Marcus

Members
  • Content Count

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Marcus

  • Rank
    $$$

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Marcus Tisdale
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

2,890 profile views
  1. Notice rhetoric isn't accepted (except that approved and dispensed by the authorities) in closed societies and dictatorships. They understand it's power. The pen is mightier than the sword.
  2. @Michael Stuart Kelly You were making a moral equivalence. You equivocated a White Supremacist and Nazi, whose movement and idealogy has historically killed and destroyed the lives of untold millions of people with the low-brow, profit seeking political opportunism of Al Sharpton (Al Sharption is many things but not an advocate of genocide or violence). This is worse than a dumb comparison, it's dangerous and intellectually dishonest. That is what I addressed. Terrible error on your part and I was a bit surprised you even said it. Making false equivalencies is certainly not how you win arguments.
  3. Sure. Just understand we may disagree. And I will also call out inconsistencies where I see it. If you fail to call out racists, I will do it for you. But I have nothing personal against you. If I didn't think this forum was "semi-intelligent" and capable of honest and good discussion I would not be here. I've been on this forum for years, you all should know how I operate.
  4. We as in, you know, America. Obviously not you or me, but the country as a whole. I thought that was self-explanatory. I consider places that will have an open discussion (i.e. where dissent and independent thought is tolerated and encouraged).
  5. Al Sharpton is not a black supremacist. Does not advocate black supremacy, separatism or genocide. He is a buffoon, yes. A self-serving trouble-starter, yes. But he is quite in a different league from Richard Spencer. We didn't fight a World War, losing millions of lives just so you can equate an opportunist with full blown Nazism/White Supremacy. I'm saying it.
  6. Sure, people only died, dozens run over by car and brutally beaten by nazi thugs. I'm sure malcontents "shitting on cars" is much worse though.
  7. A bizarrely tone deaf statement considering what "white power dudes" were actually doing that day. I guess you define "not destructive" differently? And we have an elected president who won't even name these hooligans. Goes back to my earlier point of Objectivism and America being at odds. These "white power dudes" are nothing short of a domestic terror group and should be treated as such.
  8. Why single out just Google/Alphabet? What major company isn't "crony capitalist"? What major company isn't lobbying government? If they morally sanctioned his racism/sexism and allowed James Damore to stay would that make them more agreeable to you? If they dropped support for Clinton and became pro-Trump would this still be a problem? Its not Googles fault they have to lobby government in order to keep a gun from being pointed at *them*. Certainly they did not start out that way. Never mind Google is one of the worlds most productive and valuable companies with or without government aid. I see Google ads all over your site, for example. They're dominating advertising.
  9. Just not to start another Google. Heh. Racists (with the exception of Hitler) don't tend toward having ambitions.
  10. It's their company and they can run it however they see fit. Capitalism 101. James Damore and his ilk are free to set up their own Google competitor, exclude the "untermenschen" and employ 100% men if that's their prerogative. P.S. (Of course you and I both know he doesn't have the chops to do such a thing)
  11. No I'm not claiming that. You are claiming that. I said nothing of the sort lol. I said Australia is more efficient in administering welfare which is true, but this is not the sole reason for their lower rate of government spending. Once again, putting words in my mouth and false statements. Here's what I said: I made that statement in response to this (your) quote: I said *what* the Australian government spends it on is irrelevant because it's still lower than the US. That's the point you keep not getting. You keep trying to argue around this simple fact lol. Where is your argument really?
  12. @merjet Whether the government blows it's citizens money on welfare or bombs it's irrelevant. Government as a percentage of GDP is markedly lower in Australia. That is is an undeniable fact. "Libertarian" countries don't spend half their GDP from the gov't. It's funny to watch you guys find twisty arguments to fit your narrative/beliefs about what America is. I'm not twisting/spinning my argument here. I'm saying flatly Australia is more free and less dominated by government than America is. I'm basing this purely on the data. You guys can come up with anecdotes or misinterpret articles all you want. The facts are what they are. It seems so many people here are so invested in this idea of "America the free", the whole narrative and everything. Maybe it's time to "re-visit" the story. If America is a "free" country we may as well believe in fire-breathing dragons too.
  13. You don't seem to understand the article. The article is saying despite their welfare state, Australia's government still spends less than America does as a percentage of GDP, which is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is much more efficient and targeted (If you *must* have a welfare state, at least be smart about it). This further proves my point, not yours. Which is one of the reasons why Australia outranks America on freedom indexes. Check the figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending