Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rushy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 250  Next >
1
It's the election dead man switch. The Democrats are unhappy their genocider-in-chief did not win the election, so they released 43 murder monkeys to give everyone GMO rabies. Their desire to reduce the human population drastically cannot be understated.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 08, 2024, 07:04:53 PM »
You're saying the government is lying in a way which:
a) Would be very noticeable in the country and

Yes, it is very noticeable. Here I am, noticing it.

b) Makes no sense

It makes no sense to a reasonable human being. It makes perfect sense to murder millions of people "for the greater good" when you are a demonrat.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 08, 2024, 02:55:45 PM »
Rushy in "providing no evidence for his claims and dismissing all evidence which shows him to be wrong" shock exclusive!

Me: the government is lying
You: here is the government saying they are not lying
Me: they obviously would not tell you they are lying
You: haha no evidence!

 ???

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 08, 2024, 02:34:01 PM »
Those missing 15 million Democrat votes aren't people that decided to stay home, they're dead. They took the vaccine and it killed them.
Which is impressive given that's more than the total number of people who have died in the US since the vaccine was available.

Oh no, you mean to tell me the government that gave millions of people a deadly injection would also lie about the numbers of deaths that have occurred?

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 08, 2024, 02:08:59 PM »
Those missing 15 million Democrat votes aren't people that decided to stay home, they're dead. They took the vaccine and it killed them. Demonrats sacrificed their own people in their sick quest for "climate correction" through depopulation. It's also why they want abortion so badly. Demonrats hate human beings and want them dead.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 06, 2024, 09:04:45 PM »
Alright, this is for my fellow far-right nazis: when are we going to set up the concentration camps? Have we set up the handmaid's tale outfits for women, yet? I feel like there's a lot on the agenda we need to get properly scheduled.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 06, 2024, 08:13:14 PM »
The rest are bot votes fed via the machines.
Ah yes, but this is one of your claims and those don't require evidence. I'm catching on now.  ;D

I'm sure it's merely coincidence that all the manufacturers of voting machines donate to the DNC.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 06, 2024, 07:33:48 PM »
Your opinion is definitely to be taken seriously.

Not that any of this matters. Harris owns all the voting machines. The steal is already in, folks. It's over for Trump.

That's the sad part. Harris did rig the election, but it still wasn't enough. In reality, maybe a few million people only in a third world region, like California, actually voted for Harris. The rest are bot votes fed via the machines.

Harris would have done a lot better had she not mistakenly told everyone she worked at McDonald's when she obviously has not.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 06, 2024, 06:47:31 PM »
In 2020 he lost of course

That's a funny way of saying "in 2020 it was easier to print fake ballots and drop them off".

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 06, 2024, 04:39:19 PM »
Now that the election has been decided, the market is through the roof. My portfolio is printing very many dollar signs right now.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-fed-meeting-dow-nasdaq-sp500-live-11-06-2024

Free infinite money is back on the menu, boys.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 06, 2024, 02:25:27 PM »
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.
What was the other option though when Biden was so clearly unfit for office?

The other option was not hiding Biden's cognitive decline in the first place. Being "forced" to choose an extremely unpopular VP to run was a result of that bad decision. Had the DNC ran an actual primary instead of a farce, they might not be staring down the barrel of the reddest government the US has seen in decades.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 06, 2024, 02:11:37 PM »
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: November 01, 2024, 02:33:38 PM »
According to the most recent polls listed on that website, the majority of respondents do support bans on assault rifles, although in the past the majority opposed them.

Assault rifles are already banned and have been for decades. The gallup polls do not mention assault weapons, so I will search for polls that do in addition to the ones you have found.

This fits with other recent survey information I've found here and here.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

It appears that assault weapon bans do have the edge in support.

It's very misleading of you to point to the one section where the opposition won by a slim majority and ignore the section directly after where the opposition lost and by a bigger margin. I will say, though, that most polls I've looked up about public support for trans rights are all over the place, and it's hard to tell whether there are more results that suggest more people do support trans rights or the other way around. Nevertheless, whatever personal opinions Americans might hold about trans people's behavior, they're reasonably consistent in rejecting politicians who obsess over them. Ron DeSantis seems to be the only major politician who's found success lately in engaging closely with the culture war. Why this subject is apparently such a winner with him, I don't know, but then again, I also don't know why anyone would elect (and re-elect) an unpleasant, scowling little man with zero charisma or warmth who angrily snaps at his audience every time he gives a speech, so maybe Floridians are built different. There's a stark difference between personally disapproving of someone else changing their gender and voting for politicians who regularly rant about trans people and seemingly focus on them at the expense of issues that people actually care about, like the economy.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-reject-anti-trans-bills-but-support-for-this-restriction-is-rising

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/anti-trans-platforms-lose-elections/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-trans-laws-not-politically-214632748.html

I don't think trans issues have been highlighted for long enough in modern politics to go as far as to say "this policy causes you to lose an election". My point was only that it doesn't have very wide support and I think that's clearly the case. Whether or not it costs Harris many votes is yet to be determined.


