's not the point.  The point is that THIS current strategy is about controlling the population, via controlling the common, accessible sources of information.  Force truth-based journalism to be practiced on printed leaflets handed out from vans in Wal-Mart parking lots, while all mass-media must conform to the administration's false narrative?  That's the authoritarian play.  A play that is being run, successfully, and fully supported by fascist authoritarians and their eager enablers.  Such as yourself.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

His proportions are not just incorrect.  They reveal the foundational flaw and evil in modern conservative thought: their "feelings" about an issue absolutely trump and void any and all facts.

Sheeeit posits that out of 10 people arrested:

10% will be wrongly arrested (that number is perhaps high, but genuinely unknown -- the percentage of genuinely legal residents arrested (green cards, actual citizens) remains tough to sort out at present)

20% will be ordinary, otherwise law-abiding and productive people just living their lives and working (this percentage is the OPPOSITE of the actual ratio)...and

70% will be "really horrible people" (again, a percentage that is even MORE the OPPOSITE of what has been seen thus far -- around 8% of people arrested have some sort of serious criminal activity on their record)

THEN, he uses HIS bias of the facts as HE believes them to assail NPR for being counter-factual in its bias.  No, I'm sorry, I know facts hurt conservatives' feelings, but they're still facts. The reason that all objective journalism on this planet is painting a shittastic picture of the actions of this admin is because....those actions are genuinely shittastic.  Even outfits that are seen as generally center-right (like the Economist) tell the identical tale. Why?  Because....the facts are the facts.

I listen to NPR in the morning.  They REGULARLY invite conservative officials and commentators on to discuss the issues....and those people REGULARLY state outlandish, counter-factual bullshit.  I mean, obvious and insane counter-factual bullshit.  And when the host politely prods "but how to you respond to the analysis that shows that only 8% of the people arrested have a serious criminal record," they just lie some fucking more.  And NPR gets painted as "liberal biased" because it says "ummm....what you're saying does not match up to the known data, do you have different data you can share?"  There is no honest discussion with people whose entire worldview is based on the lie that their feelings are superior to all objective facts.  Those people are called "authoritarians," and they are the enemy of any functioning nation state.

Why do we still call them conservative? There is nothing conservative about anything they do.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

And Trump's immigration sweeps clearly have nothing to do with deporting criminals.  It's a pure accident if they happen to deport a convict.

Also this simple and obvious truth.  If we saw targeted actions, where ICE was going to specific addresses to arrest specific "bad dudes" who had committed violent crimes.....most folks would be at least accepting of that.  That's not what we're seeing.  

Instead, we see them going after people who are FOLLOWING the rules (showing up to their scheduled hearings)....and then gaming it to arrest them and shove them in facilities hundreds or thousands of miles away NOT to process them for deportation, but to make them suffer and make a point (don't want to be sent to a gulag for an indefinite term?  You best GTFO America).  This is you.  This is what you want, this is what you've got, and this is what you OWN.  And you will own for all of history.  History was not kind to fascist collaborators last century.  Eventually, it will get it right this century as well.  May your grandchildren be embarrassed to say your name.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Pam Cummings said:

Why do we still call them conservative? There is nothing conservative about anything they do.

Excited Gold GIF

Posted
29 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Agree with a lot of this but you are over simplifying and ignoring context.  No serious person ever bitches about reporting of increased temps in the Gulf of Maine.  Some may question the methodology of the temp data or question if the data is raw or smoothed, but most every serious person will agree with the findings to some degree.  It is the opinion of what caused the increase or what that means for the future that is debatable.  I remember the very old thread by MOP (I think) talking about the prediction of an ice free arctic.  There was wide spread coverage of the issue.  The implications were catastrophic.  Now, a few decades later, Arctic ice extent is within a few percentage points of its mean and I haven't seen a show or read an article about arctic sea ice in years. 

As per usual, your facts are wrong. The cause of global warming isn't debatable from a scientific standpoint. It is greenhouse emissions from human activity. The arguments you've heard the contrary aren't from folks that actually know what they are talking about, but political bullshit artists. End of story. Artic ice extent is very much still an issue and very much still decreasing:

https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

 

image.thumb.png.836c9e8e37b9136ace4e41bded852df6.png

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/2025-winter-maximum-sea-ice-extent-arctic-smallest-record
 

Quote

 

2025 Winter maximum sea ice extent in Arctic smallest on record

The National Snow and Ice Data Center reports that Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its seasonal maximum extent on March 22, 2025, 10 days later than the 1981-2010 average. Despite the late peak, it was the lowest maximum extent of the 47-year satellite era, which began in 1979.

The new record-low winter maximum is part of the long-term trend of shrinking ice cover across the Arctic as a result of global warming. All of the top 10 smallest winter ice extents of the satellite record have occurred since 2007. That pattern is clear in the graph below: the darkest lines are the most recent years, and they sit at the bottom of the stack, meaning they are also the lowest extents.

 

If you're not seeing articles on this issue, it is because your chosen new sources are ignoring them or actively lying to you. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Why do we still call them conservative? There is nothing conservative about anything they do.

They are fascists. Plain and simple 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

As per usual, your facts are wrong. The cause of global warming isn't debatable from a scientific standpoint. It is greenhouse emissions from human activity. The arguments you've heard the contrary aren't from folks that actually know what they are talking about, but political bullshit artists. End of story. Artic ice extent is very much still an issue and very much still decreasing:

https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

 

image.thumb.png.836c9e8e37b9136ace4e41bded852df6.png

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/2025-winter-maximum-sea-ice-extent-arctic-smallest-record
 

If you're not seeing articles on this issue, it is because your chosen new sources are ignoring them or actively lying to you. 

the slavish insistence on treating their idiocy as a reasonable counterparty in a discussion is maddening. It's not """being equitable to both sides""" - it's equivocating alchemy and chemistry. One is bullshit fantasy and one is hard science. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

My comments haven't been remotely trollish. I want to know why your entertainment requires other people's money. You offer no rebuttal. I feel like you should have some shame at your basic lack of any sense of responsibility. Why are you more special than everyone else? Why doesn't my entertainment get subsidized too? And yes, I believe your sense of entitlement is a stain on society. Countries succeed when old men plant trees under whose shade they will never rest, not when old people suck every last drop of life for their short term benefit.

I will await your measured and well thought out response. 

You’re retarded. 

  • Haha 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...