LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban. In my case I am from what is probably the most urban place on the planet possible exception parts of Tokyo.
If you are going to lash out blindly, you should at least use a little intelligence (assuming it's available to you) to make certain the odds are on your side.
The point is, there are more people (voters) in a neighborhood in Chicago than in the entire state of Wyoming or Idaho.
For example, Illinios has a population of 12.8 million. The Chicago metro area has a population of 9.5 million.
Why should policies that affect a huge cosmopolitan urban population be driven by a handful of retrograde hicks who consistently vote against their own best interests.
The policies that help a huge cosmopolitan area typically not that well thought out for people in the less populated areas. Many of the social safety nets that are there to help people in overpopulated areas do not properly help people in lower cost of living areas.
handful of retrograde hicks
You really don't know that many rural people. I grew up in a rural area and the split is nearly as wide there as it is in the cities. Just because a city goes blue doesn't mean that much more than 50% of the population is on that side.
So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated city folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like rolling coal.
The only hate I see is coming from your post. You may (and I'm sure you do, from your perspective) have personal reasons to be angry at them but you are the only one who can decide if you'll let it consume you or not is yourself.
Imagine if an academic wrote this about practicing software engineers: "So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?
That's because it's hard to see everything when you have blinders on.
Just as an example, who are "Real Americans"? What do you think you're implying when you say this to imply we city folk should be second-class citizens because we're not "Real Americans"?
And that's just the most SFW example I can think of off the top of my head. Y'all have lots of people paraphrasing the Phelps clan and plenty of other hatred that let's just say should not be mentioned in polite company.
"So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?
Are you sure you're replying the right post? I never mentioned "Real Americans" nor have heard the phrase in a long time nor even if there "Real Americans" existed what they'd have to do with all this. But you did quote my post, so I'm confused?
Are you sure you're replying the right post? I never mentioned "Real Americans" nor have heard the phrase in a long time
Yeah, the goalposts really do look better in their new location.
Now, if you actually go read your own posts, you'll find out that you were discussing what other people were saying. In that you did not hear people who live in rural areas hurling insults at people who live in urban areas. Which means what you personally said or typed is utterly and completely irrelevant. But it's a lovely fig leaf to hide under when you're starting to run into trouble.
As for not hearing the phrase in a long time, you appar
Nope. I also do not support the Right's efforts to remove all non-governmental consequences from hate speech. (ie. people get to call you a racist moron when you are a racist moron. They don't have to listen politely and then not respond)
Do you think deplatforming is a legitimate response ?
Private companies are not required to carry anyone's speech. Can you compel the Wall Street Journal to print your articles? No? Then you can't compel any digital platform to do the same.
Does the world or the country owe you a living ?
Do non-sequiturs actually make a compelling argument (unnecessary space because I
Well nice to see you are insecure enough you used a rhetorical question to virtue signal. But lets look at your answers
Nope. I also do not support the Right's efforts to remove all non-governmental consequences from hate speech. (ie. people get to call you a racist moron when you are a racist moron. They don't have to listen politely and then not respond)
So you are ok with businesses discriminating based on creed. Tell me how did you feel about that baker in Colorado ? Oh you just told me
Private companies are not required to carry anyone's speech
So no Bob and Bob cakes need be made
No, if you're attempting to get into things like universal basic income, I support that because it's far more efficient than the status quo
So your answer is the world doesn't owe you a living but you demand it give one anyway ?
Considering I have specific situations where large corporations actually did harm me
That would be a yes then.
If you think that, you probably need to actually read the Constitution. Specifically, "promote the general welfare" appears more than once. Your version of the country's "social contract" did not appear until far later in the country's history.
Really ? Lets see what James Madison had to say
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
So the initial point you are talking about is somewhere betwe
P.S. Milwaukee was a great city same for Chicago, can't say much about them lately apparently their democrat governments have been doing damage to them. G
That does not remotely prove your point.
"Something like 95% of the country" may not be farmers, but that does not make them urban or suburban, either.
You're just full of bad logic today, aren't you?
Technically, last I checked, about 20% of Americans live in rural areas, not 5%, but your point stands.
A tiny number of Americans in predominantly rural states are, more and more, deciding everything because of their disproportionate impact on Senate seats.
We desperately need to move to proportional allocation of Senate seats, period, and do a better job of allocating House seats for the same reason, not to mention annihilating gerrymandering. Also to change FPTP voting (the only thing keeping the 2-par
LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.
80.7%, actually. As of 2016.
Rural doesn't equal yokel so close enough for government work.
You claimed 95% of the country is urban or suburban. The actual number is much lower. You didn't say anything about "yokels", which is good because that's not a well-defined category, just a condescending insult made by foolish people who have no idea who feeds them.
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
-- George Carlin
Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets
https://pjmedia.com/trending/g... [pjmedia.com]
You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything not that's not sychophantic is liberal to you yokels.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:0, Offtopic)
LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban. In my case I am from what is probably the most urban place on the planet possible exception parts of Tokyo.
If you are going to lash out blindly, you should at least use a little intelligence (assuming it's available to you) to make certain the odds are on your side.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:4, Insightful)
95% of the country is urban or suburban.
Have you been to most of this country?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I haven't been to the Sun but I am pretty certain it's mostly Hydrogen.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:2)
No. It is mostly hot.
Re: (Score:1)
Most of the country by population, not territory.
Re: (Score:1)
Building a republic based on TERRITORY rather than Population is the DUMBEST thing a nation could do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The point is, there are more people (voters) in a neighborhood in Chicago than in the entire state of Wyoming or Idaho.
For example, Illinios has a population of 12.8 million. The Chicago metro area has a population of 9.5 million.
