Swill Merchant
-
Posts
184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Swill Merchant
-
-
2 hours ago, row_33 said:
NT was seen as heavily pro- Roman Catholic by a lot of conservative atheists in my life. I’m not RC and did not agree with this judgment for over 4 decades
that post was way beyond the limit for me
NR has sadly chose to sit in a corner sucking its teeth refusing to accept Trump won or done a thing to encourage an administration that is truly conservative
its been a sham since WFB left, even the back pages are worthless for cultural info
sad about magazines, The New Republic took the worst nosedive over the last 20 years
I do think NR has some very talented writers on its staff, I agree with your depiction of the publication as a whole.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:
You know this for a fact? Are you her? Is it your gym? Where you the gym attendant who talked to her?
Are you suggesting that if we cannot make a dispositive determination that it iss not true then it must be true?
-
6 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:
Because apparently, once a month or more it seems to happen, and gets clicks on 'news' sites either by woman interested on it, and guys want to stare at a picture of a girl that's apparently scantily clad or inappropriately dressed....
Like many 'news' stories today, theres 2 sides to every story. In this case, no one is sure if this gym has a dress code she may have been violating, and something that can be considered 'revealing' doesnt always mean it has to be exposing skin.
I can understand today a gym being worried about what people are wearing there. The last thing they want is to be part of a lawsuit or bad publicity due to a woman making allegations of being sexually harassed or assaulted at their facility. It's never an excuse, an woman should be able to be free to wear whatever they want without fear of harassment or assault, but in reality, your in a place where males testosterone are at high levels and woman are there wearing tight outfits or showing skin, it's a recipe for bad things to potentially happen.
Interesting that you take for granted that she's telling the truth.
-
I believe the Democrat's victory lap will prove to be premature.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:
I don’t buy this story.
I’ll bet that there is more to it, which usually seems to be the case with these viral social media stories.
In this case it appears there is less to it.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, row_33 said:
National Review after it knee-jerked and viciously attacked Sandmann and friends.
Stating he might have might as well have spit on the cross...
It has since been retracted and an "apology" issued.
***** THEM, I'm cancelling my 46 year subscription now.
The apology wrang hollow. Many seem to think their only sin was jumping the gun. They seem blind to the notion that their malicious attacks on teenagers who were already being systematically destroyed throughout msm for the alleged crime of non-violent harassment were not appropriate even if the story had been true.
-
21 hours ago, RaoulDuke79 said:
I have a feeling that either some of these stories are BS or there's more to the story than what's being told.
I'm pretty sure the story is BS. That was my gut feeling so I looked at her Twitter feed. She never names the gym, the pic looks suspect (she now claims she took it before the incident), and her feed is full of feminist posts. Sounds like a wannabe activist trying to get attention.
-
3
-
-
38 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
What? What the ***** do I have to admit? I didn't do anything.
My question exactly.
Rather than speak in vague platitudes, I would appreciate Mr. Biden explaining specifically what I am responsible for and why. Otherwise I am forced to conclude that he is espousing empty rhetoric aimed at promoting racial division for nefarious purposes.
-
22 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
And all the condemnations from Catholics schools, GOP politicians and people all across the political spectrum were wrong too, I suppose. Lol, the right wing echo chamber sure has its own reality.
Your inability to acknowledge your error is telling. When one has the courage to admit his mistakes he earns some level of respect, as he is communicating a willingness to apply self criticism and a commitment to the truth.
He who is unwilling to do so, in the face of overwhelming evidence of his error, shows only that he lacks both character & credibility.
That this involves the nationwide demonization & doxxing of an innocent teenager makes yours all the more contemptible.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
The left is immoral and inhumane. They have no regard for the truth and wilfully destroy the innocent to advance their propaganda.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42418/walsh-4-lessons-we-can-learn-despicable-smear-matt-walsh
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, row_33 said:
Tough call
Weee handed the makeup call in OT today though
The "make-up" call in OT was a legitimate call. Plus, there is no make-up call when the right call would have ended the game.
-
2
-
-
-
The officials quite literally stole the game from the Saints. There should be an asterisk next to this game in the record books.
