(11-09-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:26 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump would combine Hitler and Lincoln in the same sentence if he could get away with it.

Donald Trump will quickly turn upon the 'deplorable' people that voted him. He no longer needs them. He will suck up to the 'Establishment' types who have money and media that the common man do not have. After all it is easier to force low wages and brutal management upon working people than it is to deliver those wages.

It never fails. The GOP elites are loyal only to lucre.

Do you actually think about the things you write before you write them?

1.  Combining Lincoln with Hitler is easy.  I imagine both liked mashed potatoes.  As do I.  Am I Hitler?  No.  Am I Lincoln?  No.  But of the two he's far closer to Lincoln than Hitler.

2.  Trump doesn't need their money.  He didn't take it to win office, and he doesn't need it now.  The man is disgustingly rich.  What are they going to offer him?  He already has everything a man could possibly want.

3.  Limiting the supply of labor by enforcing immigration laws and protecting native industry will raise wages and aid in labor organization, not the reverse.  If anything his plan is actually against his own class interests.  We had an other president who was a traitor to his class, I bet you think the sun shines out of his crippled ass.

4.  Who says the GOP elites are going to stay in the GOP.  The elites go to which ever party represents their interests.  They could care less if the mascot is an elephant or a donkey.

The fact is that I posted many ages ago on this forum, and on the old one that I thought that Trump was the GC, assuming the GC must be a political leader.  The fact is that history has already vindicated my position and is vindicating my position.  The Republic was saved on 8th November 2016.

KInser, you're still working awful hard to try to make yourself look smart.  It's not working.

Yours wasn't a prediction; it was a desperate hope.

Trump isn't about money per se.  He's about domination.  Take Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together and they come no where near the power and capacity to dominate this world as the POTUS.  He literally will have in his power to end all sentiment life on this planet in a manner of moments.  If you think Trump is free to do good, however you want to define that, because he's rich and doesn't have to abide to any one for money, you are probable one of the most clueless people on this forum.

If we survive this, the GC will be the one that takes away the awesome power that you morons handed over to the orange anus clown.

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, the problem is that it is the SJW cult and their version of political correctness that has gone too far.  Given the choice between some moron calling me a racial epithet that begins with the letter n and someone assuming that I require affirmative action to get a job or a place at a university because of my race, which is the more detrimental racism?

I could try to explain it but I've tried with Boomers thousands of times and the problem is that they are stuck in the 20th century and don't see the reality of the 21st.

Part of that is subjective.  Do you need or value a job more, or respect?  I would think most would expect and desire both.  Being arbitrarily denied either out of bigotry and hatred seems problematic.

It is also a question of whether the university in question is practicing clear discrimination.   If everyone above a certain rank happens to be white male and protestant, I would favor the SJW over the bigots.  If the balance is close enough to the statistical norm of the local population, if there is no clear evidence of bigots behaving badly, I'd mutter something about the SJW not being an (expletive deleted) and walk on by.

But it's not just job markets, it's how people treat one another.  My sister is a teacher.  There is an increasing bullying problem.  I was bullied enough as a kid that I don't like it one bit.  At this point I'm less concerned about job equality than people treating each other with respect.  Suppressing prejudice and hatred is a long hard process.  Taking a large step backwards seems like a bad idea.

(11-10-2016, 06:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, the problem is that it is the SJW cult and their version of political correctness that has gone too far.  Given the choice between some moron calling me a racial epithet that begins with the letter n and someone assuming that I require affirmative action to get a job or a place at a university because of my race, which is the more detrimental racism?

I could try to explain it but I've tried with Boomers thousands of times and the problem is that they are stuck in the 20th century and don't see the reality of the 21st.

Part of that is subjective.  Do you need or value a job more, or respect?  I would think most would expect and desire both.  Being arbitrarily denied either out of bigotry and hatred seems problematic.

It is also a question of whether the university in question is practicing clear discrimination.   If everyone above a certain rank happens to be white male and protestant, I would favor the SJW over the bigots.  If the balance is close enough to the statistical norm of the local population, if there is no clear evidence of bigots behaving badly, I'd mutter something about the SJW not being an (expletive deleted) and walk on by.

But it's not just job markets, it's how people treat one another.  My sister is a teacher.  There is an increasing bullying problem.  I was bullied enough as a kid that I don't like it one bit.  At this point I'm less concerned about job equality than people treating each other with respect.  Suppressing prejudice and hatred is a long hard process.  Taking a large step backwards seems like a bad idea.

