Lurker > _RETS_

cjsdowg posted...

The Admiral posted...

He doesn't understand what he's saying again. The actual source of his statistic makes the opposite point; graduating HS and attending college absolutely helps black men close the unemployment gap.

However, as for why the gap still exists for black men at equal education levels, this is likely the main reason:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html

And you are bull shitting as normal. You are literally admitting that there is a gap. Just because the gap is lower the higher education people get . does not change that.

Even then, the gap is irrelevant to the post I made which you were replying to originally about jobs.

I didn't say graduating, not having kids before marriage, and having a full time job close any gap, I said it damn near guarantees an able bodied able minded person of any race won't be perpetually poor unless theyre a real fuck up. That is true and has nothing to do with a gap. If blacks can do that, they move up

Vulgorn posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Hell of a backtrack. But this isn't rhetorical: why is your opinion any more valid than those of the black people posted about ITT?

How is that a backtrack? I didn't ask for 3 more videos. I said go find "the 3 other videos on the Internet". Which is to say, "I'll let you believe your bullshit narrative and keep on cherry picking black people to make your points for you. "

Hell of a backtrack. So what makes your opinion more valid?

Vulgorn posted...

Howl posted...

I like how @Vulgorn just completely left this topic after I posted exactly what he asked form

Maybe I didn't want to deal with a dude that doesn't understand what a rhetorical statement is.

Hell of a backtrack. But this isn't rhetorical: why is your opinion any more valid than those of the black people posted about ITT?

cjsdowg posted...

Howl posted...

How does generational wealth effect you in any tangible way? Do your parents have enough money to support you throughout your life even after they die?

No?

Well guess what the same is true of over 99% of people in this country of all demographics.

People born in the middle class are more likely to stay in the middle class compared to someone born poor. And this is just one example

And people born poor that 1) graduate high school 2) get a full time job 3) don't have kids out of wedlock have a very, very high chance of not spending their entire life poor.

The sooner everyone realizes the issue is nuanced and requires actual honest discussion the better.

It can no more be boiled down to just racism than It can just fatherless households or culture.

But the right can't talk about the reality of certain problems black Americans have without the left squawking about racism, and the left can't talk about the reality of racism without the right bitching about victim complexes.

Until that happens, nothing will change.

What is important is America has provided a way for there to be more rich and successful blacks than ever before in history. But there is always room for improvement across the board.

There is nothing exceptional about black people that climb out of the hole. They, like anyone else who overcomes obstacles, just grit their teeth and do it. They set a positive precedent for ones who are told it's near impossible because white history keeps them down.

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

That term doesn't refer to actual victims. It refers to people who perceive themselves to be victims and blame their own shortcomings on that idea.

Black people are literally in America on many different accounts. wealth is generational. The GI bill that built the white middle class after WWII was not given to many black people. Redlining made black people stay in bad areas and stop advancement. The effects of something like that can be felt today. And that is not even getting to stuff that still goes on.

1) I didn't say anything about black people. I am referring to your mischaracterization of the term "victim complex" and reducing it to meaning that victims should shut up and take it.

2) as it applies to the topic, I'm sure plenty are victims. Plenty of victims in the black community also rise above it because they realize they have their own agency and no matter what has historically (or even presently) kept them down, they can still make a life for themselves. Many blacks do this. Many don't. Some that don't are actual victims that never quite make it out of the struggle. Some that don't are not victims and use perceived victimhood as a crutch and an excuse for never getting anywhere in life. This applies to victims and perceived victims of all races/walks of life.

cjsdowg posted...

#5 The victim mentality

I love the idea the victims should just shut up and take it. Also I love the strawmen this cat uses left and right. But it is funny people on the right love to prop up black people who attack and disagree with 95% of other black people.

That term doesn't refer to actual victims. It refers to people who perceive themselves to be victims and blame their own shortcomings on that idea.

Lost_All_Senses posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Leftists only care about blacks/gays/muslims/mexicans/women if they agree with them. Their desire for diversity is only superficial and unfortunately does not extend to diversity of thought. So much so that you can't even discuss some issues without being immediately shouted down or straw manned.

