Aww look he's got a boyfriend! How cute!

Listen I told you to stop stalking me. I know you're still in love with me but you just need to let go.

Sorry, I have too much of a life to stalk anyone. You're fucking stupid if you don't realize Kojima made his logo to resemble one of the strongest enemies in one of his longest running series. Fucking news flash!!! He couldn't use the exact model because Konami is waiting for him to do something they can sue him over. I answered the guys question and you cunts are trying to be smart. Now please, FUCK OFF!

Did you eat your dinner? You know how cranky you get when you skip dinner honey.

Have to resort to stupid comments to avoid the fact that you're wrong? Yea thought so...

Kojima already released statements on his logo. it has nothing to do with metal gear. he made it Kojima Production's laber purely because "it is cool"

Which is something he has to say as to not have Konami up his ass.

there's legitimately no possible way konami could do anything to him if he said "sure yeah it was based off of skulls"

it doesn't look even remotely similar

Actually its using the likeness of one of their products. Which is illegal.

what part of "not at all remotely similar" did you not understand

Maybe you're just partially blind or possibly stupid. Probably both...

So if Shigeru Miyamoto had another game company, but the logo was a plumber in red overalls. Would you believe that it had nothing based on Mario. Same sorta logic you're trying to prove.

mario is iconic and is the MASCOT of nintendo. I'm saying if Shigure Miyamoto made a game company who's logo was a rose in the middle of a flame it wouldn't necessarily be related to the fire flower from mario.

So the skulls aren't iconic? I sure as hell remember them. They may not be a mascot, but they are the most iconic enemies in the game. Every time they show up you get that of fuck moment because they always have an epic intro. You are honestly trying way too hard to prove me wrong on an OPINION. You aren't Kojima so you can't say that it isn't based off the skulls and I can't prove it is. Are you really trying to deny the 10,000 similarities from this design and his last? Its all his style. Please get a fucking life already.

A skull in a Bio-metric suit. WHERE HAVE I SEEN THAT BEFORE????? OH YEA!! In the series that the guy who has his name is on the fucking logo created.

Says the person who can't use basic logic.

Try taking a nap that usually helps. Do you want your special blanket?

Metal Gear Solid. The skulls are a type on enemy that wears a full body suit with a full face mask.

nope. the skull unit doesn't wear the helmet shown. this is Hideo Kojima's new game studio's logo.

He asked what it was referring to when it said "What the skull see". Referring to the Metal Gear Solid series that Hideo Kojima created. So take your "nope" and shove it!

are...are you serious? there is nothing to do with metal gear here. this is Kojimas logo which is not located in any metal gear game .the skull in the logo not skull unit

Are you serious? Because I seriously don't give a fuck...

well alrighty then buckaroo

K bye!

you need sleep more than me

Sleep is for the weak.

The character is weak on several other counts, more often than not boiling down to reliance on the male lead character - from needing him to fight on her behalf so that her cult would let her do her own thing for a little while, to saving her ass when she rashly runs into a dungeon she knows nothing about and gets her arae handed to her instantly (hell, even with the help of a lesser male character, she struggles to hold off a beast for 10 seconds before the male lead solo's the fucking thing).

Strong characters can be raped, but then that would presumably take a strong character to rape them; in both cases the assailant was a pussy who cried for mommy when confronted. I think BTOOOOM! is closer to having a strong female character faced woth the possibility of rape.

Okay that honestly did seem unfair for her, she was obviously not that height and she was fat so it's impossible for her to pull it off

Yo, if she was fat, why did she even bother going on the show? That's the dumbest thing ever. It's like a midget trying to compete in the NBA.

it's a japanese show, it's for the hilarity

they don't give 2 shits about making fun of fat people

"Hole in the wall" is not a a Japanese show, it's on CN

was a japanese game show first

I'm not debating that, but the clip that's from is Most Likely, from the CN show due to the fact you don't people like her in Japanese television. (at least to my knowledge)

Hole in the wall is on Netflix, you could watch every episode to prove me wrong?

Lol, casually ask them to watch every episode of that show to prove you wrong. Make them sweat for those thumbs!

they made the claim, they have the burden of proof!

Lol, I don't care either way, was just trying to be helpful. And I'm willing to admit to being wrong... given that I'm proven wrong.

But you're the one trying to assert a fact which means proof is your burden.

