Life

So the truth of the matter is that Jews are not allowed to actually go to the Temple Mount. Only Arabs. All we get is the Western Wall and that's still too much sometimes.

Takkiyah.I want to see their reaction to the idea they want to move to a country that endorses free speech. If I drop a picture of Muhammed on them in the middle of an interview and they can't accept the idea that I can draw Muhammed all I want, then they are not compatible with the USA.

You were not misinformed. You deliberately made up it up. Even a simple Google search would have told you that.Being misinformed means that you were not provided all the details and came to a conclusion without knowing the full story. But everything you said was factually incorrect. I am salty about it because I think it was more important to you to claim that I was wrong despite the fact that I brought up the case for a reason (because you hadn't heard about it before). The least you could do is try to understand why I see them to be similar. What you did was intellectually dishonest in my eyes. Next. Thought policing is jailing someone for their thoughts and words, not actions. I've called Trump out on his words. You want him in jail with no due process. As for the last point, no. Forcing a Muslim to draw Muhammed is like forcing a Jew to eat pork. I said that I don't agree with that. But forcing a Jew to watch someone else eat pork as an ideological test is acceptable. Like showing a Muslim a picture of Muhammed. I'm looking for their reaction. If they want me dead for drawing Muhammed, I don't want them in my society. Speaking of which, I should call Crowder out on that one. Haven't done so yet.

I like charter schools more than public schools. I think public schools are a waste of money and resources.I think they're both terrible people. I want to see them both before a court of law along with Hillary as being an accessory. After that, let justice run its course.

That's fine. I personally think that there should be an ideological test. I like Steven Crowder's idea regarding a drawing of Muhammed but he wants Muslims to draw Muhammed. I say show them a picture of Muhammed and observe their reaction. Also, to Raven. Your snark does not give you the right to blatantly make up shit about something that could have been Googled. Every statement you made with regard to the Jian Ghomeshi case is false because had you used Google (or even looked at the topic on page 2), you would have seen that less than 24 hours after Ghomeshi's "Dear Everyone" letter, the Toronto Star published an article about 3 different women claiming sexual assault. You're allowed to be snarky and disagree with me on lots of shit. That doesn't let you patently lie about a case that you know nothing about simply as an attempt to show that I'm a nut job.

Recorded? No. But there were rumours flying around CBC for years.And Raven, no, it wasn't one women. There were four charges of sexual assault on record and another 20 or so allegations. There's a topic here that I started about the case and how it all went down. And remember that that case unfolded in a period of 48 hours with no political ramifications. Why am I the only one here who is saying "hey, the law is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"? You all have made the assumption that he is guilty by default. Saying that he "can" get away with it is not proof that he did such things. That's thought-policing, bro.

I'm saying this reminds me exactly of the Jian Ghomeshi case. And exactly how the unfolded. Spoiler alert: He was found not guilty on charges of sexual assault.

Gonna reply onto the last paragraph because I think it's the only one with substance. When I say "left", that's because I don't agree with the ideas that are left wing. Welfare, public education, health care... that stuff. I think they're not that good in practice and as a result, I think they're dumb. But I can hold conversations with those people because they're willing to listen to my side. "Regressive left" is the culture of identity politics that has been overtaking the left. It is designed to be an insult at SJWs. The problem is, this culture is becoming more prevalent and has led to race riots (as an example). As for my opinions being batshit crazy, they might be to you. I see them as tenable positions that can be argued. So do others. No trolling done whatsoever. Does that answer your question?

4-0 since Lynn took over.Watching this offense is actually fun now. But we got NE/Miami/Cincy/Sea in the next four games. Here's the test.

1) I thought he was more of an idiot until now. As I mentioned above, this crossed a line for me.It's not that he said "pussy". It's that he actually insinuated that it is acceptible to commit sexual assault on married women because he is rich. Whether or not he has done so is irrelevant in my eyes. Someone I know on Facebook tried to argue with "you've probably said something like that too". The answer is no. I don't condone sexual assault at all. PS: On this forum, I know that there are a few posts that could blow up my statment. Bonus points if you find them and understand why they don't. 2) It's not that the rape allegations never existed. But Trump's been called a mysogonist for over a year. If the goal here was just to destroy him, then they would have surfaced in the primaries. But rather, they only come to light a few days after Anderson Cooper point blank asks Trump if he has ever sexually assulted women. And the cases are located in states that are vital for Trump to win (Florida and Ohio). What I'm saying is that this is all tied up in a neat bow perfectly for Clinton. I think the way this was leaked was deliberate because it feels like a Hail Mary that ended up being caught in the endzone. 3) I don't care about your opinion on my "left vs. right" outlook. But I do push a little harder right here than I really am in my personal life. There are a few reasons for why but the biggest one is because I use this forum to test out the veracity of opinions that I question. So I take the hardline right wing stance here as a way to see if I personally agree or don't. Think of it like training ground for ideas. I'm still right wing with my opinions. And I still have an issue with the regressive left. But on Facebook (with friends and family), my actual opinions are represented and I feel that I articulated my opinion on this matter the best there. Am I asking you to believe me? No. Couldn't care less. But I was disgusted by the Billy Bush tape. And furthermore, I officially got off the Trump train afterwards. My "flip-flop" (as you call it) was such: I gave Trump a chance to convince me. He did (or rather, it was other factors). And then he turned me off. I see no reason why you believe that I must marry my opinion to the guy when new evidence emerges.