And apparently the right follow people on their side to a fault. Politics is summed up now

Yeah, we are in dire straits politically/culturally. The extremes (hell, not even the extremes) of either side are too goddamn entrenched in their own bullshit identity politics that I really don't see a reasonable end in sight

mario2000 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Leftists only care about blacks/gays/muslims/mexicans/women if they agree with them. Their desire for diversity is only superficial and unfortunately does not extend to diversity of thought. So much so that you can't even discuss some issues without being immediately shouted down or straw manned.

p good post describing tc and PragerU tho i don't think they're leftists

It is most certainly something that right and left alike are guilty of.

Leftists only care about blacks/gays/muslims/mexicans/women if they agree with them. Their desire for diversity is only superficial and unfortunately does not extend to diversity of thought. So much so that you can't even discuss some issues without being immediately shouted down or straw manned.

As much as an empty platitude might be good for optics, there really isn't much of a narrative to run with right now. Do presidents typically comment on unknown-motive serial killers who are still at large but have only been active a few weeks?

Payzmaykr posted...

Im surprised the media even covered this. There were no guns used. How does this further their agenda?? Were they finally forced to admit that gun violence is backseat to this??

Im pro 2A, but this is a stupid argument and you should feel stupid for making it.

SillyBilly1138 posted...

Ammonitida posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Ammonitida posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The third victim was a hispanic lady who lived next to who is thought to be the intended target and may have been wrongly targeted. The seemingly intended target also knows the first two.

This is pure speculation. Supposedly, the intended target was a woman named Erika Mason who lived two doors down from where the package was left. She shares the common last name of "Mason" with one of the other previous victims, although she claimed that she was not related to him.

Yes I know, hence the "thought to" and "seemingly". There really isn't a whole lot of concrete info yet, which is frightening

This is like the DC snipers just with bombs. This terrorist has been operating for weeks now, targeting seemingly random people, and still has not released any manifesto. It's very unusual.

We don't know if it's a terrorist. Terrorism is causing violence in the name of politics and/or religion
I think this guy is a serial killer

I may be mistaken, but bombs seem like an MO pretty exclusive to terrorists of any ideology. Without a stated motive or clear pattern, it is a little early to label it as anything other than a serial killer/bomber, but when the truth finally comes it will likely confirm some obvious suspicions.

Capn Circus posted...

This guy is trending to be worse than the unibomber. The Unibomber killed 4 over 15 years and injured 23. This guy has already killed 2 or 3 in the past month or so.

I am thinking the insane frequency will lead to a quicker apprehension.

Hopefully he tries to get too sophisticated and blows his own arms off

fan357 posted...

Stay safe. Have all the victims been black?

No. The third was a hispanic woman (though it is possible the intended target lived a couple doors away from her, who is black) and the two latest ones are both white.

Obviously the sooner the better. Seems he may be working to something bigger given the bump in sophistication.

Really sucks. People run and bike trails by the thousands every day here and now have to worry about tripping a fucking wire.

@gunplagirl

There is nothing right now to suggest the bomber is targeting black people. Although that might end up being the case, there is no reason right now to jump the gun and start squawking about white terrorism. What I said in another topic:

The first two victims were both black, but knew each other. even if that was random, east Austin is heavily black/hispanic, so even randomly targeting would have a high chance of minority victims.

The third victim was a hispanic lady who lived next to who is thought to be the intended target and may have been wrongly targeted. The seemingly intended target also knows the first two.

So there you have a connection that may be limited to these individuals outside of race.

But then in west Austin, a more white/upperclass area, we have the latest two victims who apparently biked across a tripwire, which indicates a completely random bomb placement. The fact that this was presumably a tripwire in a more affluent area of the city suggests blacks are not a target.

I live in Austin as well, not too far from where the first round of bombs went off. I think the latest one is going to really put people on edge given that (if it's true) it was a trip wire across one of the many paths people take every day in the city.

Asherlee10 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

On top of all that, some asshole had one of the biggest SXSW events cancelled by emailing in a bomb threat Saturday.

Wow, I didnt' hear about that one.

http://variety.com/2018/music/news/man-arrested-for-bomb-threat-that-caused-cancellation-of-roots-sxsw-show-1202729687/

Yeah, at least he is hit with a felony now

BJ-blazkowics posted...

My mistake, I thought you were talking about kids brought here illegally who have never really lived in their home country.

Ammonitida posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Ammonitida posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The third victim was a hispanic lady who lived next to who is thought to be the intended target and may have been wrongly targeted. The seemingly intended target also knows the first two.

This is pure speculation. Supposedly, the intended target was a woman named Erika Mason who lived two doors down from where the package was left. She shares the common last name of "Mason" with one of the other previous victims, although she claimed that she was not related to him.

Yes I know, hence the "thought to" and "seemingly". There really isn't a whole lot of concrete info yet, which is frightening

This is like the DC snipers just with bombs. This terrorist has been operating for weeks now, targeting seemingly random people, and still has not released any manifesto. It's very unusual.

I am hoping the dude who emailed the bomb threat for SXSW is somehow connected and not just taking advantage of what's going on. Some kind of lead would be nice. I am also hoping the police actually do have leads and are keeping it to themselves as to inspire false confidence/carelessness but that's wishful thinking.

When it was doorstep bombs, I don't think people were as uneasy as they are now knowing they could be walking down a train and have a bomb go off. Fuck this guy.

BJ-blazkowics posted...

_RETS_ posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

Alright lol just stopping in to tell you the answer is Great Britain. Not gonna say who or which population has 50% of males on welfare and near 75% of the female population on it.

Also gonna remind everyone that the parents are still got stupid prizes for playing stupid games and chances are they would've been safe bcuz anchor babies.

So you were bumping to see the answer of a question you already knew the answer? LMAO (not saying your answer is right, BTW)

So now you're going after the kids too with your anchor baby comment? At least your HERP DERP COME HERE LEGALLY excuse is now dropped

Nah come here legally is the best option.

So who's alt are you

So what did these babies do that was illegal? The babies, not the parents.

You got to stop answering questions with strawmen.

If a kid grows up living off money his parents stole, that doesn't mean he gets to continue living off it once it's discovered to have been stolen.

Least that's an argument I've heard

So we're assuming that their parents make their living out of grand theft? Why doesn't this same logic apply to the sons of mobsters and white collar crime families?

We're also moving the goal posts from saying people need to come here legally to judging the son for the sins of the father.

I'm not assuming anything. I posted an argument I've seen in response to your question.

But it isn't "sins of the father" if a kid is actively benefiting from that sin. It isn't the kid's fault, but in the theft scenario you just can't let stolen money remain his even if he was unaware.

I'm all for kids who have one ever been here getting a temporary amnesty as they pursue citizenship, provided they are either working or in school the entire time and don't have any crimes at all to their name.

Caution999 posted...

..And most people around here would criticize Trump for saying such a thing anyway.

It's a moot point. Is Trump saying something going to stop the bomber? Is it going to bring the victims back from the dead?

Let's focus on the scumbag doing this shit. Why do we bring Trump into everything?

DifferentialEquation posted...

Correct if I'm wrong, but there is no known information about the suspect. No one has even a general idea of what this guy looks like. You can't get mad at Trump for waiting for the facts to come in before making some statement. That's how he's always handled these matters.

I agree 100%, I don't care if he ever says anything about it all. I'm speaking from a purely political optics standpoint.

Th only thing I want said about the bomber at all is "we have apprehended the man responsible and he has been beaten and hanged off the side of the 360 Bridge."

Caution999 posted...

iPhone_7 posted...

Ammonitida posted...

The latest victims were also white

Now we can expect a statement from Trump.

Trump not saying anything is just as bad as jumping to a conclusion before the facts come out.

People we need to wait until facts come out. I know we're all trying to paint a particular narrative around these parts...

While I agree with you, a simple empty platitude of "Texas, we are with you and will do everything we can to see the dick head brought to justice" would go a long way

iPhone_7 posted...

Ammonitida posted...

The latest victims were also white

Now we can expect a statement from Trump.

That's what I am anticipating happening. Not because he was waiting for white victims necessarily, but because this case has been weirdly low profile it seems and is just now gaining traction. But Trump being the doofus with a precedent of horrible timing and being an idiot, this will likely be the case

BJ-blazkowics posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

Alright lol just stopping in to tell you the answer is Great Britain. Not gonna say who or which population has 50% of males on welfare and near 75% of the female population on it.

Also gonna remind everyone that the parents are still got stupid prizes for playing stupid games and chances are they would've been safe bcuz anchor babies.

So you were bumping to see the answer of a question you already knew the answer? LMAO (not saying your answer is right, BTW)

So now you're going after the kids too with your anchor baby comment? At least your HERP DERP COME HERE LEGALLY excuse is now dropped

Nah come here legally is the best option.

So who's alt are you

So what did these babies do that was illegal? The babies, not the parents.

You got to stop answering questions with strawmen.

If a kid grows up living off money his parents stole, that doesn't mean he gets to continue living off it once it's discovered to have been stolen.

Least that's an argument I've heard

Ammonitida posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The third victim was a hispanic lady who lived next to who is thought to be the intended target and may have been wrongly targeted. The seemingly intended target also knows the first two.

This is pure speculation. Supposedly, the intended target was a woman named Erika Mason who lived two doors down from where the package was left. She shares the common last name of "Mason" with one of the other previous victims, although she claimed that she was not related to him.

Yes I know, hence the "thought to" and "seemingly". There really isn't a whole lot of concrete info yet, which is frightening

Axiom posted...

What the fuck. So a serial bomber is targeting minorities in Texas. It seems like that state can't catch a break

There is no indication yet that this is what it is.

The first two victims were both black, but knew each other. even if that was random, east Austin is heavily black/hispanic, so even randomly targeting would have a high chance of minority victims.

The third victim was a hispanic lady who lived next to who is thought to be the intended target and may have been wrongly targeted. The seemingly intended target also knows the first two.

So there you have a connection that may be limited to these individuals outside of race.

But then in west Austin, a more white/upperclass area, we have the latest two victims who apparently biked across a tripwire, which indicates a completely random bomb placement.

On top of all that, some asshole had one of the biggest SXSW events cancelled by emailing in a bomb threat Saturday.

It's all a fucking mess.

Well he better not fucking say anything now after the latest two victims being white. That will cause a shit storm

Frolex posted...

Why can't trump say "extremist right-wing terrorism"?

Because there is no indication yet that this is what it is.

The first two victims were both black, but knew each other. even if that was random, east Austin is heavily black/hispanic, so even randomly targeting would have a high chance of minority victims.

The third victim was a hispanic lady who lived next to who is thought to be the intended target and may have been wrongly targeted. The seemingly intended target also knows the first two.

So there you have a connection that may be limited to these individuals outside of race.

But then in west Austin, a more white/upperclass area, we have the latest two victims who apparently biked across a tripwire, which indicates a completely random bomb placement.

On top of all that, some asshole had one of the biggest SXSW events cancelled by emailing in a bomb threat Saturday.

It's all a fucking mess.

BJ-blazkowics posted...

_RETS_ posted...

By the way, these people ARE choosing not to come here legally. They know they are not legal, yet come here anyway. So they have a choice between coming here illegally or staying in their own country until they can get themselves into a position to add value to ours.

I'm sure not shitting out 6 kids would be helpful, in this specific case.

Are you capable of separating different concepts?

You can be against illegal immigration (I am), think those guys shouldn't have come here (they shouldn't), and that the laws should be enforced (I do), and still realize that the argument that they chose to ignore a citizenship process that was available to them because there wasn't one is a false one

I fully understand what you're saying and fully understand why you're saying it.

My point is if it is so hard to legally immigrate that they can't do it, coming here illegally is not the only choice they have. They can stay put.

I agree the argument shouldn't be "they should have just come here legally". It should be "they should try that, if they can't, then fuck off"

I understand where you're coming from. It also bothers me when fellow pro 2A people say shit like "you can kill someone with a truck too".

What gets me about this topic in general is that whoever posted the cartoon did so as a justification for illegal immigration. Fuck that. No one is owed entry to this or any other country just because the right way is too hard or inaccessible to them. If that's the case you just don't get to come. Oh well

BJ-blazkowics posted...

_RETS_ posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

_RETS_ posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

The Admiral posted...

Despite the best efforts of the illustrator, this doesn't look all that complicated to me. It's basically 6-7 steps to immigrate here in any of those paths, which is what I'd expect.If this is overwhelming to you, I'd hate to see you ever attempt to file your taxes.

I do not know how to address this, since you got a little bit emotional in our last exchange. I will do my best.

I am not completely sure that your argument is a honest, good faith one. You're hung up on counting steps or whether it's difficult to follow 6 steps, but you're not taking into consideration that basically they all boil down to:

- Be a relative of a citizen or permanent resident (which is something racist legislators and government people want to get rid of, anyway)
- Have a highly sought out job background and an employer who is willing to sponsor you and jump through hoops and rings of fire in order to bring you over (which is also something racist legislators and government people want to get rid of, anyway)

I am not saying that this is wrong. All I am saying is that posting in message boards saying that people did not want to follow the steps to become a citizen, as if it were a real possibility for them and they just couldn't bother is a lie.

I am not saying we should allow them to stay, or that it's wrong to kick them out. All I am saying is that the argument that they could have applied legally and chose not to is a lie.

This is all true. Although I'm forgetting the name of the one, solitary legal Mexican immigrant in all of history who was able to successfully immigrate. He is super famous for doing the near-impossible. I can't believe I'm forgetting his name. Can you help me out?

what a weird way to try to control the conversation. I never said people can't come legally. I explained above, if you have a citizen relative or a very specific job skill and an employer willing to drag his balls through broken glass to bring you over, then yes, you could.

It doesn't mean it's not IMPOSSIBLE for some people.

Are 100% of the legal immigrants ones who had a citizen relative or very specific job skill?

It being harder for some than others does not mean anything. There is still a legal, correct way to do things, no matter how difficult it is. If it is too difficult for a certain person, oh well. In what world should we lower the standard to the least common denominator? If some decide some is too hard that plenty of others have managed to do successfully, then perhaps it just isn't in the cards for them to get into the country and that is 100% okay.

Yes, 100% of the legal immigrants are that.

And no, I am not saying people should enter illegally, that is incredibly wrong. The only thing I am saying here is that the argument that people keep parroting regarding that these people CHOOSE not to come here legally is false, they CAN'T.

No, I got you. I'm just not sure all legal Mexican immigrants fit those categories. Care to provide stats?

By the way, these people ARE choosing not to come here legally. They know they are not legal, yet come here anyway. So they have a choice between coming here illegally or staying in their own country until they can get themselves into a position to add value to ours.

I'm sure not shitting out 6 kids would be helpful, in this specific case.

BJ-blazkowics posted...

_RETS_ posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

The Admiral posted...

Despite the best efforts of the illustrator, this doesn't look all that complicated to me. It's basically 6-7 steps to immigrate here in any of those paths, which is what I'd expect.If this is overwhelming to you, I'd hate to see you ever attempt to file your taxes.

I do not know how to address this, since you got a little bit emotional in our last exchange. I will do my best.

I am not completely sure that your argument is a honest, good faith one. You're hung up on counting steps or whether it's difficult to follow 6 steps, but you're not taking into consideration that basically they all boil down to:

- Be a relative of a citizen or permanent resident (which is something racist legislators and government people want to get rid of, anyway)
- Have a highly sought out job background and an employer who is willing to sponsor you and jump through hoops and rings of fire in order to bring you over (which is also something racist legislators and government people want to get rid of, anyway)

I am not saying that this is wrong. All I am saying is that posting in message boards saying that people did not want to follow the steps to become a citizen, as if it were a real possibility for them and they just couldn't bother is a lie.

I am not saying we should allow them to stay, or that it's wrong to kick them out. All I am saying is that the argument that they could have applied legally and chose not to is a lie.

This is all true. Although I'm forgetting the name of the one, solitary legal Mexican immigrant in all of history who was able to successfully immigrate. He is super famous for doing the near-impossible. I can't believe I'm forgetting his name. Can you help me out?

what a weird way to try to control the conversation. I never said people can't come legally. I explained above, if you have a citizen relative or a very specific job skill and an employer willing to drag his balls through broken glass to bring you over, then yes, you could.

It doesn't mean it's not IMPOSSIBLE for some people.

Are 100% of the legal immigrants ones who had a citizen relative or very specific job skill?

It being harder for some than others does not mean anything. There is still a legal, correct way to do things, no matter how difficult it is. If it is too difficult for a certain person, oh well. In what world should we lower the standard to the least common denominator? If some decide some is too hard that plenty of others have managed to do successfully, then perhaps it just isn't in the cards for them to get into the country and that is 100% okay.

BJ-blazkowics posted...

The Admiral posted...

Despite the best efforts of the illustrator, this doesn't look all that complicated to me. It's basically 6-7 steps to immigrate here in any of those paths, which is what I'd expect.If this is overwhelming to you, I'd hate to see you ever attempt to file your taxes.

I do not know how to address this, since you got a little bit emotional in our last exchange. I will do my best.

I am not completely sure that your argument is a honest, good faith one. You're hung up on counting steps or whether it's difficult to follow 6 steps, but you're not taking into consideration that basically they all boil down to:

- Be a relative of a citizen or permanent resident (which is something racist legislators and government people want to get rid of, anyway)
- Have a highly sought out job background and an employer who is willing to sponsor you and jump through hoops and rings of fire in order to bring you over (which is also something racist legislators and government people want to get rid of, anyway)

I am not saying that this is wrong. All I am saying is that posting in message boards saying that people did not want to follow the steps to become a citizen, as if it were a real possibility for them and they just couldn't bother is a lie.

I am not saying we should allow them to stay, or that it's wrong to kick them out. All I am saying is that the argument that they could have applied legally and chose not to is a lie.

This is all true. Although I'm forgetting the name of the one, solitary legal Mexican immigrant in all of history who was able to successfully immigrate. He is super famous for doing the near-impossible. I can't believe I'm forgetting his name. Can you help me out?

user78 posted...

I dont get this...
Preventing mentally ill people from getting their hands on guns and preventing them from killing innocent people are bad because that will automatically make the Government steal all the guns in the whole country because that is the only thing that prevents <insert current President> from going into dictator mode and turn every single soldier into brainless zombies that will kill their brothers and sisters...
...but actually doing the revolution is too violent?

Talk about wanting to both eat and keeping the cake.

I fully support clearly defined standards to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

darkjedilink posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Foppe posted...

Antifar posted...

ElementPro posted...

There's nothing to fear if you stay on the right side of the law.

History suggests otherwise

Too afraid of doing a revolution?

It what world is a violent revolution preferred to taking the necessary steps to prevent things from getting to that point?

You're talking to a gun-grabber, who thinks the only reason anyone buys a gun is to fight the government.

Yeah, lot of those lately.

Foppe posted...

Antifar posted...

ElementPro posted...

There's nothing to fear if you stay on the right side of the law.

History suggests otherwise

Too afraid of doing a revolution?

It what world is a violent revolution preferred to taking the necessary steps to prevent things from getting to that point?

Foppe posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ElementPro posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ElementPro posted...

Whats the problem?

The problem is it is foolish to have too much faith in the perpetual benevolence of the government/law enforcement and their mindfulness of the best interests of its citizens.

This specific instance may not be a huge problem, but it sets a precedent for more insidious and nefarious things that can easily become problems down the road.

There's nothing to fear if you stay on the right side of the law.

Sure, but what exactly happens when a left-run US adopts hate speech laws?

Or when any other overreach leads to laws that punish things that are not clearly defined and up for interpretation?

Then you will use your AR-15 to defeat Dictator Trump.

Sure, that's one of the deterrents and if you think otherwise you've got quite a bit of history to look into

ElementPro posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ElementPro posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ElementPro posted...

Whats the problem?

The problem is it is foolish to have too much faith in the perpetual benevolence of the government/law enforcement and their mindfulness of the best interests of its citizens.

This specific instance may not be a huge problem, but it sets a precedent for more insidious and nefarious things that can easily become problems down the road.

There's nothing to fear if you stay on the right side of the law.

Sure, but what exactly happens when a left-run US adopts hate speech laws?

Or when any other overreach leads to laws that punish things that are not clearly defined and up for interpretation?

Better not vote those fools in.

I'm sure a lot of people said "better not vote Trump in."

You don't have the mental capacity to even discuss this honestly so I'm done replying to you

ElementPro posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ElementPro posted...

Whats the problem?

The problem is it is foolish to have too much faith in the perpetual benevolence of the government/law enforcement and their mindfulness of the best interests of its citizens.

This specific instance may not be a huge problem, but it sets a precedent for more insidious and nefarious things that can easily become problems down the road.

There's nothing to fear if you stay on the right side of the law.

Sure, but what exactly happens when a left-run US adopts hate speech laws?

Or when any other overreach leads to laws that punish things that are not clearly defined and up for interpretation?

ElementPro posted...

Whats the problem?

The problem is it is foolish to have too much faith in the perpetual benevolence of the government/law enforcement and their mindfulness of the best interests of its citizens.

This specific instance may not be a huge problem, but it sets a precedent for more insidious and nefarious things that can easily become problems down the road.

This is another case of good intentions and somewhat sensible justification (catching criminals) potentially (and probably) leading to longer term unintended consequences. It is dicy, but this is a no-go for me

ASithLord7 posted...

IslamMD posted...

That would have inspired a better discussion than TC's lie oh well.

I literally posted a quote of him defending Weinstein and attacking his victims. Are you illiterate?

Calling him a monster is not defending him.

And the women that willingly slept with him and made careers off of their decision are not victims. He is correct. The ones who were preyed upon are. He is saying they were not all preyed upon and some willingly did it. This is accurate and you are being intentionally stupid.

R_Jackal posted...

500k. It's enough seed money to turn it in to the 1m and it's borderline guaranteed.

Only correct answer. It is essentially 99% chance you get a million dollars for the second option if you don't blow your money.

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

Except a civil war against the government is not going to happen. It's ridiculous in the modern age of technology to think that it will. It's just a faux argument so dumb assholes can hold onto their 100% unnecessary AR-15's.

How's the government monopoly on firearms working for North Koreans?

North Korea? THAT is the basis of your argument?

Gosh I guess it has absolutely nothing to do with the complete isolationist policies they have(hey similar to Trumpanzee's desire to keep everyone out) and the complete censorship of any and all sources of news and communication.....

It is rich that you are so quick to compare the leaders of the two countries without seeing the irony.

And no, NK isn't THE basis of my argument. It is one of very very many I have laid out for you. How old are you? If you are out of college this is a really sad, sad thing to watch because you should really be able to use your brain better

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

Except a civil war against the government is not going to happen. It's ridiculous in the modern age of technology to think that it will. It's just a faux argument so dumb assholes can hold onto their 100% unnecessary AR-15's.

How's the government monopoly on firearms working for North Koreans?

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...
This isn't good to give the government a monopoly on arms, which has been "proven time and time and time and fucking time again throughout history."

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons

Love how he puts it in quotes. I'm curious what the source of that word for word quote is.

I was quoting a previous post of mine that wasn't included in that post because of length.

I have already addressed every point you have and are still struggling to coherently make. Go actually fucking read the topic and think and, even if you don't come to the correct conclusions, you will have at least tried.

Great source btw. Considering not only does the US have more guns currently than they all have people combined and that our violent crime rate is declining, but also considering that if any of those governments turned tyrannical against their own people the US could intervene on that country's soil. The same cannot be said the other way around. So again it comes back to an armed deterrent.

If the US ever did decide to turn tyrannical, there is nothing to stop it from outside of the country without causing mass casualties to the US population. So then it comes back to in the event of the US turning tyrannical, you would rather its population being defenseless rather having a means of attempting to defend itself. There is absolutely no justification for that point of view.

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

Yet they still have them. And again, even with a 100% success rate, eventually you end up with an unarmed populace. This isn't good to give the government a monopoly on arms, which has been "proven time and time and time and fucking time again throughout history."

they already have a monopoly on arms, essentially. most of the effective firepower is in possession of the military. they could destroy you and your anti-government buddies in the blink of an eye if they chose to.

So if they do choose, no matter the outcome, you would rather the populace be defenseless than having a means of defending itself. Alright I'm done. You're too stupid to continue to address. Later