Lockout Casualty

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lockout Casualty last won the day on May 18 2015

Lockout Casualty had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,489 Revered

About Lockout Casualty

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular
  • Birthday 10/30/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Maple Ridge

Recent Profile Visitors

7,641 profile views
  1. Donald J. Trump, 45th US President of the United States

    Eh, I'd say he's more of a donkey.
  2. Donald J. Trump, 45th US President of the United States

    Nobody cares. Go away.
  3. Kids learn about John A. in grade school. How is removing his statue the same as scrubbing him from history?
  4. Sad News For The Tinfoil Hat Crowd

    Going for the stupidest statement of the week on a Monday? Ballsy move.
  5. Donald J. Trump, 45th US President of the United States

    I'm not sure if that follows. Dems are corrupt, no doubt, but the Republicans are in a league of their own. This is like saying, "There are fine people on both sides". No, no there aren't and there is no equivalency between the parties. Or their supporters. Oh look, another Republican Nazi running for office who won his primary. Couldn't have come across a more relevant article after posting the above. MISSOURI REPUBLICAN WHO SAID ‘HITLER WAS RIGHT’ WINS STATE HOUSE PRIMARY
  6. Donald J. Trump, 45th US President of the United States

    Self-serving, wealthy individuals who benefit financially. Of course, they're a tiny fraction of his overall supporters. The rest can't even spell "intelligence", much less possess any hint of it. His supporters would eat sh*t if it meant a liberal had to smell their breath. These people don't have any actual opinions that would place them on the right of the political spectrum, they just have sh*t for brains that their leaders can mould to whatever they want and call that Republicanism. Want Republicans to support universal healthcare? Call it something Republican. Want them to detest it to their very core? Call it Obamacare. Want them to oppose Syria strikes? Tell them Dems want to do it. Want them to support Syria strikes? Tell them Republicans want to do it. The reddit post below (I know, I know, who'd use that as a source!?) makes a good, supported case for why Republican voters are completely intellectually and morally bankrupt. I've been building on and preparing this post for a while. Now seems like the perfect time to share it. As the Mueller bomb explodes and Republicans whine about how they're being treated unfairly, and how the Democrats are engaging in partisan warfare, please remember the following: Republicans capriciously modify their viewpoints and policies depending on what will benefit the Party. They don't care in the slightest about actual policies, or their supposed "principles". They just care what the Party (and particularly Donald Trump) is in favor of at any given moment. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that Democrats maintain fairly consistent opinions about policy, regardless of which party favors it, or who is in power. The Party of Principles: Exhibit 1: Opinion of Syrian airstrikes under Obama vs. Trump. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package) Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package) Exhibit 4: Opinion of Vladimir Putin after Trump began praising Russia during the election. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 5: Opinion of "Obamacare" vs. "Kynect" (Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.) Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think universities had a negative impact on the country after Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don't feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup's Advanced Analytics package) Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump's victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 16: Shift in opinion of the media's utility for keeping politicians in check. Democrats reacted a bit after Trump took office (+15 points), but Republicans had a 35-point nose dive. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 17: Republicans had an evenly split opinion in April regarding whether James Comey should be fired. After he was fired, they became overwhelmingly in favor. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context Donald Trump could go on a stage and start shouting about raising the minimum wage, increasing taxes on the wealthy, allowing more immigrants into the country, and combating climate change. His supporters would cheer and shout, and would all suddenly support liberal policies. It's not a party of principles--it's a party of sheep. And the data suggest that "both sides" aren't the same in this regard. Republicans are significantly more guilty. Caveats and Considerations: Yes, the exhibits above paint a one-sided picture. I posit that this is because the reality truly is one-sided. However, there are several things to keep in mind. Democrats are not immune to this effect. But the degree to which they display it seems to be significantly less. Several of the exhibits above (e.g. 11, 15, and 16) demonstrate this. Democrats do sometimes react in this manner when their party takes power, but the reaction from Republicans under similar circumstances seems to be notably larger. It would be interesting to do a meta-analysis of these studies and compare the trend of swing among Democrats to the swing among Republicans. There were several circumstances under which I omitted graphs from this list. I omitted graphs which were not relevant. I omitted graphs that I could not source. I omitted graphs that did not show either side reacting more strongly than the other side. There are indications that certain demographics which tend to lean Democrat had strong negative feelings of health/well-being immediately after the 2016 election. It is very important to note that there was no data collected about party affiliation in this study, and it is only conjecture that the groups discussed are likely to lean left. It is also entirely likely that their change in well-being wasn’t a result of party identity, but broader societal fears regarding discrimination, etc. In the course of building this list, I have found only one graph that showed Democrats reacting strongly to their own party gaining power, while Republicans mostly held their ground. Here it is: Democrats developed a more positive outlook on the US succeeding in Iraq after Obama took office. Republicans were comparatively consistent. Source Data. However, this comes with its own caveat: after the 2008 election, many people with strong anti-war convictions stopped identifying with the Democratic party. Source Data. To that last point, the biggest potential criticism of the List of Exhibits is that the trends may not be driven by changes of opinion, but by changes in party affiliation. However, if the data in Exhibit 8 are to be trusted, this would seem not to be the case. Instead, the stronger someone identifies with the party, the more likely they are to willingly change their positions to be in line with their leadership. Furthermore, at least regarding data gathered since January 2017, it looks like there’s been little shift in party identity (until October, at least): Page 14 of this Fox poll
  7. Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