-
1
-
-
As someone who approached this game with indifference, I m now pullingly strongly for the Saints. The alternative is the losing team dvancing to the Superbowl due to an egregious missed call by the officiating crew.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Logic said:
https://medium.com/s/story/what-happened-when-a-trump-supporter-challenged-me-about-the-wall-e54e86a5edd1?fbclid=IwAR1d_5b4gazBYOJXw-p5LIBoTgCuDuQIlOuaW7hrrruu79u0ajjxcoX90pk
The article above -- which I'm sure most won't click on before calling me an idiot -- uses only conservative sources to point out why the wall is such a bad idea. The pieces cited in the above article are listed below if you want to skip directly to them. They all point to the same fact, though:
"The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions—namely fear and hate. Along with Fox News, he has convinced his base that immigrants put them in 'extreme danger' and only a wall will make them 'safe.'
Unfortunately, their need to feel safe is much stronger than their will to grapple with a complex, multifaceted problem—a problem that will require serious engagement with complex policies to get at the root of it.
And so, here we are, paralyzed by shutdowns at every turn."
Cato Institute: “Why the Wall Won’t Work” https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work
Former Reagan staffer and Tea-Party liaison Donna Wiesner Keene: “The Conservative Case Against a Border Fence” published by U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/10/12/the-conservative-case-against-a-border-fence-trying-to-stop-illegal-immigration-with-a-really-big-fence-would-be-a-futile-waste-of-money
The Chicago Tribune (a conservative-leaning paper): “Trump’s Wall Is Performance Art, Not Border Security” https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-perspec-chapman-trump-wall-mexico-immigration-20180314-story.html
National Review (conservative magazine): “Trump’s Border Wall Plan Is Ridiculous on Its Face” https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-border-wall-plan-ridiculous-guaranteed-failure/I'll not call you an idiot, but I will expose your argument.
First, you have posted an editorial that cites other editorials as its sources, and presented it as fact.
Secondly, none of those sources are what they are purported to be. Not one addresses the specific proposal of the President. The common argument made by all is that a wall doesn't address overstayed visas (no one is suggesting it would) and that a wall can be tunnelled under (obviously). I'll take them one by one.
1. National Review - Written in 2016 by Andrew McCarthy, this discusses a 1000 ft concrete wall. The primary criticism is not of the wall itself, but of the proposal to have Mexico pay for it. He mentions that $10b "barely qualifies as a rounding error" to the U.S. government.
2. Chicago Tribune - Touted as a conservative source, the writer, Steve Chapman, is a left-leaning, anti-Trump opinion writer. He also writes of a 1000 mile concrete wall. His primary arguments are that it doesn't address overstayed visas, and smugglers will use tunnels & boats. He (unwittingly) admits that walls/fences re-direct illegal crossing to other areas.
3. CATO - This is also about a 1000 mile concrete wall. Many of his primary arguments, such as lack of opacity & drainage issues, are not relevant to the proposed steel barrier. He admits barriers re-direct border crossers to other areas (that don't have physical barriers).
4. US News - This 2011 article is about a 2000 mile fence from "sea to shining sea."
So the take away is that walls don't address overstayed visas, can be breached if not monitored and patrolled, and effectively funnel border crossers to other areas.
This is nothing everyone did not know already.
-
4
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, row_33 said:
nope, you keep poking a bear and you'll get mauled
it's a business and you keep away from anyone unless it's on good terms
By all accounts I've seen Martin was giving it back and playing it off like they were *****-talking friends up until he flipped out and RI realized he "broke J-Mart."
I don't purport to know all the details, nor do I claim RI is necessarily blameless, but whatever his transgressions, it appears based on the evidence we know now, the case prosecuted by the media in the court of public opinion was unduly harsh.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:
But as I just started the wall was meant to keep people from moving beyond the wall in either direction. Was keeping them in communist East Germany a priority? Yes. They also were looking to keep people out.
I will give you that there is a difference there in some ways but I've grown frustrated with this issue because on Fox News and the like and even Trump himself has compared rich people's homes having walls around them or doors being locked to homes to border walls. I hope you call out how obnoxious that is too?
And you are cherry picking the weakest little last to be mentioned tidbit of my post as a way to try and discredit all of the other points I made about the wall itself before that. You are cherry picking.
I picked that point because it disturbed me. As previously stated, dishonest discourse is a pet peave. Honest disagreement is another story.