Why should policies that affect a huge cosmopolitan urban population be driven by a handful of retrograde hicks who consistently vote against their own best interests.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:4, Insightful)
The policies that help a huge cosmopolitan area typically not that well thought out for people in the less populated areas. Many of the social safety nets that are there to help people in overpopulated areas do not properly help people in lower cost of living areas.
handful of retrograde hicks
You really don't know that many rural people. I grew up in a rural area and the split is nearly as wide there as it is in the cities. Just because a city goes blue doesn't mean that much more than 50% of the population is on that side.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"You really don't know that many rural people."
Just most of my family, but hey, your experience clearly... trumps mine, right?
"Many of the social safety nets that are there to help people in overpopulated areas do not properly help people in lower cost of living areas."
So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated city folks to address those issues.
Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like rolling coal.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:5, Interesting)
So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated city folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like rolling coal.
The only hate I see is coming from your post. You may (and I'm sure you do, from your perspective) have personal reasons to be angry at them but you are the only one who can decide if you'll let it consume you or not is yourself.
Imagine if an academic wrote this about practicing software engineers: "So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?
Re: (Score:1)
The only hate I see is coming from your post.
That's because it's hard to see everything when you have blinders on.
Just as an example, who are "Real Americans"? What do you think you're implying when you say this to imply we city folk should be second-class citizens because we're not "Real Americans"?
And that's just the most SFW example I can think of off the top of my head. Y'all have lots of people paraphrasing the Phelps clan and plenty of other hatred that let's just say should not be mentioned in polite company.
Re: (Score:3)
. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?
I'd think he was wrong. NoSQL is webscale.
Re: (Score:2)
"So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?
Good judgment.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you're replying the right post? I never mentioned "Real Americans" nor have heard the phrase in a long time nor even if there "Real Americans" existed what they'd have to do with all this. But you did quote my post, so I'm confused?
Re: (Score:1)
Are you sure you're replying the right post? I never mentioned "Real Americans" nor have heard the phrase in a long time
Yeah, the goalposts really do look better in their new location.
Now, if you actually go read your own posts, you'll find out that you were discussing what other people were saying. In that you did not hear people who live in rural areas hurling insults at people who live in urban areas. Which means what you personally said or typed is utterly and completely irrelevant. But it's a lovely fig leaf to hide under when you're starting to run into trouble.
As for not hearing the phrase in a long time, you appar
Re: (Score:1)
You think you are a real American, lets see.
Do you support regulating hate speech ?
Do you think deplatforming is a legitimate response ?
Does the world or the country owe you a living ?
Do you consider yourself a victim of large interests ?
If you answered yes to any of the above you probably aren't a real American, or at the very least you don't believe in the country's social contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you support regulating hate speech ?
Nope. I also do not support the Right's efforts to remove all non-governmental consequences from hate speech. (ie. people get to call you a racist moron when you are a racist moron. They don't have to listen politely and then not respond)
Do you think deplatforming is a legitimate response ?
Private companies are not required to carry anyone's speech. Can you compel the Wall Street Journal to print your articles? No? Then you can't compel any digital platform to do the same.
Does the world or the country owe you a living ?
Do non-sequiturs actually make a compelling argument (unnecessary space because I
Re: (Score:1)
Well nice to see you are insecure enough you used a rhetorical question to virtue signal. But lets look at your answers
Nope. I also do not support the Right's efforts to remove all non-governmental consequences from hate speech. (ie. people get to call you a racist moron when you are a racist moron. They don't have to listen politely and then not respond)
So you are ok with businesses discriminating based on creed. Tell me how did you feel about that baker in Colorado ? Oh you just told me
Private companies are not required to carry anyone's speech
So no Bob and Bob cakes need be made
No, if you're attempting to get into things like universal basic income, I support that because it's far more efficient than the status quo
So your answer is the world doesn't owe you a living but you demand it give one anyway ?
Considering I have specific situations where large corporations actually did harm me
That would be a yes then.
If you think that, you probably need to actually read the Constitution. Specifically, "promote the general welfare" appears more than once. Your version of the country's "social contract" did not appear until far later in the country's history.
Really ? Lets see what James Madison had to say
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
So the initial point you are talking about is somewhere betwe
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, citing Idaho was hyperbole. But you get my drift, right?
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.
Someone has never been to the midwest.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go
https://www.agclassroom.org/ga... [agclassroom.org]
P.S. Milwaukee was a great city same for Chicago, can't say much about them lately apparently their democrat governments have been doing damage to them. G
Re: (Score:3)
"Something like 95% of the country" may not be farmers, but that does not make them urban or suburban, either.
You're just full of bad logic today, aren't you?
Re: (Score:1)
That does not remotely prove your point.
"Something like 95% of the country" may not be farmers, but that does not make them urban or suburban, either.
You're just full of bad logic today, aren't you?
Maybe, but I'm not the idiot that is deliberately misinterpreting yokel or trying to say half the country is yokels.
I am also not one of the idiots trying to argue Google doesn't have an ideological bias
Re: (Score:1)
That 5% is just very spread out over a large area.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes that way California and New York can decide everything.
No need to note that over half of California by territory wants gone from the other half already, from just the system you propose.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn’t it funny how the areas with the least population density contain the most dense people.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.
80.7%, actually. As of 2016.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.
80.7%, actually. As of 2016.
Rural doesn't equal yokel so close enough for government work.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.
80.7%, actually. As of 2016.
Rural doesn't equal yokel so close enough for government work.
You claimed 95% of the country is urban or suburban. The actual number is much lower. You didn't say anything about "yokels", which is good because that's not a well-defined category, just a condescending insult made by foolish people who have no idea who feeds them.