Proof is in fact not my burden due to the fact that I frankly just don't give a damn and was just trying to be helpful.

Asserting information with no source proof or citation isn't super helpful, Sorry.

No, you asserted that those places are the ones in which this clip resides, however you didn't cite any information that proves the clip is from those things.
"What do you mean I didn't cite anything to prove the war on terror? I mentioned Iraq"

I disagree, citing the location such things can be found and then dropping the subject and letting him/her pursue the knowledge was my intent. The whole goal here was just to explain it wasn't the japanese show and where to look to see. I'm sorry if you don't find this super hyeylypyfyuyl.

alright stop mentioning me now

this is why i dont help people

give them bread and they demand a sandwich

I love your name. Thanks for being so helpful, Helpful.

The show originated in Japan, but this episode was the American version.

Then that proves my point, doesn't it? He said Japanese, and I said the show itself was American.

I'm saying it's the American version of the game show.

I agree with you at 90%, the only thing is the gender fluidity. You can't be both sex at the same time, unless you're hermaphrodite, but gender is something different. It's a mix between bran chemicals (affected by your sex) and "social constructions". By that, i'm not talking like one of those tumlrina, but try to raise a girl exactly like you would raise a boy and watch what will happen.
My mother "knew" not closely related, but true story someone who hid a baby she had by cheating in a room in he attic where his only interaction was constructions site around the house. He now only talk and act like construction workers and cranes. If that is possible.. who knows

lol

Well i say now, but i mean when he was discovered and taken from the mother. i don't know what happening to him now

This is okish in terms of not being fat fuck or skelemode. Still dyel af.

He saved the award show, thats what everybody says about his performance(s).

Hey, its comedy. And Brit ' ish comedy as well.

Comedy is not a free pass to be distasteful. If it were we would allow Levvy to get away with whatever he wants.

He saved the award show, thats what everybody says about his performance(s).

I knew someone in middle school named George who was obese.

He was an asshole.

Haha the description still fits my George.

I can't imagine a situation where I would require air support from an attack helicopter at my house. I don't think a military force is going to be interested in me, unless my land was being used as a resistance outpost. And if that were the case, the Resistance would be there anyway.

And in turn, thats what someone from the third world would say to you. Have fun feeling better about yourself because your country has more violence

The same Justice Department that refused to prosecute Black panthers holding weapons outside of a voting booth?

Yeah, very credible.

Do you have a specific refutation, or are you just going to 100% disregard the most in-depth investigation into the Ferguson situation that currently exists because of that bullshit excuse?

I'm challenging the credibility of a department that has taken a very partisan view of race relations in this country. I imagine if Karl Rove was the leader of the DOJ at the time instead of Eric Holder and said that there was no racism involved at all you'd have the same opinion as me.

Spare me the fake indignation.

Attacks on credibility are just lazy, dude. That's a weak-ass, bullshit refutation and you know it. Why don't you address the substance? I thought conservatives were all about "the cold hard truth!"

"African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search."

"Nearly 90% of documented force used by FPD officers was used against African Americans. In every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the person bitten was African American."
_
"Our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on African Americans
cannot be explained by any difference in the rate at which people of different races violate the law. Rather, our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. "_

I understand that a liberal might be offended by attacks on credibility considering their noticeable lack of it, but when citing a source thats sort of important. You know, having a credible source. Thats a thing.

I refuse to take the DOJ's methodologies at face value. I'm sure you've also been skeptical of reports released by at least some government agencies.

Something tells me you're not a fan of Bush's reasoning for the Iraq war.

"I understand that a liberal might be offended by attacks on credibility considering their noticeable lack of it"
That's rich. Coming from the man with no sources, and whose refutation to my overwhelming evidence is INCREDULITY. 10/10 credibility mate!

"I refuse to take the DOJ's methodologies at face value."
Taking it at face value isn't necessary, seeing as they describe their methodology in the report (not that you'd know, because you're too afraid to read it and face the COLD HARD TRUTH).
"reviewed over 35,000 pages of police records as well as thousands of emails and other electronic materials provided by the police department. Enlisting the assistance of statistical experts, we analyzed FPD’s data on stops, searches, citations, and arrests, as well as data collected by the municipal court."
It's just numbers, baby! It's just the straight up mathematical facts of the matter!

Your incredulity is just a flimsy attempt to justify hiding from the truth.

