Spokesperson for GOP senate nominee calls majority black cities shitholes. - Polidicks

I don't think anyone is? Unless I missed something

State funds support state programs. Its called general funds, meaning legislators have control of the entire state's income. To get the transit programs they had to increase tax rates to cover the expenses to reach an agreement. But the funds still came out of the legislature. Look online about MARTA, its controlled by multiple counties and funded by the legislature. Infact, the governor just tossed 100M into transit just recently. Again, you don't understand how state funds work, or the power a mayor has.

In nearly 50 years MARTA has never ever received operational funding from the state, and only gets a tiny amount of capital funding from the state. The vast majority of its funding comes from fares and city/county taxes. MARTA is the sole major transit system that never received "sign..

"Marta has never recieved state funding" Posts and politifact article saying they get their funding through the legislature every single year. Because this money isn't dedicated, MARTA must ask the state Legislature for money every year. This makes it hard for MARTA to plan its budgets. Wow good job proving my point guy. The city cannot sustain it's self with their local tax alone.

Funding for operations. If you read the Politifact article then you would have caught tha

Which still gets millions a year for funding, without it they would be bust like any other program. Marta themselves always ask for grants to expand or pay for services. If they were totally self sufficient they wouldn't need millions. Besides, Marta is funded by multiple counties pitching together and not Atlanta by itself. The quote you pulled was from the politician claiming what you're saying, which politifact said was false, marta needs funding regardless if it has a good year or not.

Your attitude is only undermining any point you make. Your posts are really hit or ms in general but since the rules being relaxed they've gone from hit or miss to consistently shit. Any post you make that might be good is immediately undermined by you outright insulting anyone who argues with you. It's no wonder nobody's taking you seriously.

Go read scarabix's posts in full. He basically wants to talk about the etymology of words and the future of mankind. Excuse me for not indulging him. Thanks for the critical assessment.

Dude, just have some self-awareness about what you're posting, how you're saying it and the fact people remember who you are. It's not hard.

Well if you're not going to listen to people then you should quit complaining when people get hung up on your insults and disregard your arguments. My point is, your arguments would go over easier, even if they are largely unpopular, if you quit insulting everyone who dares disagree with you.

I've never complained about people insulting me or getting hung up on me. I also wasn't seriously thanking you for your critique. My arguments for this type of thing never go over well because they tend to be anti-bigoted, which PD tends to be extremely bigoted against anything that isn't hardcore left-leaning. I always argue in favor of both parties, or in this case against both parties, but I always end up labeled in us.vs.them politics that I have no desire to proliferate. I'm incredibly left-leaning myself with really only 1 of my views being right leaning, but I still end up being painted as a fascist because I'm not cool with bigoted statements. It doesn't matter if I'm cordial, very deeply explanatory, cite every claim, or just an asshole, the result is the same; people are still going to be hardheaded and divisive, so why bother? It's easier to just be blunt and immediately get my point across as quickly as possible, the result is the same so why take the extra time? So excuse me for pulling out the stops and not really caring about the result anymore.

I'm aware? I wouldn't have bothered responding if I'd thought you were being serious since that would've meant I'd actually gotten across to you and further posts would be superfluous. Outright insulting people from the get go isn't the right way to approach things. It'd be more understandable if it was in response to a specific user you've repeatedly had issues with but in this case you've made it pretty clear that that's not the case. And if that's not the case then you should start out being civil and continue acting as civil to others as they are to you. (Or just not bother posting on the subject because it's nearly guaranteed to derail the entire discussion which is counterproductive.) There's also a huge difference between being blunt and being an asshole. Insulting people the second they disagree with you falls squarely in the latter category. Being blunt would be much more like what I'm currently doing. I'm not sugarcoating things but I'm not being particularly inflammatory or insulting towards you.

I'll keep in mind, for all future arguments or discussions that just resorting to being a childish dick off the bat is the best go to, and surely not a problematic way of carrying on conversations. Sound good? Probably not. Your arguments don't seem to be as non-partisan as you believe, your attitude is as bad as mine can be, and you're doubling down on all of this. Don't?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=KHJlZyFxp88 "I'm racist against Muslims" Sure all the black towns/cities are shitholes! I mean look at these white dudes, really progressive. Not sad. /s I don't like Wahhabism but ignoring that fact it shows just how radical some places have become and fair play to Sacha for doing this, really entertaining show

You flame people in like every thread you participate in long enough. You called me a retard in another thread.

Any particular reason you think my arguments are non-partisan? Anytime I start one of these arguments, its with the express purpose of not being partisan. It might seem like I only defend Republicans or Conservatives but thats mostly because this forum is chock full'o bigots who refuse to acknowledge that maybe their party can share blame for some of these problems.

I don't think most people here are even very much in support of the "Democratic Party" as it is. They're just left leaning or left entirely. Your arguments don't seem to be at all non-partisan, meaning not leaning in either political parties favour. You explicitly attack left ideas even if they're not what people mean or think, and defend poor representations of republican or conservative ideals even when they shouldn't be. You lash out at anyone who questions you and call them a child more often than not. Or as you do here you feign ignorance at who people are. You are a regular here. We didn't make you a regular. You are a regular here because you come, participate, and you've stayed. You made yourself a regular. Feigning ignorance at other familiar names and faces(as it were) is silly.

I wasn't aware democrats are gutting public spending, splitting immigrants, wanting to enforce a christian theocracy, calling black cities shitholes that deserve no money at all, supporting an openly corrupt president that is kissing Russia's boots like a french whore, and stripping away any green energy process we have made to keep the oil/coal coffers happy. I can acknowledge shit like the DNC being fucking retarded, but to say democrats have some blame in this fucking dumpster fire of a nation is laughable and disingenuous when they hold the power comparable to an ant vs an rabid chimpanzee.

tbh Tudd was more mature.