Only if youre a gutless vegepygmy

brainbomb, "gutless vegepgymy" is 25% of the country...

...and another 25% is accusing you of a microagression when you say "gutless vegepygmy"


the other 50% of the country has free will. Unfortunately, they mostly don't vote

Did you just assume my gender?

I'd say no, but then I'd be depriving you of your right to assume that I'm making assumptions of your gender, which is a classic white male patriarchal oppression move.

you can here more about such things in my class "Why white penises are the worst" immediately following Lesbian Dance theory classes:
At your local "park that used to be fun for kids, but now has a lot of old people playing on the swing sets so i'm not taking Johnny there any more, he can stay home and get obese"

NEXT TIME ON "Yanik continues to not care about human feelings!"

is calling modern Feminism 'Cancer' ACTUALLY CURE CANCER??? How little self control/intelligence I have, might surprise you.

@brainbomb, propoganda is advertising. Same thing, just the advertisers cleverly rebranded after Hitler gave propoganda a bad name.

Corporations may have gotten better at propoganda faster than states, but at least we know they are trying to sell us something.

Some people can't seem to fathom that state power has already sold us on so much.

They control the schools, they tried controlling what our parents thought, and they are everywhere so our peers are also influenced.

That is the three biggest influences in a child's life, parents, teachers and peers.

Ok, in some places your church may also be signifigant, but i suspect that is usually through your school/parents.

If advertising didn't work, then corporations wouldn't waste their energy doing it.

If banning advertising didn't work, do you think we'd have seen the reduction in levels of smoking over the past few decades (combined with health warnings... I think this is a great example of propoganda, used by states to reduce their health-care costs. Much better solution than prohibition ever was.)

But what else have we got? Well nationalist/patriotic propoganda? Most countries have a 'National creation Myth' depicting how their nation was created.

Chances are yours ignores all the little historic details which make sense of people's actions. Glorifies the founders, and justifies any actions they may have taken.

In Ireland it is the signatories of the 1916 independence proclaimation. And given the year i've had a shit-tonne of celebratory propoganda thrown at me all year. Celebrating a blood sacrifice, one which was massively unpopular in Dublin at the time (the city was wrecked by artillery fire) And my personal connection to the rising, my great grandfather died during it. He didn't sign the proclaimation because he wasn't trusted by the other leaders (having spent the previous three days driving around the country delivering the message that the rising was cancelled) But i look ar him as this wealthy who spent the 1900s racing around in cars amd yatchs in Ireland and the US, who only in the 1910s decided to apply his wealth to Republicanism.

And he wasn't unique, among the leaders they were all fairly wealthy, they could afford to ship arms in from Germany on private Yatchs. (Except Connolly and the citizens army) And all of this detail and nuance is almost completely ignored.

Your country has the same ignorances. The same myths. The same glorification. Because if it didn't that would undermine the legitimacy of your government - those who govern by the silence of the masses.

Most European countries enjoy quality healthcare for free insofar as ones taxes cover costs: Fact
Not Propaganda

Republicans will always try to tell you taxes are bad: Fact.
Not Propaganda.
Lets start there.

"Republicans will always try to tell you taxes are bad" - true, this is called republican propaganda.

What is your point? That it doesn't exist, but it does??

Wow. Yanik is basically a fucking Klansman. Incredible

As for there being evidence of systematic racism it is everywhere and only a white supremacists would even thing of denying it. There are countless studies of policing, sentencing charging, that show clear racist bias. There is countless evidence from the job market. Lots of evidence of redlining. And on and on.

Mods, can we ban Yanik please? This is super far beyond the pale

And conservative propaganda is correct? What a joke!

Three phrases:
Climate change
Austerity
Laffer curve

The conservative position flies so strongly counter to actual reality that conservatism can justifiably be characterize as mass psychosis

@Ogion, you clearly don't understand a JOKE, so here you go:

I trust studies, I trust facts. I don't believe studies coming from extremely politically biased sides, and I ALWAYS check sampling methods for studies. I hate Republicans and I hate Democrats, but I am 100% for the first amendment.

Free speech, having an opinion, I love everything about it. I'm an atheist, but I believe in the right to believe in god.

Furthermore, I don't believe you're necessarily wrong with your argument: but this entire time you have not given me a SINGLE source, A SINGLE LINK TO ANY EVIDENCE. I have provided multiple links to the census bureau, FBI crime statistics, and a few studies, whereas all you have done is given your opinion.

If you truly believe in the complete systematic oppression of black people in society, then the best way to make ME believe it is to show me some kind of evidence.

saying the words

"There are countless studies of policing, sentencing charging, that show clear racist bias. There is countless evidence from the job market. Lots of evidence of redlining."

does not constitute evidence. Give me links to these countless studies, this job market portrayals. GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN USE



because otherwise, you're not doing anything. Give me something to make me believe in your point of view, otherwise I won't blindly accept it.

and if you find THAT unreasonable, then I'll just tart ignoring you, because you're unwilling to have a credible discussion.

but prove me wrong! give me something that I can't refute, I can't argue against because it is 100% clear racism is here and systematic.

also don't try to get me banned for making what is OBVIOUSLY a joke. That's scummy

Heres a few more things Republicans tend to call liberal propaganda.
1. concerns about Climate Change
2. teaching evolution in schools.

3. belief that freedom of speech is less important than gun ownership or religious freedom.
4. belief that illegal immigrants dont belong

I think we need to make our immigration 10X easier, it's very convoluted and inefficient, but illegal immigrants DON'T belong. I mean, it helps our economy in many ways, but it is illegal so...

And look at censorship across college campuses in America, that's a much more liberal stance, though Republicans are far from innocent

That said republicans and democrats don't understand science, and the whole evolution thing is ridiculous. I believe in climate change, but I also believe it's been exaggerated. It definitely needs fixing, but I think Stein is the best bet in 2016 for THAT, and she's horribly under qualified in other areas.

Undocumented immigration does not help our economy unless you consider paying someone immorally little and tossing them in some sweatshop or out on a field is helpful for our economy. Personally, whatever good that does, I'd be very, very happy to erase that good and correct our immigration laws and practices.

Undocumented immigrants help are economy by providing workers that take lower wages to do jobs that legal workers won't do. Some also pay taxes for benefits they will never claim depending upon whether their employers pay taxes to the government or illegally pay them under the table.

The problem is that the government rarely goes after the illegal employer. Whether it's the rich using nannies that they don't pay taxes when using them or companies like the one doing landscaping services for the Arizona government buildings.

"Undocumented immigration does not help our economy" - the economy is usually defined as total productivity, as measured by GDP.

if you make more for less, then it helps the economy.

Now it doesn't necessarily add value to the society. Like parents minding their own children helps society without helping the economy, whereas parents paying someone else to mind their children helps the economy (because you can measure the payment, and thus value of that child-minding)...

it happens our system of measuring the economy is lacking.

Or rather, our system of placing economy above societal good, however we may individually define that, and gauging a country's success by that of its economy.

Our economy and our morals do not need to be separated by a bottom line. Cost-benefit analysis is a good way of putting the two alongside each other. If the economy is thriving but our people are not, then what good is the economy? Undocumented immigration may help those desperate enough to try crossing the border but only marginally. It may help those who employ them, but if you can't afford to pay a real wage, you can't afford to do business. Maybe it even helps you and I in some indirect way, but ultimately, it is not near great enough a benefit to warrant the suggestion that it has a positive cost-benefit effect.

When you have presidential candidate whose reality TV show's theme was, "Money, money, money."

Cost-benefit analysis is used by companies to decide if it's better to fix a defective product or just pay out when the lawsuits start. Guess which one most of them pick.

Ive been quite satisfied with Obama's environmental policies. I think being the radical that I am, I would love to see oil coal and natural gas run entirely out of business globally. I think we have the ability to do that. I think much of the developed world could do that. But assholes who make money off of coal, oil and natural gas are not going to go down without the fight of the century. Rich people tend to do everything they can to not lose more money.

Depends on if that lawsuit threatens their ability to stay in business.

Obama has been the greatest president for the environment thus far. He has put aside far, far more public lands than any of his predecessors and taken a hard stance on climate change, which is absolutely necessary. As bought and sold as Hillary is, she'll continue that legacy, though I'm sure she'll sneak in a few provisions here and there that won't be good.

He's been a champion of fighting the big oil companies the best he can. He managed to stop shell from drilling more in the Arctic which is tremendous. Seismic blasting is devastating to whales and sea creatures. We gotta stop that first. Also his policies and handling of the BP oil spill was great. I just imagine GW Bush, if he were in charge, showing up 48 days late with condi and approving more drilling instead of stopping the leak.

G W Bush was on an oil company's board of directors. He avoided being indicted by showing he failed in his job in reviewing the company's actions and missed their criminal activities.

Bush and Haliburton's Cheney would basically rubber stamp anything for Big Oil.

The BP spill was handled terribly. They let BP deduct the fines they paid from their taxes and basically paid it all right back within four years.