So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to provide a source that disagree with you, would that make me right, you wrong, or would we be even? I could spam multiple statistics about how blacks are dangerous and stupid, but something tells me you're not gonna accept "DA COLD HARD TRUTH" this joke is funny, isn't it guys? so easily.

Perhaps you're not intelligent enough to know how easily numbers can be eschewed or manipulated for a specific purpose. Perhaps you're just another partisan hack. Maybe both.

Regardless, I did notice you didn't address my point about Bush. Do you take that report at face value? Hopefully I'll get an answer next time. Lets hope you don't miss it by accident again.

"I could spam multiple statistics about how blacks are dangerous and stupid"
Go ahead if you want. It wouldn't change the facts of documented racial bias in the police.

"Perhaps you're not intelligent enough to know how easily numbers can be eschewed or manipulated for a specific purpose."
I'm a graduated biologist, we're all about stats. If you can point me out a flaw in the methodology then I'll humour you, but right now all you have is conspiracy and speculation.

"Perhaps you're just another partisan hack. Maybe both. "
Of course. I'm so politically biased I can't see the facts right in front of me, but YOU are so wise and impartial! YOU see the cold hard truth!

"Regardless, I did notice you didn't address my point about Bush."
I assumed it was a throwaway remark, but if you insist.
"Something tells me you're not a fan of Bush's reasoning for the Iraq war."
Yes, because we know now after-the-fact that the evidence was fabricated and the justifications were flimsy. (Do you know who was against the Iraq War from the very start though? #FeeltheBern) We have the advantage of hindsight for the Iraq War. I was like 8 when that shit kicked off, so I had no opinion of the reports at the time. What's your point? 'Reports can be wrong!!!' Yeah, no shit.

"Do you take that report at face value?"
No I do not. I read it and assessed its methodology for myself. I looked into what data it was analysing. I considered the report in light of other evidence (i.e. the recent cop whistleblower from the Baltimore police dept).

"Go ahead if you want. It wouldn't change the facts of documented racial bias in the police. "
But would it prove that blacks are dangerous and stupid? If the answer is no, I have to point out your inconsistency on the whole "sources are always right" implication. If the answer is yes, well, maybe police have a reason to be racist, eh?

"I'm a graduated biologist, we're all about stats"
I'm the King of Austria, I'm all about spiking peasants.

"but right now all you have is conspiracy and speculation. "
Nah, just casual skepticism. I'm sorry that offends you so much.

"Of course. I'm so politically biased"
I'm lead to that conclusion based on the whole "unless you believe this department with a known partisan perspective on race relations, you're a dumb conservative" things.

"YOU see the cold hard truth! "
Really, a third time? Even after I mocked you? I guess biology majors don't require any wit.

"Yes, because we know now after-the-fact that the evidence was fabricated and the justifications were flimsy."

Oh wow, so the evidence was fake after the fact? Huh. Crazy how that happens.

"#FeeltheBern"
Excuse me while I simultaneously laugh and vomit. I'd just like to point out though that me and Cuckie Panders have something in common, and thats not a bad thing for once. Using your "logic" he'd be a loon in denial because he was skeptical of the evidence presented at the time, and where it was coming from. Someone should of told him questioning credibility is soooo weak, though I don't imagine that would phase Bern all that much, it's what hes known for. Besides being an idiot who appeals to idiots. Eh hem.

" I was like 8 when that shit kicked off, so I had no opinion of the reports at the time"
But if you were you'd believe them without a doubt, right? Damn conservative sheep.

"What's your point? 'Reports can be wrong!!!' Yeah, no shit. "
You say that, but you seem to be flabbergasted that I could be skeptical of a partisan DOJ. It's funny how bias works, huh?

"he recent cop whistleblower from the Baltimore police dept"
Oh golly, whosteblowers are known for their accuracy, and that really reflects poorly on american policing as a whole and especially Ferguson. A lot of great evidence to compare it to there, chief.

When you have time I'd suggest googling confirmation bias. And also another candidate. Preferably one thats not a meme.

"But would it prove that blacks are dangerous and stupid?"
Statistically more so than whites, yes. There's a whole discussion as to WHY, which I know you racists hate, but the statistics are what they are.

