Somehow I knew if I said anything to that it would be constured as racism. No, I do not mean when people owned other people.
Then perhaps you would like to clarify what time period you meant instead of leaving it vague. All I did was give examples of how many Americans were far worse off in those vague idea points you gave than they are now.
Trump appears to be taking the commitments he made to the white lower/middle class voters seriously.
How so? He's not even in office yet. How can you make such a huge assumption? Not to mention he made a much bigger commitment to the upper class than anyone else.
When we could go outside without a fear of someone blowing themselves up solely to terrorize.
Are you legitimately afraid of this? that's kind of silly...
See this argument of "the glory of years past" never holds up because believe it or not life is pretty nice right now for more Americans than it ever has been in our history. More people have opportunity now than in any other period of time.
What did the media get the wrong? the polls narrowed after the comey fiasco and were neck and neck at the end of the race. Just the same as the final results...
The only real policy he articulated (it was far more acknowledgements than politics), was infrastructure repair, something our country direly needs. I just hope he doesn't take out obscene quantities of debt doing so, perhaps given that he is a Republican, congress will let him raise taxes to pay for it. Given his isolationism, he could also fix the budget by cutting defense spending some.
These things would be opposite of what he indicated his plans were during his campaign.
I voted in FL on Sunday. Short line, provided a government issue ID with signature (I brought a passport and a driver's license just in case) then voted. No issues here.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
That's not an appropriate comparison. Someone would have to sneak into your garage and exchange a medium amount of cash for a greater total value of a car which you previously were part of negotiations to purchase. Since, you know, you have a say in your government!!! Tax is theft arguments can never make it past that statement, they always forget that you have a voice at the table when the taxes are set.
For a former neurosurgeon, Carson seems to have a shockingly poor understanding of modern science. He has qualifications, but I certainly wouldn't put much trust in his knowledge.
Did he say something anti-medical? I don't remember. The only thing I can recall was the statement that the Pyramids were granaries, which, yes, was ignorant as hell, but at least it wasn't within his field. Any medical doctor who makes even an vaguely anti-vaxxer comment should be fired... preferably into the sun.
Didn't he deny man made climate change and evolution? Not exactly medical related but things any person of science understands as fact.
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
A lot of it boils down to studio interference. The execs want one cut of the movie and the director prefers his own vision. They apparently had two different cuts of the movie and tried to mash them together for horrible results.
Also doesn't help that the reshoots for Suicide Squad came in the 11th hour.
But the question then becomes what would the movie have been like had the studio not interfered?
Normally I bristle against studio interference, but if the reshoots were the reason for the humorous elements in the movie, which were the best parts of the movie, then the studio's interference was what gave the movie its saving graces.
It was likely the studios intent to start with the grim/dark theme to begin with to line up with their other films. So its really just studio meddling all round in this case.
Well the good news is I no longer need to have a discussion with any Trump supporter. I just need to tell them he said he wanted someone to shoot Clinton and if they are okay with that then they aren't worthy of having a conversation.
I know what you mean. A lot of people wanted this to be good. But DC is apparently incapable of making a good super hero film. I will still likely catch this film at some point but after the reviews it just wasn't a high priority.
I'm not going to waste my money on this. I made that decision the second I heard about the reshoots. I can't remember hearing of a movie that basically got "remade" after it had already been shot, which was not a mess.
It can be done. Top gun is the best example. They did all the shooting and realized there was no plot to the movie so they brought the actors back in to a sound booth and re-recorded all the dialogue from the flying shots to force a plot. Then boom one of the best films of the decade to a lot of people. I haven't seen suicide squad yet but I still kinda want to. To write a movie off for something as trivial as it getting reshoots seems a bit unfair. I say give it a chance then embrace your full right to smash talk it if it is bad.
Trump is probably the better choice you Americans can make. Sure, he's obnoxious, rude, and says a lot of strange things, but that's nothing compared to a corrupt stogie for wall street who most likely has brain damage, either from an accident where she hit her head or syphilis contracted from Billy.
The real problem is that he is both unstable and has no idea what is going on in the world. Last week he didn't even know that Russia had invaded Ukraine. Between the two Trump is far more likely to start a war or initiate nuclear winter because someone insulted his hair piece. Also can you really bring up anything about Bill's sexual history while trying to defend a man who raped at least one of his three wives, hit on his own daughter and has slept with who knows how many pageant contestants? Seems a bit hypocritical don't you think?
I would hear from her sober before moving forward with anything. Good decisions are rarely made at 3am when fueled by alcohol. I would call her during the day and have a conversation. Her text says she doesn't remember everything so perhaps start by finding out what she does recall from your interaction at the club. Depending on what she says think about meeting in person if you feel that is the right thing to do. Don't make any commitments till you are sure what her motives are. If you feel she really wants to get back together and (I don't know the details of your breakup) she has moved on from whatever caused the breakup then go for it. Just be sure she isn't after your house or some worst case scenario ulterior motive like that.
I didn't demonize anyone just stated facts.
Back during separate but equal?Back when people owned other people?So never?Are you legitimately afraid of this? that's kind of silly...
See this argument of "the glory of years past" never holds up because believe it or not life is pretty nice right now for more Americans than it ever has been in our history. More people have opportunity now than in any other period of time.
So yeah. The point stands that it is hypocritical to say anything about Bill's promiscuity while defending Trump.