By saying that some abortions should be allowed, people are agreeing with Democrats, not Republicans.

This isn't necessarily true. Depending on how someone views abortion, simply being pro-choice might not be enough to have them avoid voting for pro-life candidates. Many pro-choice voters believe in emergency-only abortions and more lenient policies advertised by Democrats may disturb them.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 01, 2024, 02:13:56 PM »
No, not "then." You latched on to half a sentence in my first post and ignored everything else I said to make it seem as though I was being pedantic. I'll post my first quote again so there can be no misunderstanding:

I don't think I have to ignore anything you say to make it seem like you're being pedantic. After all, this entire, hmm, "discussion" is based entirely on you being pedantic!

But it doesn't "allude to the things you say." I'm not saying that the we-were-wrong-please-forgive-us elements are there, but they're too indirect for my liking. I'm saying they aren't there at all. The author isn't admitting to (or hinting at, or vaguely indicating, or whatever wording you prefer), being wrong about anything, outside of the anecdote about her family trying to social distance while hiking. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the main point of this article is that she claims to have been right along but is such a big person that she's willing to forgive  her critics. Have you read the article, by the way? Because I wouldn't be surprised if you still haven't.

Well this is certainly an opinion. While I can't claim your wild interpretations of other people's words is "wrong", I can point out that it doesn't seem to be the natural conclusion I would expect someone take take away from the article.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 31, 2024, 01:41:27 PM »
You should really just read the article. I know you think you don't need to, but you should.

So this is your argument so far:

1. The article wasn't written by the government. It doesn't matter.
2. THEN - Okay, so even though it wasn't written by the government, I suppose it can matter, but it doesn't say exactly what you want it to say

We're trying to adventure towards the next natural point:

3. THEN - Okay, so it may allude to the things you say, but that's not good enough. It should say them verbatim!

After that, we can go even further! We can discuss your precise interpretation of sentences. This requires you state why you believe what you do, rather than just saying "hmm actually this article doesn't say anything".

You see, honk, like yourself, other people don't like admitting they made huge mistakes during the pandemic. They have to hint at it, while pretending to have been correct all along, but also giving away that they realized they were in the wrong. I suggest you thoroughly read the article with that in mind.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: October 31, 2024, 01:30:49 PM »
Poll update:

National: Trump +0.1 -- This Day In History: October 26, 2020: Biden +7.8 | October 26, 2016: Clinton +5.4
Arizona: Trump +1.0
Nevada: Trump +0.7
Wisconsin: Harris +0.8
Michigan: Harris +0.6
Pennsylvania: Harris +0.2
North Carolina: Trump +0.4
Georgia: Trump +2.1

Poll update:

National: Trump +0.4 -- This Day In History: 2020: Biden +7.4 | 2016: Clinton +1.3
Arizona: Trump +2.5
Nevada: Trump +0.5
Wisconsin: Harris +0.2
Michigan: Harris +0.5
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.8
North Carolina: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +2.4

This election would be ridiculously close had Harris and her goons not already programmed the voting machines. It's going to be a blowout for Comrade Harris.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: October 31, 2024, 01:26:24 PM »
https://abcnews.go.com/US/ballot-box-set-fire-west-coast-portland-oregon/story?id=115221030

I wonder how quickly the burning ballot box stories will disappear when they figure out who was setting them on fire.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 31, 2024, 01:06:29 PM »
If you'll notice, that was not addressed to you. I was talking to Action80. You made a post about an article, I responded to you about the article, and then Action80 responded to me and quoted a line from the article. I quite naturally assumed that we were still discussing the article and responded in kind. If I had known that he wasn't interested in the article and just wanted to bitch and moan about covid policies, I wouldn't have bothered engaging with him.