"If the answer is yes, well, maybe police have a reason to be racist, eh? "
Which brings us to the discussion of WHY!
One of my original quotes...
"African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search."
See, perfect example of racial bias proving INEFFECTIVE. Racial profiling has been assessed, and it doesn't have a strong case!
"because profiling can increase crime while harming communities, it has a “high risk” of contravening the core police objectives of controlling crime and promoting public safety" Jack Glaser, Suspect Race: Causes and Consequence of Racial Profiling 96-126

"Nah, just casual skepticism."
skepticism = any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted. You're not being skeptical, because the data I'm providing you IS empirical. You're just being close minded.

"I'm lead to that conclusion based on the whole "unless you believe this department with a known partisan perspective on race relations, you're a dumb conservative" things."
You've yet to show any evidence of 'partisan perspective on race relations' in the Ferguson report. Again, pure speculation!

"Someone should of told him questioning credibility is soooo weak"
Yeah, that's why he had substantial justifiable reasons to be opposed to the Iraq War. You, on the other hand, have 0 substance to your rejection of the Ferguson report. PROVE ME WRONG.

"Oh wow, so the evidence was fake after the fact? Huh. Crazy how that happens."
Yeah, and the evidence was suspect from the very start (hence Bernie Sanders rejecting the idea with arguments to back it up). You've provided 0 substance to your rejection of the Ferguson report. Face the STONE COLD TRUTH or prove me wrong.

"you seem to be flabbergasted that I could be skeptical of a partisan DOJ."
I'm not flabbergasted at all - I knew you were an idiot from the start!
The thing is, you're not skeptical. You're just rejecting it without justification. "I SAY THEY'RE NON-PARTISAN, THEREFORE ANY FINDINGS THEY HAVE CAN BE REJECTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER JUSTIFICATION!!!"
No dude, no. You're an idiot.

Here's how the debate stands. I provided empirical data that the Ferguson Police Dept is racially biased in an unjust manner. I went through the evidence, described and assessed the methodology, and pointed out some damning evidence.
You said 'NUH UH, THEY'RE BIASED! NOT ME, THEY ARE! THIS REPORT HERE WAS BAD, THEREFORE ALL REPORTS ARE BAD!"
You're losing this debate, hard.

and I'm going to bed. Catch you in the morning faggot.

OK, so then Donald Trump DOESNT want to set up an immigration check to turn people away on the grounds of religion? Because I'm pretty sure that's what the concern is, and if it were a witch hunt, like you said, it would mean that thing wouldn't be a point on Trump's "once I run shit" list.

So then...is it not?

Do you have sources for this, or were you just kinda hoping I'd accept it because you said its happened?

which bits? You gotta name the bits you want sources from.

no, I just threw a lot of information out there, some bits you might argue against, others not.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(3) Security and related grounds

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.

www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/

25% of the islamic world openly supports radical terrorism according to Pew research. 7% of that is part of the population that does it, not just support it.

it is an ideology that promotes the overthrowing of secular or nonislamic governments for one that is. so yes, there are grounds for baring of immigration.

That makes it legal to occur, but the point you made was that other presidents have done so. There's also the issue that Trump wouldn't be doing it based on country of origin, but on a religion. If it were the former, I'd like to be told about it, because I'm seriously hoping he's not serious about that. Doing it based on religion is a) a little counterproductive and b) really unconstitutional.

Ignoring the fact that you still haven't posted any sort of link to what the hell I'm asking for, you're still just blatently saying it as though I'm meant to believe it at face value, what you've said is hilariously untrue and ignorant.

The whole religion of Muslim isn't "ideologically toxic", the extremists are the ones with ideologically toxic mindsets. It's like saying that just because the WBC is an organization which exists, we need to discriminate against Catholics to.

What you're proposing is the same fucked up logic feminists use to blame any and every man for rape, because "better 9 innocent men go to prison if 1 rapist is put away!" And no, that isn't a straw man, nor is it a false equivalence, that's literally what the logic is. Is that not why you're proposing this mass discrimination against religion?

And the reason its counterproductive is because religious preference is separate from nationality. You can be white, and Muslim. All you have to do, as an Isis member, as they're legitimately doing, is pretend, or claim to be another religion. It's completely unviable, you can't discriminate against a religion, for one because it goes against the key principle of why this country exists, and two because you can't select for a religion on self report, not if they want to enter the country.

The assholes trying to sneak in will just lie, and the ones who would argue are the ones who you would presume to be the assholes, despite them simply being pissed off at the discrimination.

