Blind-sided? MLB in particular has done so much with its Advanced Media line, its obvious that term has no business in this discussion. They might gets things WRONG, but they will certainly not be blind-sided....
"Keeping Muslims out of the country is not that bad of an idea, and if you studied history, America has closed its borders before, Germany, during the war, Why? Because there was no way to tell the good from the bad."
National trade and immigration embargoes are vastly different from embargoes based on religious tests. You DO understand that, right?
Tempting as it would be to believe this, I don't think you're right. The true danger in ISIL is their ability to export and fester while having the legitimacy of a "state" and territory. We're already seeing the sociopolitical ramifications from the people they've displaced, the territory and commerce they've disrupted, and the terror they've exported.
If you're point is that Islamism and theocracy are self-defeating systems, I happen to fully agree with you, but you have a very optimistic timeline and I frankly am not willing to allow the death and suffering of our Muslim brothers and sisters toiling under ISIL's rule to go on while we wait....
"See, that's where we disagree. The most popular are not the best, they are only the most popular"
You missed the point; we DON'T disagree here. I never said the most popular was the best objectively, only that it was the best in terms of the business of search results. As I said, for a search engine, popularity is the only game in town. Google can't try to make a value judgement on the "goodness" of search results, or it will lose users who may not want what they/you/I think are the "best" results.
"It reflects poorly however on Google because their results are more of a popularity contest rather than an attempt to get you the best results."
This is where you lose me and likely everyone else reading this. For a site like Google that is trying to return the best search results for the masses, the most popular ARE the best. If you're saying it would be better if Google returned the most INFORMATIVE results, sounds great, except who gets to decide which are the most informative? Popularity is really the only objective game in town for a search engine, with a nod to weighting certain results that ought to show up near the top, which is why for most search items Wikipedia DOES indeed end up near the top of the list (at least for me, I understand that others may have a different result).
"Google has become a giant echo chamber for a world way more interested in style over substance, rumor over fact, and opinion over information."
Now that REALLY doesn't make any sense. Google is returning search results, not feeding people information they want. Tailoring search results to past search history might have SOME effect in paring the results down, but claiming that a person who leans one way or another on any issue will only see those results in their search field is pretending to live in a world that doesn't exist.
"Worthwhile? You realize that Bernie is a Democratic Socialists and so was the Nazi party?"
You're fucking kidding me, right? The Nazis were NOT Democratic Socialists, they were National Socialist, from which they derive the Nazi name and also I hate you for being this stupid. The Nazis were a far right organization, on the other end of the political spectrum from Sanders and Democratic Socialists. Notable Democratic Socialists, other than Sanders, include:
1. Christopher Hitchens 2. Albert Fucking Einstein 3. Bertrand Russell 4. John Dewey 5. David Ben-Gurion
If you're any indication of the level of intellect of the American voter, however, we're all fucked and let's all welcome our winners from the Trump/Carson ticket and enjoy the disaster to come.
"Stalin was given the book Origin of Species when he was 13 and justified his actions as being evolutionary."
Thinking Stalin's atrocities weren't tainted by a Russian Orthodox Church, and thinking that Stalin didn't raise his own religion as a cult of his own personality, is an incredibly wrong way of viewing history....
"Likewise, Hitler was a Darwinist and thus his idea of the master race."
That's not even CLOSE to being true. Hitler was part Christian, part pagan, who believed in a strange bastardization of Norse supremacy. There was nothing secular, in other words, about Hitler. Nothing atheist, either....
"There are several more of the most genocidal dictators to ever live just in the last 100+ years that are all combined responsible for over 100+ million deaths and not a Christian among them. So tell me again how bad Christians are and how great Atheists are."
Christianity had its reformation. If this were the fourteen hundreds, for instance, you'd be singing a totally different tune, as Christendom was the primary instigator of murder on the planet.
"Also, your lies about Christians being racists, prejudice, violent and having contempt for the poor are just that, lies. Are there a few matching that description? Sure. But as a whole, nope, not at all."
I would never have intended on saying otherwise. I doubt the original commentator did either. The point is that many people love wrapping themselves in the cross, but fail to act as their religion prescribes. To that extent, they don't actually have sincere religious beliefs. They just like being in a gang.
"If you look at the charities atheists support, they are mostly animal shelters."
Citation needed. Because you're super, mega wrong. Ever heard of the ACLU? Doctors w/o Borders? Amnesty International, SHARE, or UNICEF? All secular....
I'm actually with you on this, in that I don't think the Fighting Sioux's name or logo is in any way racist. That said, if the local tribes say they'd rather you not use their tribe name as a moniker for a big institution of the state that long ago did you wrong, I think it's appropriate to change the name at their request....