Oh no, I have responded to things not said directly to me. Perhaps you should stop posting in the thread, since your original reply never addressed you in the first place.

Okay, so we're back to the point that not only have you not read the article, you haven't even read my previous posts where I discussed the article. Again, I would encourage you to read the article. Like I said in my previous posts, the author (a woman) is in no way apologizing for or admitting fault with regard to the most controversial covid policies involving mandatory public masking or vaccinations, and mostly criticized schools being closed for too long, not from the perspective of someone who's admitting that she was wrong and is asking forgiveness, but from the perspective of someone who claims to have been right all along and is condescendingly offering to forgive her critics.

This is almost as bad an interpretation of the article as your replies to my posts have been. Which isn't shocking, but it is annoying. The article is about "woops, sorry we did all that stuff, our bad!". Any further interpretation is your personal fluff posting.


Two problems here. First of all, if what you said was too stupid to be taken seriously, then you shouldn't have said it to begin with.

He says, hopefully to himself, in a nearby mirror...

You focused on half a sentence from me ("It's an opinion piece written by one person who in no way "represents" the government or any company") and ignored everything else I said about the actual content of the article. If you had read my post, you would have seen my response to the argument you just made before you had even made it. Just like if you had read the article and not just the headline, you would have known that it's not saying what you think it's saying.

My bad, honk, from now on I will only reference articles written by the press secretary of the white house. Nothing else is good enough.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 30, 2024, 01:49:45 PM »
Ah, my mistake for assuming that your response to me would be about the subject I was discussing. In any case, if you're not talking about the article, then I've got nothing to say to you.

Then why did you respond at all? It seems like all you wanted was some kind of weird "gotcha" where you inform me that a newspaper is not actually owned by the government. Thank you for the informative post, very helpful.

How else could I possibly interpret that other than you apparently thinking that this article came from the same people who gave us covid policies? But if I'm wrong, as you insist I am, then please just tell me what it is that you did mean.

Businesses and governments are collections of people. People who pushed covid nonsense, collectively, as people. Some of those people (ergo: they) are publishing articles about having pushed this nonsense on their fellow man. Did this man personally pass covid legislation? No. Does he represent a certain apologetic factor in having people engage in performative nonsense? Yes.

People are the people that pushed covid policies (yes, that includes you!). The government isn't some magical entity that forces people to do things. Those people do things in voluntary agreement with the government. They don't actually have to do them!

I'm not interested in re-litigating covid policies.

I think this is the core problem. You're not actually interested in a legitimate discussion. You just wanted to reply with nonsense. Did you genuinely believe anyone here believed a single newspaper represents the entire government? The answer is obviously no. Did you ask me to clarify? No. You wanted to imply a ridiculous take just to sound righteously incredulous. Good job.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024
« on: October 30, 2024, 01:30:43 PM »
Correct. In neither thread have you presented any evidence for your assertions.

That you still think I need to provide evidence of simply stating "x didn't happen/x didn't exist" continues to be your problem, not mine.

Do you even know how Google works? If I Google something I'm not going to get the same results you do. Google tailors its results to the individual depending on past searches, interests etc. If there's some super-compelling evidence you want me to look at you're going to have to post it.

"No, I don't want to do that, it's too hard :(" Always an excuse, isn't there?

Yeah. Asking people who actually know her to corroborate makes no sense at all. Better to ask random people who have never met her.

Yes, when it comes to saying things that aren't egregiously biased in her favor, that is the correct thing to do.

Well that depends on what you're asking for evidence of. If it's of having a job at college 40 years ago it's pretty obvious that's going to be hard to evidence.
Asking people who knew her at that time is probably the best you're going to get.
Your opinion about this is based on gut feeling and your general distrust of Harris. Which is fairly reasonable in this case, it's a hard claim to either prove or falsify.
Just stop pretending you care about evidence when you clearly don't.

How can we establish how much I care about evidence if you insist on never posting any?

Actually, I have provided links for the points I've made, and you even thanked me once for steering your straight. It's the points I haven't made that you're struggling with. :)

Such a shame that you weren't able to even highlight what you think you're responding to. I guess I have no choice but to accept that you were wrong on every point I've contested, since you're not counter-arguing, and therefore tacitly conceding.

Since your memory seems to be playing tricks on you, don't forget: in a week's time, it's Jizz for Jill!

Oddly, there's no links in this post, either. It's almost like evidence of what you've been saying doesn't exist! Sad!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 250  Next >