If the link doesn't answer the concern, they don't answer the concern dipfuck. You can't just show anlink which is only tangentially relevant and call it good. It's like I ask you "can I get a source on the physics of how airplanes fly?" and you send me a link to the history of Luftansa. Whoopdefuckendo guy.

And I get that a percentage of Muslims are assholes, that doesn't mean we persecute all of them. It delves into the equally toxic ideology where "some men are rapists" so "we might as well persecute them all." You get at the 25% who're assholes, you don't condemn the other 75%, a legitimate majority, a population 200% larger than the population we care about, who're 100% innocent.

If we're to use the logic "might as well throw them all under the bus to get at the few we care about" you need to do it with every single plausibility for a group to be populated by assholes.

Shit, lets look at psychopaths. We still have no idea how to profile them from a normal person. We don't want to fall victim to these people...so lets treat everyone we see like one, to get at the few we'll inadvertantly punish.

Please tell me in what possibly way the logic I'm using the justify those plans of action is any different from what you're telling me here.

He wants to put a moratorium on immigration from predominately muslim countries until we can work out the vetting process and "get a hold of things", which is presumably taking out a few major terrorist organizations.

So then the turn away will be based purely on nationality?

I'm not twisting anything. Should be a pretty easy question to say no to if that's the real answer you believe in.

Besideswhich...I'm not the one dictating his answers there chucklehut. I'm not the one who made him say "essentially, yes".

Effectively yes.

And you wonder why the concern is about racism...

Nationalities are rascist now? Do you think hes doing it because those nations are predominantly brown? He's going to turn down snow white if her passport shows shes from a no go zone.

Racism is discriminating someone on their nationality you fucking retard!

You guys have to be willfully doing this at this point...

What are you talking about? You can change your nationality,that's the entire point of immigration. A black man born in America is an american national. Nationality has nothing to do with race.

Nope, but thinking there's a religious holy war going on pretty much is...

I thought I was supposed to be the one seeing racism where there isn't racism. Now here you are seeing jihads where there aren't any. Now why don't you tell me why, and how justified you feel with your perception of what's going on, and why I shouldn't substitute every single phrase you say for an argument for what you seem to think I'm doing.

Why is it suddenly a holy war though? It wasn't back when Bush was going after the wrong group in the early 2000s. It wasn't when Obama was managing the war in the Middle East the last 8 years. Now that you need a hot button topic to support someone from your party, though?

"HOLY WAR! HOLY WAR! ITS A HOLY WAR! TRUMP NEEDTA FIGHT THE HOLY WAR! YOU SHOULD BE SCARED OF THE HOLY WAR! WHY AINT Y'ALL SCARED OF THIS HOLY WAR?!"

Totally not suspicious...

"Sick strawman"

You one of those retards to? Tell me, then, where I substituted what your argument was. What I did was propose a counterpoint, which you have no defense for, so you took the typical route and called it a straw man.

Not everyone who has a contrary opinion to yours is an idiot, guy. Once you realize that, maybe you can get someone elected into office.

Because it's a witch hunt, it's like the Red Scare of modern day. They see racism in everyone and everything, especially where it doesn't exist.

I have found it especially humorous when they call Islamophobia racist

These people aren't working against racism as much as they're making it an issue so they can pretend that their opposition fits their fantasies as Ku Klux Klan supporting Nazis.

Oh a thug robbed a store and attacked a cop and the thug was killed because of this? Ok story ended. WAIT! He was black, and the cop was white? This wasn't just another incident of a criminal being stopped, IT WAS RACISM.

Another someone was kicked out of a Trump rally which often happens? Ok story ended. WAIT! The person that was thrown out this time happened to be Muslim? This wasn't just another person that was kicked out like the rest of people that have, THIS IS CLEAR PREJUDICE AGAINST MUSLIMS.

Liberals are "bad" because they act like a flash mob. People aren't anymore racist, then there are witches in our country.

The same Justice Department that refused to prosecute Black panthers holding weapons outside of a voting booth?

Yeah, very credible.

Do you have a specific refutation, or are you just going to 100% disregard the most in-depth investigation into the Ferguson situation that currently exists because of that bullshit excuse?

I'm challenging the credibility of a department that has taken a very partisan view of race relations in this country. I imagine if Karl Rove was the leader of the DOJ at the time instead of Eric Holder and said that there was no racism involved at all you'd have the same opinion as me.

Spare me the fake indignation.