As to the comparison between border walls and home security walls, I think the meaningful similarities are greater there than in your comparison to the Berlin wall, but the distinctions are significant enough that I do not tend to use those comparisons.
-
9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
Actuslly, there is. Because this isn't about a wall, it's about who runs the country, Trump, or Pelosi and Schumer. Who all have a history of defining "compromise" as "I get what I want, and you can suck it."
Neither side is compromising on that. It's a straight-up Manichaean death match.
Your overall point is correct, however, the unwillingness to compromise is not symmetrical in my estimation. The President has gone from a $20b concrete wall to a $5b steel barrier. Pelosi has said under no condition will they provide any funding for any barrier at any time. She's not even giving the appearance of a willingness to compromise.
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:
The Great Wall was built to keep people out and it was ineffective. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in by East Germany yes but also they said, to keep Capitalism out. They didn't allow people to cross in either direction except with permission legally at points like our own legal points of entry.
Either way this is semantics. This is only one small point in a long post about why I personally am against the wall. Also in or out really isn't that much different. The question is does the impediment of a wall stop people from illegally getting to the other side? The answer is that it is only partially, I would even say minimally effective. The history of wall building has always had ties to totalitarian governments.
It is not a matter of semantics in any sense. It goes directly to the intent and purpose of the wall. Your argument relies on a guilt by association style correlation fallacy. To follow the principle you're espousing consistently you would have to conclude that the nature of prison walls is indistinguishable from those of a bank.
-
For whatever faults RI may have, and he clearly has many, I have always thought he got a raw deal as it pertains to Jonathan Martin.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
He based his entire campaign on building a wall and having Mexico pay for it. And he stated on camera when with Pelosi and Schumer that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government. Why should the American public give him a pass on actual statements he's made? I care about them, and most people I know do as well.
No, the Senate voted to provide a spending bill with no funds for the wall, that would extend government funding through February.
You can try and deflet all you want, but it is the President that said he will take responsibility for closing the government over the wall funding. His words. Do his words not matter?
You do not appear interested in getting to the substance of the issue. You prefer a Crossfire level discussion, which I find neither interesting nor constructive.
These are campaign talking points that are irrelevant to determining a workable resolution at this juncture.
These are not even issues that are important to you. They're talking points you think might persuade others to your POV, but they certainly aren't the core reasons why you hold your position. At least I hope not. That would be unbelievably sad.
-
19 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:
That was your big response? When you get flustered you resort to one liners and insults I see. Im not crying to anyone. I'm a hard working guy. My wife is easily the most intelligent person I've ever met and is also an extremely hard worker. We are actively looking for work.
I apologize if my sharing our story during this government shutdown has somehow triggered you into behaving like an immature, arrogant and demeaning empathy lacking jerk.
I'll happily engage in honest discussion with those of opposing opinions. However, I maintain a low tolerance threshold for dishonesty. Especially in a forum such as this one.
If your error was a matter of genuine ignorance then an apology may be in order. However, you seem to have sufficient familiarity with the subject matter to know better.
If you have a good argument, put it forth. If you have to lie to make your point you should reconsider what motivates you to make such a point.
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
Is Trump even negotiating with Mexico now to pay for the wall? I mean what gives here? Has he totally given up on this?
No one cares. Least of all you.
-
2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
I read this. What it says is that in the previous Congress the Senate (which was controlled by Republicans) passed a stop gap bill with no funding for the wall, that would fund the government through February. The House, which at the time was also under Republican control, passed a bill with 5.5 billion for the wall. So I don't quite get how the Democrats blocked funding for a wall. If you are referring to the Senate not getting past 60 votes for the House bill, then perhaps that makes sense. But the Senate did pass a bill to keep the government open back in December.
Like it or not, you have divided government now, and like it or not when the President met initially with the Democratic leaders, in that now infamous White House meeting captured on camera, he accepted responsibility for closing the government if he did not get his wall funding. His words, in plain view for all to see and hear. And now he wants to say it's not on him. Sorry, but that simply does not fly.
Not that Democrats could not negotiate more. I think ultimately the Democrats should agree to funding walls where the experts on border security says they are absolutely essential. They are going to have to give, as is the Executive branch. But the President made his bed, now he has to lie in it.
And none of this answers the question of why the vast majority of government could not be opened right now, and allow for more negotiation of Homeland Security budget including the wall. Nor does it answer why until the balance of government changed this was not a crisis or emergency requiring shutting down government until the president got his money, and that it only became an emergency crisis when control of the House changed.
The Senate didn't need 60 votes to pass it; 50 would have sufficed. The Senate needed 60 votes to override the Democrats who were blocking the vote. They refused to let it go to a vote, thus opting to shutdown the government.
Both parties have gone this route. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
8 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:I think for myself, thank you very much. I tend to take heat from both sides because I've always been more of an independent. I'm a registered Democrat but I hold a lot of hate for the established politicians in both parties. I loathed Hillary Clinton probably as much as if not more than most right wingers and not because of her emails or conspiracy theories but because of her actual voting record. Her corporate PACs, the Clinton Foundation and how she is an ultimate politician without moral compass. I see her as a power seeker not a public servant. I remember watching videos of her rallies around the nation where she claimed to come under sniper fire a dozen times but the video of the trip she claims that she is holding kids and shaking hands and laughing it up on the tarmac. The DNC rigged the Primary for her. The Democratic Party establishment is very corrupt but so is the GOP leadership. Both parties are bought and paid for by big money lobbies whether it's Big Pharma, Big Oil, Wall Street or others.
There is a rise within the Democratic Party that does have me excited though of "Justice Democrats" who refuse to take any lobby money. They have the entire Democratic Party running scared. I guarantee you will see endless hit piece attempts on any of them that try for a 2020 Dem bid come from both the GOP and the Dems. The establishment can't control those who don't take the legalized bribery that has become our model of governing. So again, I'm not biased. I'd vote for a Republican in a heartbeat over an establishment Democrat if the GOP candidate didn't take corporate PAC money and the Dem did.
As for the rest - as you said they didn't have the votes in the Senate but the Senate has rolled to appease the will of Trump. It's sad that they are falling in line and Mitch isn't even letting them vote. Rumors are there are enough votes in the Senate to achieve a veto override but Mitch refuses to bring a vote to the floor which is a stunning rejection of the Democratic process. Trump is not a totalitarian dictator. Mitch needs to let the Senate be it's own separate body and vote.
I don't want a wall not because of the Democrats but because of my own research. A wall is minimally effective and monumentally cost heavy. Those who want to get into this country illegally typically won't just see a wall and give up. They can go under, over and through it. There is border fencing along a lot of the at risk points initially identified by border security but they still tunnel under. A saw can cut through the steel slats they are currently pushing. Trump projections for wall pricing are way below what they will actually be. Let's also be real - Trump is rebranding the wall into a fence but still calling it a wall. About half of all illegal immigration are Visa overstays. We also have people enter by land not along the Mexican border by boat, by plane and by way of Canada. We have topographic issues and eminent domain issues which further complicate matters. Maintenance will be a continuous burden over time. Illegal crossings are at a 46 year low as is. 90% of the drugs that cross the southern border cross via legal ports of entry which a wall won't stop. Other larger cartel supplies have not been impeded by the barriers in place. The cartels are the ones using drones and tunnels.
Will a wall delay some people long enough for border agents to intercept? Sure, I suppose. But simple technology for radar and tracking along the border along with satellites and surveillance will also do that. I'd rather hire more agents and pay human beings than pay for an easily defeated inanimate object. We could also use more justices and more into the administrative and legal part of ICE that processes immigrants who try to legally enter to encourage usage of legal paths of citizenship. The wait times are often over year just to have your inquiry to enter the country even reviewed and in the mean time they are held. This encourages desperate illegal crossings.
Then I research historical border walls. What types of governments built them and if they were effective. I think the Berlin Wall and the Great Wall of China. Historians say the Great Wall provided China little security and the Berlin Wall we know fell and was crossed consistently. We also know the types of governments in place for those nation's - hint hint - they weren't the Democratic kind. Sorry, a wall is not for me. I don't think it's the best answer. Not even close.
Anyone lacking the capacity to distinguish between a wall built to keep people out and one to keep people in is not worth engaging.
May you and your wife enjoy your self-pity party. I have a violin playing in the background for you.
Coonman says it wasn’t him, after yesterday’s apology ???
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
That would be a mistake both politically and ethically.