*sigh* According to UNESCO, there is no connection between Judaism to Jerusalem. Other breaking news is that there is no connection between macaroni and cheese. I'm more interested in the ramifications of this move by UNESCO. I personally think that Bibi is going to call an election within the next year and use this as a debate point ("the UN hated us, I told you so, I'm the only one who has been defending us") so... more Bibi. Yay. Anyone got thoughts about the whole thing? Here's a good article from YNet (probably our best news source). http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4866113,00.html

Haven't been here in a while (internet issues). I might be a week and a half late to the party but here was my Facebook post regarding "grab her by the pussy". Regarding the sexual abuse allegations, I think that it is suspicious about how perfectly it lined up for the Clinton campaign. Not saying that they're necessarily false but the timing and locations (one in Ohio and another in Florida) make me think that the Clinton campaign had a hand in it. I view them like I did regardinh Jian Ghomeshi. Trump is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That does not make me think that he isn't capable of doing such acts or isn't a terrible human being. Since I now think that Hillary has an easy path to the White House, it's time for me to start getting involved in Israeli politics because I am starting to get worried about what this means for us. I'm assuming that there will probably be an election by June (Bibi is going to ride the UNESCO decision if he's smart) so that way, I can start working on a campaign and start learning about the finer details of our situation.

Actually no.I have a voluntary agreement with the landlord to pay him X in order to live there. It's not coercion if he kicks me out because I can't pay. It's because he is not making any money off of the agreement we made. I don't have to live there in the first place. That's the point. I entered into a business deal of my own volition. Reread your statement. Raven, I'll get to you later. But quoting each segment means a shit load of copypasta which adds at least 15 extra minutes of headache. Hence why I go full response rather than breakdowns. If you really want, I'll break down everything in the last post that I responded to.

First of all, I have no respect for anyone who forces themselves sexually onto another person. I don't think that person can be rehabilitated because by doing so once, it shows the level of respect they have for another human being, which is to say none. To me, there's no crime worse than that and I am absolutely for the death penalty for rapists.Next. The system needs to stay the same in general if we were to institute capital punishment for rape. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also, regarding Snowy's strawman, it might be offensive... but it doesn't make it wrong. Let's go with this. I am opposed to feminism in the way that Huffington Post portrays it. Pretty sure that it's referred to as Third Wave Feminism.