Attacks on credibility are just lazy, dude. That's a weak-ass, bullshit refutation and you know it. Why don't you address the substance? I thought conservatives were all about "the cold hard truth!"

"African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search."

"Nearly 90% of documented force used by FPD officers was used against African Americans. In every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the person bitten was African American."
_
"Our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on African Americans
cannot be explained by any difference in the rate at which people of different races violate the law. Rather, our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. "_

I understand that a liberal might be offended by attacks on credibility considering their noticeable lack of it, but when citing a source thats sort of important. You know, having a credible source. Thats a thing.

I refuse to take the DOJ's methodologies at face value. I'm sure you've also been skeptical of reports released by at least some government agencies.

Something tells me you're not a fan of Bush's reasoning for the Iraq war.

"I understand that a liberal might be offended by attacks on credibility considering their noticeable lack of it"
That's rich. Coming from the man with no sources, and whose refutation to my overwhelming evidence is INCREDULITY. 10/10 credibility mate!

"I refuse to take the DOJ's methodologies at face value."
Taking it at face value isn't necessary, seeing as they describe their methodology in the report (not that you'd know, because you're too afraid to read it and face the COLD HARD TRUTH).
"reviewed over 35,000 pages of police records as well as thousands of emails and other electronic materials provided by the police department. Enlisting the assistance of statistical experts, we analyzed FPD’s data on stops, searches, citations, and arrests, as well as data collected by the municipal court."
It's just numbers, baby! It's just the straight up mathematical facts of the matter!

Your incredulity is just a flimsy attempt to justify hiding from the truth.

So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to provide a source that disagree with you, would that make me right, you wrong, or would we be even? I could spam multiple statistics about how blacks are dangerous and stupid, but something tells me you're not gonna accept "DA COLD HARD TRUTH" this joke is funny, isn't it guys? so easily.

Perhaps you're not intelligent enough to know how easily numbers can be eschewed or manipulated for a specific purpose. Perhaps you're just another partisan hack. Maybe both.

Regardless, I did notice you didn't address my point about Bush. Do you take that report at face value? Hopefully I'll get an answer next time. Lets hope you don't miss it by accident again.

"I could spam multiple statistics about how blacks are dangerous and stupid"
Go ahead if you want. It wouldn't change the facts of documented racial bias in the police.

"Perhaps you're not intelligent enough to know how easily numbers can be eschewed or manipulated for a specific purpose."
I'm a graduated biologist, we're all about stats. If you can point me out a flaw in the methodology then I'll humour you, but right now all you have is conspiracy and speculation.

"Perhaps you're just another partisan hack. Maybe both. "
Of course. I'm so politically biased I can't see the facts right in front of me, but YOU are so wise and impartial! YOU see the cold hard truth!

"Regardless, I did notice you didn't address my point about Bush."
I assumed it was a throwaway remark, but if you insist.
"Something tells me you're not a fan of Bush's reasoning for the Iraq war."
Yes, because we know now after-the-fact that the evidence was fabricated and the justifications were flimsy. (Do you know who was against the Iraq War from the very start though? #FeeltheBern) We have the advantage of hindsight for the Iraq War. I was like 8 when that shit kicked off, so I had no opinion of the reports at the time. What's your point? 'Reports can be wrong!!!' Yeah, no shit.

"Do you take that report at face value?"
No I do not. I read it and assessed its methodology for myself. I looked into what data it was analysing. I considered the report in light of other evidence (i.e. the recent cop whistleblower from the Baltimore police dept).

"Go ahead if you want. It wouldn't change the facts of documented racial bias in the police. "
But would it prove that blacks are dangerous and stupid? If the answer is no, I have to point out your inconsistency on the whole "sources are always right" implication. If the answer is yes, well, maybe police have a reason to be racist, eh?

"I'm a graduated biologist, we're all about stats"
I'm the King of Austria, I'm all about spiking peasants.

"but right now all you have is conspiracy and speculation. "
Nah, just casual skepticism. I'm sorry that offends you so much.

"Of course. I'm so politically biased"
I'm lead to that conclusion based on the whole "unless you believe this department with a known partisan perspective on race relations, you're a dumb conservative" things.

"YOU see the cold hard truth! "
Really, a third time? Even after I mocked you? I guess biology majors don't require any wit.

"Yes, because we know now after-the-fact that the evidence was fabricated and the justifications were flimsy."

Oh wow, so the evidence was fake after the fact? Huh. Crazy how that happens.

"#FeeltheBern"
Excuse me while I simultaneously laugh and vomit. I'd just like to point out though that me and Cuckie Panders have something in common, and thats not a bad thing for once. Using your "logic" he'd be a loon in denial because he was skeptical of the evidence presented at the time, and where it was coming from. Someone should of told him questioning credibility is soooo weak, though I don't imagine that would phase Bern all that much, it's what hes known for. Besides being an idiot who appeals to idiots. Eh hem.

" I was like 8 when that shit kicked off, so I had no opinion of the reports at the time"
But if you were you'd believe them without a doubt, right? Damn conservative sheep.

"What's your point? 'Reports can be wrong!!!' Yeah, no shit. "
You say that, but you seem to be flabbergasted that I could be skeptical of a partisan DOJ. It's funny how bias works, huh?

"he recent cop whistleblower from the Baltimore police dept"
Oh golly, whosteblowers are known for their accuracy, and that really reflects poorly on american policing as a whole and especially Ferguson. A lot of great evidence to compare it to there, chief.

When you have time I'd suggest googling confirmation bias. And also another candidate. Preferably one thats not a meme.

"But would it prove that blacks are dangerous and stupid?"
Statistically more so than whites, yes. There's a whole discussion as to WHY, which I know you racists hate, but the statistics are what they are.

"If the answer is yes, well, maybe police have a reason to be racist, eh? "
Which brings us to the discussion of WHY!
One of my original quotes...
"African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search."
See, perfect example of racial bias proving INEFFECTIVE. Racial profiling has been assessed, and it doesn't have a strong case!
"because profiling can increase crime while harming communities, it has a “high risk” of contravening the core police objectives of controlling crime and promoting public safety" Jack Glaser, Suspect Race: Causes and Consequence of Racial Profiling 96-126

"Nah, just casual skepticism."
skepticism = any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted. You're not being skeptical, because the data I'm providing you IS empirical. You're just being close minded.

"I'm lead to that conclusion based on the whole "unless you believe this department with a known partisan perspective on race relations, you're a dumb conservative" things."
You've yet to show any evidence of 'partisan perspective on race relations' in the Ferguson report. Again, pure speculation!

"Someone should of told him questioning credibility is soooo weak"
Yeah, that's why he had substantial justifiable reasons to be opposed to the Iraq War. You, on the other hand, have 0 substance to your rejection of the Ferguson report. PROVE ME WRONG.

"Oh wow, so the evidence was fake after the fact? Huh. Crazy how that happens."
Yeah, and the evidence was suspect from the very start (hence Bernie Sanders rejecting the idea with arguments to back it up). You've provided 0 substance to your rejection of the Ferguson report. Face the STONE COLD TRUTH or prove me wrong.

"you seem to be flabbergasted that I could be skeptical of a partisan DOJ."
I'm not flabbergasted at all - I knew you were an idiot from the start!
The thing is, you're not skeptical. You're just rejecting it without justification. "I SAY THEY'RE NON-PARTISAN, THEREFORE ANY FINDINGS THEY HAVE CAN BE REJECTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER JUSTIFICATION!!!"
No dude, no. You're an idiot.

Here's how the debate stands. I provided empirical data that the Ferguson Police Dept is racially biased in an unjust manner. I went through the evidence, described and assessed the methodology, and pointed out some damning evidence.
You said 'NUH UH, THEY'RE BIASED! NOT ME, THEY ARE! THIS REPORT HERE WAS BAD, THEREFORE ALL REPORTS ARE BAD!"
You're losing this debate, hard.

and I'm going to bed. Catch you in the morning faggot.

OK, so then Donald Trump DOESNT want to set up an immigration check to turn people away on the grounds of religion? Because I'm pretty sure that's what the concern is, and if it were a witch hunt, like you said, it would mean that thing wouldn't be a point on Trump's "once I run shit" list.

So then...is it not?

Do you have sources for this, or were you just kinda hoping I'd accept it because you said its happened?

which bits? You gotta name the bits you want sources from.

no, I just threw a lot of information out there, some bits you might argue against, others not.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(3) Security and related grounds

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.

www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/

25% of the islamic world openly supports radical terrorism according to Pew research. 7% of that is part of the population that does it, not just support it.

it is an ideology that promotes the overthrowing of secular or nonislamic governments for one that is. so yes, there are grounds for baring of immigration.