Can we instill respect today? You can teach kids the meaning of the word. You can tell them what respect is about and the positives associated with the term. But, can you instill it like it was instilled into me as a kid. How many parents are blessed with angels for kids? The way we are expected to raise our kids today assumes that we are all being blessed with angels today. Children who are all born with respect, who can do no wrong who are all perfect angels. Does that sound realistic to you? What's our choices today? We can take a bit risk and swat our kids in our homes, medicate them or pay a hefty price for counseling. Whatever happened to threatening a kid? What happened to the use of corporal punishment? What happened to an adult ruffing up a kid as a means to instill respect? What happened to a group of kids or a kid beating up a bully? Did the uppity liberals take those rights away? I have respect but I'm not going to give it someone who doesn't show it or act like they have it. Granting respect ain't going to instill respect or automatically result in a world with respect.

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer.  Quite simply it isn't effective parenting.  Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid.  You may as well quote from the National Inquirer.  No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

(11-11-2016, 01:51 AM)taramarie Wrote: What is the answer of what to replace the current hostile environment? Here have been a few suggestions by someone that i know. A fellow millennial. I totally agree with this list.

"1. If they are complete strangers and you don't have some type of skill-set in persuading people (negotiator, educator on related topics, etc) I would not even bother. Frankly, it takes a lot of patience that I don't see in many people. If you view the person you are trying to persuade as an adversary, there is a good chance that things will go south by the end of the exchange.

The rest of these are assuming you have some type of relationship to the person, even if you are just acquaintances. I also think that they mainly work with in-person interactions. For the specific situation you gave, I think social media is a horrible mismatched medium to use. Without an actual physical body to interact with, these tools get harder to use.

2. Active listening, labeling and mirroring. This is most of what you will be doing. People have their own ideas of what the term "systemic racism" even means. Let someone explain their views/understanding. Resist the need to label them ("you are ignorant, racist, etc"). That will derail the entire conversation. The individual can't absorb information while trying to defend him/herself. You need to know what they know. Mirror back what they said, so both parties can confirm that you understood their viewpoint correctly. Once they confirm it, you can actually *start* the conversation.

3. Don't force someone to admit you are right. That's not the point of the interaction and if someone senses this, they will instinctively resist what you say.

4. Rinse and repeat. When you get to the end of step 2, you can start providing information. But even with that, the persuader has to stay even-tempered and non-judgmental. Avoid starting sentences with "Why". Why is accusatory and puts people into defense mode."

(11-11-2016, 12:17 AM)taramarie Wrote: Watch the video under this heading "Pie thinks he knows who is to blame for the rise of Trump...and you're not going to like it!"

Certain people here should watch this. In fact all could benefit from watching this as this happens on both sides.

What caused the rise of Trump

(11-11-2016, 02:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: An interesting article that breaks down country folk vs urban folk through media and how it applies to the world around us to explain the Trump phenomenon.

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

(11-10-2016, 05:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not fighting with Bob. I pointed out to Bob where his partisan views of me were way off again. I associate Bob with a party that regularly engages, encourages, supports and allows the use of anti-white sentiment. The Democrats aren't very smart people. Smart people don't do or allow stupid shit that creates a bigger issue for themselves. Are Democrats capable of pulling their heads out of their asses and using them as intended. We'll see.

(11-11-2016, 02:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: An interesting article that breaks down country folk vs urban folk through media and how it applies to the world around us to explain the Trump phenomenon.

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer.  Quite simply it isn't effective parenting.  Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid.  You may as well quote from the National Inquirer.  No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

(11-11-2016, 02:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: An interesting article that breaks down country folk vs urban folk through media and how it applies to the world around us to explain the Trump phenomenon.

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

(11-11-2016, 01:51 AM)taramarie Wrote: 2. Active listening, labeling and mirroring. This is most of what you will be doing. People have their own ideas of what the term "systemic racism" even means. Let someone explain their views/understanding. Resist the need to label them ("you are ignorant, racist, etc"). That will derail the entire conversation. The individual can't absorb information while trying to defend him/herself. You need to know what they know. Mirror back what they said, so both parties can confirm that you understood their viewpoint correctly. Once they confirm it, you can actually *start* the conversation.

(11-10-2016, 06:17 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:26 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump would combine Hitler and Lincoln in the same sentence if he could get away with it.

Donald Trump will quickly turn upon the 'deplorable' people that voted him. He no longer needs them. He will suck up to the 'Establishment' types who have money and media that the common man do not have. After all it is easier to force low wages and brutal management upon working people than it is to deliver those wages.

It never fails. The GOP elites are loyal only to lucre.

Do you actually think about the things you write before you write them?

1.  Combining Lincoln with Hitler is easy.  I imagine both liked mashed potatoes.  As do I.  Am I Hitler?  No.  Am I Lincoln?  No.  But of the two he's far closer to Lincoln than Hitler.

2.  Trump doesn't need their money.  He didn't take it to win office, and he doesn't need it now.  The man is disgustingly rich.  What are they going to offer him?  He already has everything a man could possibly want.

3.  Limiting the supply of labor by enforcing immigration laws and protecting native industry will raise wages and aid in labor organization, not the reverse.  If anything his plan is actually against his own class interests.  We had an other president who was a traitor to his class, I bet you think the sun shines out of his crippled ass.