First, citation needed. Let's go with UN statistics.http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/fullreport.pdf Skip to page 24. Or don't, only Asia has radically decreased poverty in 30 years and the charts before page 24 reflect that. Ok. Why taxes are theft. A tax can only be collected by the government at the end of a gun. If I don't pay taxes, I go to jail. Correct? That is coercion and no different than breaking into my house and stealing 20% of my income every year. The difference is that rather than it being done without my knowledge is that it is done by force. Think of it like a mugging rather than burglery. Now the question becomes "do I personally agree with where that money goes in order to sanction the tax". If it goes to welfare (example), I do not sanction it. If it goes to defense, I do. Next topic. You said "why do I care about Steve Jobs, he's dead". Pretty stupid answer because you missed the point regarding how a rich person helps society more with business rather than being taxed. So let's just say Apple rather than Steve Jobs. Apple sells you an iPhone for $300. You buy it because you think the value is worth more than $300. Apple sells you something that is worth less than $300 because that is how you make a profit. Both of you win due to a mutual transaction. Now is your life better or worse without that iPhone? Worse. Apple essentially created wealth by creating the iPhone. They get mega rich, your life gets enhanced and everyone wins. This isn't a zero sum game. You haven't gotten poorer because you believe that the iPhone is worth more than what you were willing to pay for. Now with regards to slave labour, you do know that that's simply not true, correct? Nobody is forcing anyone to work. When children work for $2 a day in China, there's no gun to their head. They do it because their alternative is not working in a factory, instead working on a farm and probably starving to death. Same thing in America. Capitalism works because every transaction is done voluntarily. If I believe that I am getting underpaid by my work, I can quit. Nobody is forcing me to work. And if a business underpays everyone and everyone quits, the business goes under. Pretty simple concept. Next is progressive taxes. Since I laid out why taxes are theft in my opinion (which you are free to disagree with but I don't think you bothered to even understand my opinion), I firmly believe that taking more money from someone just because they have more money is wrong. As I pointed out earlier, companies (and people as an extension) who are rich are able to create wealth for more than just themselves. Not to the same level as the person who is rich but wealth is still created. Let's go with Trump for a second. Let's say that Trump decides to build a hotel in... how about Tel Aviv? First of all, Trump is incurring all the risk. Nobody else. Pretty important point. So buy building a hotel in Tel Aviv, Trump creates jobs. People then come to the hotel and stimulate the economy outside of the hotel by just being there. Like if they go down to the beach and buy a bottle of water. Now at the end of the day, Trump deserves the profits. He incurred the risk. Hillary said that that Trump needs to share those profits and the only way to do so is by force. Now it could be that he has to share with only his employees or he could be taxes to share with everyone. But nobody aside from Trump incurred the risk. And furthermore, Trump was able to create wealth for other people by wanting more money. At no point should Trump be taxed more because he has more money. In fact, the more money he has, the better my life is. If Trump can't build that hotel because he's getting taxed too high, no jobs are created. Instead, you're taking his money and saying that he has less right to it than everyone else. That's capitalism as explained by Adam Smith and as shown by Hong Kong. Now you asked "what if the money goes only into food and rent"? That still stimulates the economy. That supermarket can continue to run because it makes a profit and you still get something out of it (food). Same thing with rent. That is still capitalism but on a smaller scale. I think you should read Atlas Shrugged and skip to the part about the small community where the people do transactions based on their self-interest. All you've done is give me an emotional argument. Which is funny because it comes on the back of accusing me of an emotional argument (with no proof). Yours is emotional because you quite literally said "but think of the poor kid in Buttfuck, Ms who doesn't have access to the same education as a kid in NYC". But according to you, I'm the only one who makes baseless statements and you know everything. So who am I to speak? ;)

It doesn't matter how much the rich pay. Taxes are theft. Income is not even. It doesn't have to be. Steve Jobs made billions selling iPhones. You decided to buy an iPhone from him and helped make him a billionaire. How is it now your right to say "you know that money that I gave you for your product? I want you to pay for x, y and z and you will do it at the end of a gun"? Short answer is, that's coercion. It's done at the end of a gun. And that is not OK with me. Raising taxes on someone successful is theft. All you've done is validate my point. At the end of the day, capitalism allows everyone to proper because all business is done volutarily. Look at South Korea. Look at Hong Kong. Those are examples of nations who lifted themselves out of poverty within a generation. Lure capitalism brought 1 billion people out of poverty in Asia over a 30 year period. And it didn't require a $15 minimum wage. Also, you admit that Hillary won the debate with help from Holt. Imagine a scenario where Holt interupts Hillary as many times as he interupts Trump. Like any time Hillary claims that the Iran deal was good. It's OK that he interrupted Trump more. But it shows that the two of them needed to gang up on Trump. So you've proven my point for me. For the guy above me, it works like this. A business should be able to decide how much to pay its employees. If it is too low by the employees standards, then the employee has no obligation to work for the business and the business will go bankrupt. Why do you think cheap labour exists? Because employees are willing to agree to the conditions. There is no gun. Employees make money and the business makes money. Win/win. Again, Hong Kong and South Korea are your examples. As for Trump going off topic, it is Hillary's job to point out the flaws in his argument, not the moderator. The same way that it is my job to point out the flaws in your argument, not Eclipse's. Fact checkers in a debate are silly. If the candidate is prepared enough, that candidate should be able to point out mistake without requiring help. I don't understand why nobody gets this.

That is absolutely acceptable in my opinion.

I won't deny that the Turner case was handled terribly. Or that I believe that the punishment for rape is lower than what I think it should be (I'm for capital punishment for rape).But it doesn't change the fact that the system has to be innocent until proven guilty. Without giving me an example, I can't tell if you want it to switch or not.

Agree entirely with this. Absolute mistake if Trump doesn't prepare for the next one. I hope Kellyanne Conway can rectify that.