That makes it legal to occur, but the point you made was that other presidents have done so. There's also the issue that Trump wouldn't be doing it based on country of origin, but on a religion. If it were the former, I'd like to be told about it, because I'm seriously hoping he's not serious about that. Doing it based on religion is a) a little counterproductive and b) really unconstitutional.

Ignoring the fact that you still haven't posted any sort of link to what the hell I'm asking for, you're still just blatently saying it as though I'm meant to believe it at face value, what you've said is hilariously untrue and ignorant.

The whole religion of Muslim isn't "ideologically toxic", the extremists are the ones with ideologically toxic mindsets. It's like saying that just because the WBC is an organization which exists, we need to discriminate against Catholics to.

What you're proposing is the same fucked up logic feminists use to blame any and every man for rape, because "better 9 innocent men go to prison if 1 rapist is put away!" And no, that isn't a straw man, nor is it a false equivalence, that's literally what the logic is. Is that not why you're proposing this mass discrimination against religion?

And the reason its counterproductive is because religious preference is separate from nationality. You can be white, and Muslim. All you have to do, as an Isis member, as they're legitimately doing, is pretend, or claim to be another religion. It's completely unviable, you can't discriminate against a religion, for one because it goes against the key principle of why this country exists, and two because you can't select for a religion on self report, not if they want to enter the country.

The assholes trying to sneak in will just lie, and the ones who would argue are the ones who you would presume to be the assholes, despite them simply being pissed off at the discrimination.

If the link doesn't answer the concern, they don't answer the concern dipfuck. You can't just show anlink which is only tangentially relevant and call it good. It's like I ask you "can I get a source on the physics of how airplanes fly?" and you send me a link to the history of Luftansa. Whoopdefuckendo guy.

And I get that a percentage of Muslims are assholes, that doesn't mean we persecute all of them. It delves into the equally toxic ideology where "some men are rapists" so "we might as well persecute them all." You get at the 25% who're assholes, you don't condemn the other 75%, a legitimate majority, a population 200% larger than the population we care about, who're 100% innocent.

If we're to use the logic "might as well throw them all under the bus to get at the few we care about" you need to do it with every single plausibility for a group to be populated by assholes.

Shit, lets look at psychopaths. We still have no idea how to profile them from a normal person. We don't want to fall victim to these people...so lets treat everyone we see like one, to get at the few we'll inadvertantly punish.

Please tell me in what possibly way the logic I'm using the justify those plans of action is any different from what you're telling me here.

He wants to put a moratorium on immigration from predominately muslim countries until we can work out the vetting process and "get a hold of things", which is presumably taking out a few major terrorist organizations.

So then the turn away will be based purely on nationality?

I'm not twisting anything. Should be a pretty easy question to say no to if that's the real answer you believe in.

Besideswhich...I'm not the one dictating his answers there chucklehut. I'm not the one who made him say "essentially, yes".

Effectively yes.

And you wonder why the concern is about racism...

Nationalities are rascist now? Do you think hes doing it because those nations are predominantly brown? He's going to turn down snow white if her passport shows shes from a no go zone.

Racism is discriminating someone on their nationality you fucking retard!

You guys have to be willfully doing this at this point...

What are you talking about? You can change your nationality,that's the entire point of immigration. A black man born in America is an american national. Nationality has nothing to do with race.

Nope, but thinking there's a religious holy war going on pretty much is...

I thought I was supposed to be the one seeing racism where there isn't racism. Now here you are seeing jihads where there aren't any. Now why don't you tell me why, and how justified you feel with your perception of what's going on, and why I shouldn't substitute every single phrase you say for an argument for what you seem to think I'm doing.

Why is it suddenly a holy war though? It wasn't back when Bush was going after the wrong group in the early 2000s. It wasn't when Obama was managing the war in the Middle East the last 8 years. Now that you need a hot button topic to support someone from your party, though?

"HOLY WAR! HOLY WAR! ITS A HOLY WAR! TRUMP NEEDTA FIGHT THE HOLY WAR! YOU SHOULD BE SCARED OF THE HOLY WAR! WHY AINT Y'ALL SCARED OF THIS HOLY WAR?!"

Totally not suspicious...

"Sick strawman"

You one of those retards to? Tell me, then, where I substituted what your argument was. What I did was propose a counterpoint, which you have no defense for, so you took the typical route and called it a straw man.