    You're talking about teachers while avoiding the context. It being that there are over 5 million teachers in the US. To suggest your stories are anything beyond anecdotal evidence would be plain wrong. Beside that, did you read your articles? This one talks about a teacher making anti-Trump posts on his Facebook. Are teachers not allowed to express their opinion outside the classroom? Does one forgo such privilege, nay, right, when taking a teaching job? Every teacher, like every other person with a brain, is biased to some degree or another, that is however, a far cry from suggesting teachers are leftists who push their biases onto their students. The first article talks about teachers' struggle to remain neutral: Again, teachers are humans with biases, but this clearly shows that they try to contain their biases inside their classrooms. Second talks about actions of the teachers' union, which last I checked, does not teach in class. And the article itself states, "It is unclear how many teachers have used the plan outlined by a Mission High School teacher". Another is about a teacher who used an Eminem song with plans for a opposing lesson the following day (too many right wing parents blew a gasket however). Wrong or right, it's just one of more than FIVE MILLION teachers in the US. Most of the articles are about a single teacher who goes off the deep end. Like I said, even if you link a thousand articles about a single teacher pushing his left wing bias onto students, it'll still account for a tiny (.0002) fraction of all teachers. I don't know how you can claim I'm the one relying on emotion and opinion, when you have no problem painting the entire teaching profession (highly respected everywhere outside of North America) with the same leftist, opinion-pushing brush. I couldn't tell you anything about Social Justice classes, as I've never taken one. I don't think the left should be uncomfortable with the facts that more whites fought for slavery than against, nor that Africans enslaved other Africans (and sold them to the white people who took them to the Americas). It doesn't affect any position that doesn't rely inherently on blaming whites (which I would argue, if necessary, the left does not do). You're right about the 3/5 compromise, I clearly missed something when I last read about this. You're right, the left does have a number of people who've ran up onto stages and grabbed mics, or drowned out the speaker with (short-lived) chants before getting ejected (sometimes they even got ejected for asking legitimate questions). Contrast that with right wing protesters wielding firearms and other weapons, wearing full tactical gear, and actual history of violence. Right wing speakers were prevented from speaking by private entities, not the government. Their right to free speech was not violated. Same with denial of service for political beliefs, there's no law against discriminating based on one's political choice. But since you asked, here's a doctor who denied service to Obama voters. Of course there are many more if you care to look. Point is, left wing is a bunch of kids at worst breaking some storefronts and looting, right wing is at worst murderous. It's the right wing that consistently discredits media, teachers, experts, etc., because they all have a supposed left wing bias. And the issue is that with the right wing, it's the leaders and politicians that are provoking such actions by portraying these groups as enemies of the people. They're not just saying these experts et al are wrong (and proving it in any way), they're suggesting that they are to be defended against, that there is a war going on for the soul of the country and the left are the devil (sometimes literally, Obama the anti-Christ, for example). The left doesn't have Glenn Becks, Sean Hannities, Bill O'Reillies, Rush Limbaughs, etc., because the left doesn't rely on ignorance in their base to get anywhere. This is why teachers are pushing biases, the media is fake news, and experts are self-interested to the conservative mind. Nobody is right, unless it supports their pre-conceived beliefs. Wanting to ban guns and working toward that end are vastly different things. There is no left wing movement to ban guns out there, outside of right wingers' heads. And to boot, not every name on there is for banning guns, some are advocating just what I said - limiting access to qualified individuals and prohibiting things like AK47s. US unemployment is ~4%, I don't think the issue is job availability. Black employment is an issue of its own, and bringing up illegals only serves to point fingers at an easily-dehumanised group instead of issues of why black unemployment is so out of sync with the overall rate and why blacks are competing disproportionately with illegals for low-income jobs. Yes, I do know there is a link between unemployment and incarceration. I also know there is a link between black ethnicity and incarceration. Oh, and unemployment. Further, illegals do pay taxes. Billions in fact. And they can't use the benefits their taxes are paying for. So not only are they not squeezing out legal residents out of queue, they are effectively subsidising their benefits by not being eligible themselves. Necessary level being when you are sick, you can go see a doctor with no cost (I would go further and include optometrist and dentist, as well as the pharmacist). Yes, people will abuse their bodies, playing hockey, riding mountain bikes, breathing air, living outside a bubble, etc.. And yes, they should continue to be treated. What's the alternative? If it's their second go around and they can't afford payment, they can beg for treatment money? Is that the society you want? I certainly don't. As for your foot and water nonsense, that's what welfare and disability are for. Great point, however. Typically these payments are barely enough to pay for housing alone. You do know that there is a link between poverty and crime? So again, do you prefer sticking it to the lazy by not providing sufficient funds to survive for many people who need a little help? The right wing likes to remind us of the lazy parasites, but they never mention context (does the right have a problem with context?). Over 50 million people "participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012". How many do you think are lazy no-goodnicks, that it would justify harming the rest? Over 74% participated between one and 48 months (from same link), how many remaining are disabled and mentally ill? I will continue to state my opinion and backing it up with fact. You, nor anyone else here, have to believe them, nor reply to me, nor engage my in any way. Been there, done that in my 15+ years on CDC. The discussion that will be generated is a known to me before I make a post, because it's always the same. A bunch of easily-disproved links, a bunch of likes for posts that are clearly ignorant (looking at you, Ryan, Alf, and Forsberg), and few acknowledgements of actual argument. So as you can see, I'm really not here for an intelligent discussion, because I know it's once in a million that I'll find it here at any given time. You can criticise me for not being friendly and polite, or for using strong words for most of the right wing, it doesn't bother me. I'm simply expressing my opinion of said wing, whom I see somewhere between Cletus and Ralph Wiggum on a scale of intellectual prowess. Ignore me or reply to me, I welcome either. It's an anonymous forum, where facts are fake and the points don't matter. If we were to sit across from each other, we'd be having a very different discussion. PS. Sorry for such a late reply. I've just not had the time.
  8. Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

    This is back when the KKK were a leftist, progressive organization, right? And the new leader was also for entering the conflict while MP. And it was the official position of the CCF. That means your statement that CCF staunchly opposed war is wrong. The only person who opposed was the leader, who was replaced by a pro-war leader at the first opportunity. I would say the leader was chosen when war wasn't the most pressing concern, so his willingness wasn't as consequential to his leadership. The only obsession I see is yours, with what other posters choose to spend their time on.
  9. Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

    For someone who constantly derides Canadians for following American politics and thinks Obama is a far lefty, I guess your ignorance of American politics can be excused to some extent. Back in those days, the parties were not what they are today. California and New York were Republican and the South was staunchly Democratic. It wasn't until the early-mid 20th century that the transition to modern party alignment took place. As for CCF opposing WW2, I guess a single CCF MP opposing qualifies as "the left" in your books. Doesn't matter that the rest of the CCF supported entering the war. "CCF staunchly opposing ww2" is yet another misleading statement in a long list of right wing talking points. Wow is right. Just not for the reasons you suggest. @ForsbergTheGreat Sorry for the confusion, pal. I promise if I could dumb it down for you I would, alas I don't have that much time.
  10. Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

    Can't say I've heard of too many stories of such teachers, but I'll take your word for it. That said, how many stories are there compared to the over number of teachers? In 2016, there were over 1.3 million in the US. So again, how many stories are we talking about here? 100? 1000? The ratio being well below a percent. Certainly there are those who may push a bias, but in the grand scheme of post secondary education, the effect is negligible at best. And what does Social Justice have to do with the subject? Regardless, I would wager the professors teaching that subject are intelligent people, more skilled than the average Joe at critical thinking. You may not understand the value in such a subject, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently useless one. What it may not be, is economically valuable, but that would imply that something needs to directly make money to be valuable to society. Preposterous. I was speaking about the governments' methods, but sure, we can talk about this too. What is it that the rallies and schools prove? That right wingers are willing to kill those protesting against their right to white supremacy? Left wingers not allowing anti-LGBTQ speech on campus? If we're talking about private colleges, they have every right to ban any speech deemed offensive. And counter-protesting a rally doesn't prevent the rally from happening. They have just as much right to counter-protest as the rally does to spread their hateful message. Again, the issue is how government effects these freedoms, not other private citizens. Somehow the right wing seems to confuse their right to free speech with a perceived right to freedom from consequences of said speech. What about anti-gun lobby? So far as I can tell the left's plan isn't to ban guns outright, just to keep them out of the hands of crazy and violent people. Maybe you're thinking of the caricature the right has created of the left, where any gun regulation is tantamount to wanting to ban guns (just look at, hell any regulation regarding guns). That's not the left though, that's just what the right claims the left is. By the way, the gun lobby (the NRA, an actual national organization dedicated to the cause, what's the left wing's counterpart called?) actually forced the Dickey Amendment, effectively stopping CDC research into gun violence. And not like there aren't studies upon studies showing that with strong gun regulation and training, it is possible to decrease violence. So who's really being emotional? The "They wanna take my guns! Do nothing to fix gun violence! Knives kill people too! We need guns to fight the government oppression!!!" crowd, or the, "Let's have strict background checks! Let's stop people with history of domestic violence from having guns! Let's not sell guns that can take down 20 people before reloading! Let's have rules on storage! (Seriously, how stupid must one be to sleep with a gun under one's pillow?) And so on? Illegal immigration? What, like the fact that half the illegal immigrants in the US are overstaying their visas? Not secret Taliban, but background checked visitors. Or that illegals are a net benefit to the economy? One side is screaming about losing their jobs to Mexicans "taking there jerbs!!!", at a time during low unemployment, and crops rotting in the fields, the other is saying, "Hey, maybe not all Mexicans are criminals and rapists (contrary to the President's beliefs)". So again, who's emotional here? The xenophobic racists in the red states who don't grasp the fact that illegal immigrants commit less crimes per capita than Americans? (For the dimwits on CDC that keep posting stories of illegals committing one crime or another as proof that there is a crisis, that means the more illegals you have, the less likely you are to be victim of a crime.) Or the folk who realize all people are the same, and if some come here illegally, doesn't mean they present a threat, or somehow won't contribute, or don't belong at all. Health care? Can we agree from the get-go that everyone should have access to necessary healthcare? If not, just quit reading here and never bother again. Assuming you agree, said healthcare has to be paid for. In fact, it is already paid for. Now! Except it's more expensive. One way or another, we pay for healthcare when we need to. With economies of scale, we could be paying less for healthcare than we are now. It's a fundamental fact, the bigger your risk pool, the easier it is to take care of those at risk. For everyone. (Also, maybe cap hospitals charging hundreds for Tylenols). US spends more on healthcare with poorer outcomes than any other developed nation in the world. WTF makes them so unique that universal healthcare is so unaffordable? This is probably the least emotional argument the left makes. Ever. Universal healthcare is cheaper, would save more lives, and would prevent hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies. Who's being emotional on this subject? The right has historically been, and continues to be, on the wrong side of every major issue affecting our society.
  11. Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

    Are you implying that teachers push their political biases onto students? That is quite the charge to lay. Could it be that the reason educators lean left is because they possess critical thinking skills to process information in a logical and rational way, and arrive at conclusions that land them on the left? Surely they are more capable than the average, uneducated Joe. Alternatively, one could look at the manner right wing and left wing politicians and governments operate to recognize the right wing is the one that consistently limits discourse, attacks experts, appeals to basic emotions, and otherwise shrugs intellectual approach for sound bite opinions as their modus operandi.
  12. Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

    This article shows "all doctors" being 46% Republican, meaning 54 56% are Democrats. Any more?
  13. Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

    I said more educated, not smarter.