Lot of content here. First to Phoenix, I think all tax is theft. But I am willing to accept taxes in certain places because I believe that the trade-off is worth it. Security for one. Public education up until age 18 as another (that would be on a state level only). Public education is the one that seems hypocritical but realistically, I don't think that charity can reasonably cover schools for those who can't pay, even if I want it to. I don't believe in a flat tax for the purpose of "fairness of the system". The flat tax is simply because if I am going to forced to pay taxes, it is because I want to enjoy the benefit as much as the person next door if I need to be taxed for it. And likewise, I shouldn't pay more or less for it proportionately. Sure, it hurts the poor class more since 15% (example, not my actual want because I haven't looked into the specifics) of 30k is significantly more than 15% of 300k. But the logic for anything else doesn't make sense. I shouldn't have to pay 30% while he pays 15% because I make more just to enjoy the same benefit. Again, education is the one exception to this thought. And that's based more on reality and accepting that it levels out the opportunity level without actually ruining those who don't participate. Basically, a net positive trade-off in my mind. Res mentioned raising minimum wage. I'd rather lower it if I can't abolish it all together. As someone who lives on just more than minimum wage and has done so for 5 years, I think that it is terrible economically. Bot to mention that it leads to cost of living having to raise due to devaluing the dollar. As for the debate itself, I think it was a tie and that was with heavy moderator help from Lester Holt. Am I accusing Holt of favouring Hillary? Absolutely. Does it bother me? Surprisingly no. But I do think that it took two people to actually break Trump and that only happened 45 minutes in. Let's put this in perspective. There is nothing Trump could say that would surprise me regarding Clinton. And I have already stated multiple times that I don't support for his policies but for my hatred of Hillary (both as a person and policy maker), her party and her main voter base (the regressive left). So I looked at it as entertainment. Trump was great for 45 minutes and ended up looking out of it at the end. And Hillary needed the help of Holt who interrupted Trump 6x more than Hillary. A tie. Now for all the polls, I find it hilarious because both sides are looking for justification and it's funny. Like I said, tie in my opinion or even slightly for Hillary. Trump definately didn't win and screwed up quite a bit (YOU MORON, YOU DON'T ADVOCATE FOR NO FLY/NO BUY).

I don't agree with the idea that this is an issue.First of all, 1% means having a salary of about $450,000 or more. If we tax them at 80%, they are now making less than $100,000. That's not a cushy life anymore. Secondly, I have a fundamental problem with the idea of democratically stealing money from the rich. Because that is what taxes are, especially when they are uneven. It is punishing the rich for being successful and claiming that you deserve a part of that money. I don't care if the money is going to a good cause, I take issue with the fact that the rich have to part with a vast portion of their earnings at the end of a gun. Thirdly, I know a leftist (not saying any of you feel the same but maybe you do) that will swear up and down that Capitalism is evil. Capitalism is responsible for the success of South Korea, Hong Kong and bringing a billion people out of poverty in Asia over a 30 year period. And none of that included heavily taxing the rich.

Hold on.You think that taxing the rich 80% is acceptable? On what basis? Who are you to say "I deserve some of your money because you are successful"? Are you really trying to say that it is acceptable for the public to steal the rich's money "for the greater good"? This is important because a lot of people like to villanize tax cuts when they don't get that the top 1% already pay about 50% of the taxes in America. And yet, it is unacceptable to them that successful people prosper without realizing that these people are creating wealth for more than just themselves (I mean society in general). Thanks for the sauce.As I stated, I believe in a flat tax. That's my own opinion.

CNBC, Time, Fortune...Economists also think that Thomas Piketty's plan to tax the rich at 80% (which is theft) is acceptable so... yeah.

I think Trump's economic policies are semi-garbage while Clinton's are even worse.I would like to see tax cuts across the board and would prefer a flat tax. Also, sauce me. Edit: Hmm... Check out @PrisonPlanet's Tweet: https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/780758268792668160?s=09

I personally would have loved a debate about policy since I am so fundamentally against every one of Hillary's economic policies and I would have just been call "FACT-CHECK THAT SHIT" all night long. Also Tryhard mentioned Snowden. Here's my own take on whistleblowers. A whistleblower is someone who is trying to put corruption on full view in public notice. So each case must be handled seperately. First and foremost, the information that the whistleblower has must be accurately reviewed. If it shows a case of corruption or another morally abhorant act, I'm absolutely for no punishment for the whistleblower. But if there is no evidence of corruption or egrarious action, then that's aid and comfort. Each one has to be case by case.