4.  Who says the GOP elites are going to stay in the GOP.  The elites go to which ever party represents their interests.  They could care less if the mascot is an elephant or a donkey.

The fact is that I posted many ages ago on this forum, and on the old one that I thought that Trump was the GC, assuming the GC must be a political leader.  The fact is that history has already vindicated my position and is vindicating my position.  The Republic was saved on 8th November 2016.

KInser, you're still working awful hard to try to make yourself look smart.  It's not working.

Yours wasn't a prediction; it was a desperate hope.

Trump isn't about money per se.  He's about domination.  Take Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together and they come no where near the power and capacity to dominate this world as the POTUS.  He literally will have in his power to end all sentiment life on this planet in a manner of moments.  If you think Trump is free to do good, however you want to define that, because he's rich and doesn't have to abide to any one for money, you are probable one of the most clueless people on this forum.

If we survive this, the GC will be the one that takes away the awesome power that you morons handed over to the orange anus clown.

Hey, how did that presidential election between the two New York City democrats work out anyway? I haven't heard...

(11-11-2016, 07:59 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 01:51 AM)taramarie Wrote: 2. Active listening, labeling and mirroring. This is most of what you will be doing. People have their own ideas of what the term "systemic racism" even means. Let someone explain their views/understanding. Resist the need to label them ("you are ignorant, racist, etc"). That will derail the entire conversation. The individual can't absorb information while trying to defend him/herself. You need to know what they know. Mirror back what they said, so both parties can confirm that you understood their viewpoint correctly. Once they confirm it, you can actually *start* the conversation.

This is the big thing sorely lacking here in the US right now.

(11-11-2016, 07:49 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer.  Quite simply it isn't effective parenting.  Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid.  You may as well quote from the National Inquirer.  No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

Corporal punishment teaches kids that it is OK to react violently to problems involving other people being dicks.

And for me personally grounding me from my Nintendo was far more effective than spanking ever was.

(11-11-2016, 09:26 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 06:17 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:26 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump would combine Hitler and Lincoln in the same sentence if he could get away with it.

Donald Trump will quickly turn upon the 'deplorable' people that voted him. He no longer needs them. He will suck up to the 'Establishment' types who have money and media that the common man do not have. After all it is easier to force low wages and brutal management upon working people than it is to deliver those wages.

It never fails. The GOP elites are loyal only to lucre.

Do you actually think about the things you write before you write them?

1.  Combining Lincoln with Hitler is easy.  I imagine both liked mashed potatoes.  As do I.  Am I Hitler?  No.  Am I Lincoln?  No.  But of the two he's far closer to Lincoln than Hitler.

2.  Trump doesn't need their money.  He didn't take it to win office, and he doesn't need it now.  The man is disgustingly rich.  What are they going to offer him?  He already has everything a man could possibly want.

3.  Limiting the supply of labor by enforcing immigration laws and protecting native industry will raise wages and aid in labor organization, not the reverse.  If anything his plan is actually against his own class interests.  We had an other president who was a traitor to his class, I bet you think the sun shines out of his crippled ass.

4.  Who says the GOP elites are going to stay in the GOP.  The elites go to which ever party represents their interests.  They could care less if the mascot is an elephant or a donkey.

The fact is that I posted many ages ago on this forum, and on the old one that I thought that Trump was the GC, assuming the GC must be a political leader.  The fact is that history has already vindicated my position and is vindicating my position.  The Republic was saved on 8th November 2016.

KInser, you're still working awful hard to try to make yourself look smart.  It's not working.

Yours wasn't a prediction; it was a desperate hope.

Trump isn't about money per se.  He's about domination.  Take Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together and they come no where near the power and capacity to dominate this world as the POTUS.  He literally will have in his power to end all sentiment life on this planet in a manner of moments.  If you think Trump is free to do good, however you want to define that, because he's rich and doesn't have to abide to any one for money, you are probable one of the most clueless people on this forum.

If we survive this, the GC will be the one that takes away the awesome power that you morons handed over to the orange anus clown.

Hey, how did that presidential election between the two New York City democrats work out anyway? I haven't heard...

--- rofl.... except $hillary's a Goldwater Girl & proud if it so that makes her a de facto repug


RE: Kinser's 2nd point- isn't the Donald donating his presidential salary or something?

(11-11-2016, 12:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 07:49 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer.  Quite simply it isn't effective parenting.  Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid.  You may as well quote from the National Inquirer.  No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

Corporal punishment teaches kids that it is OK to react violently to problems involving other people being dicks.

And for me personally grounding me from my Nintendo was far more effective than spanking ever was.

OK. You seem to know everything. So,  good luck with solving the increase in  bullying,  lack of discipline and lack of respect  occurring in schools.