Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 131: Deferred Action by Childish Administration

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
ChaosTonyV4 09/08/17 6:37:06 PM #354:	Corrik posted... If a police officer shoots someone wrongly they should be charged as a murderer and prosecuted. Honestly, when have you ever heard of this happening? --- Phantom Dust. <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:886266532] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>If a police officer shoots someone wrongly they should be charged as a murderer and prosecuted. </quote> Honestly, when have you ever heard of this happening?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 09/08/17 6:38:33 PM #355:	Corrik posted... A lot of if is in response to justified shootings of criminals or suspects who did not comply to orders. Also no one should ever be shot because they "didn't comply to orders" unless that non-compliance literally means they pulled a gun. Most murders that attract the attention of BLM are of unarmed men. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:886266612] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>A lot of if is in response to justified shootings of criminals or suspects who did not comply to orders.</quote> Also no one should ever be shot because they "didn't comply to orders" unless that non-compliance literally means they pulled a gun. Most murders that attract the attention of BLM are of unarmed men.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 6:38:42 PM #356:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... If a police officer shoots someone wrongly they should be charged as a murderer and prosecuted. And yet that almost NEVER happens, ESPECIALLY if the dead person is black... Should happen every time regardless of the colors represented. Do you have proof of white victims having cops prosecuted in similar circumstances? --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886266619] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>If a police officer shoots someone wrongly they should be charged as a murderer and prosecuted.</quote> And yet that almost NEVER happens, ESPECIALLY if the dead person is black...</quote> Should happen every time regardless of the colors represented. Do you have proof of white victims having cops prosecuted in similar circumstances?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 09/08/17 6:39:35 PM #357:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... Corrik posted... If a police officer shoots someone wrongly they should be charged as a murderer and prosecuted. Honestly, when have you ever heard of this happening? To be fair, the murderer of Philando Castile was charged and prosecuted. But of course found Not Guilty --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:886266670] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>If a police officer shoots someone wrongly they should be charged as a murderer and prosecuted. </quote> Honestly, when have you ever heard of this happening?</quote> To be fair, the murderer of Philando Castile was charged and prosecuted. But of course found Not Guilty</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 6:45:41 PM #358:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... A lot of if is in response to justified shootings of criminals or suspects who did not comply to orders. Also no one should ever be shot because they "didn't comply to orders" unless that non-compliance literally means they pulled a gun. Most murders that attract the attention of BLM are of unarmed men. Having a weapon in your hand and not complying I think is arguable of force in situations. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886266986] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>A lot of if is in response to justified shootings of criminals or suspects who did not comply to orders.</quote> Also no one should ever be shot because they "didn't comply to orders" unless that non-compliance literally means they pulled a gun. Most murders that attract the attention of BLM are of unarmed men.</quote> Having a weapon in your hand and not complying I think is arguable of force in situations.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SupremeZero 09/08/17 6:46:25 PM #359:	Corrik posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... A lot of if is in response to justified shootings of criminals or suspects who did not comply to orders. Also no one should ever be shot because they "didn't comply to orders" unless that non-compliance literally means they pulled a gun. Most murders that attract the attention of BLM are of unarmed men. Having a weapon in your hand and not complying I think is arguable of force in situations. Having a weapon in your hand and not complying is the situation he said DID qualify. --- There's always hope for better things in life. But you can't let anything, friend, lover,God himself,be your hope. You have to be your own hope <cite>SupremeZero posted [p:886267021] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>A lot of if is in response to justified shootings of criminals or suspects who did not comply to orders.</quote> Also no one should ever be shot because they "didn't comply to orders" unless that non-compliance literally means they pulled a gun. Most murders that attract the attention of BLM are of unarmed men.</quote> Having a weapon in your hand and not complying I think is arguable of force in situations.</quote> Having a weapon in your hand and not complying is the situation he said DID qualify.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 09/08/17 6:47:49 PM #360:	Corrik posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... If a police officer shoots someone wrongly they should be charged as a murderer and prosecuted. And yet that almost NEVER happens, ESPECIALLY if the dead person is black... Should happen every time regardless of the colors represented. Do you have proof of white victims having cops prosecuted in similar circumstances? This is a fair counter. Cops rarely get arrested for murder no matter what the race of the victim is. But still According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/ --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:886267099] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>If a police officer shoots someone wrongly they should be charged as a murderer and prosecuted.</quote> And yet that almost NEVER happens, ESPECIALLY if the dead person is black...</quote> Should happen every time regardless of the colors represented. Do you have proof of white victims having cops prosecuted in similar circumstances?</quote> This is a fair counter. Cops rarely get arrested for murder no matter what the race of the victim is. But still <quote>According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.</quote> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 09/08/17 6:51:19 PM #361:	Here's a question for Corrik: At what point would you say blacks achieved full societal equality in America? Not legal equality. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:886267271] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>Here's a question for Corrik: At what point would you say blacks achieved full societal equality in America? Not legal equality.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 6:53:15 PM #362:	SupremeZero posted... Corrik posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... A lot of if is in response to justified shootings of criminals or suspects who did not comply to orders. Also no one should ever be shot because they "didn't comply to orders" unless that non-compliance literally means they pulled a gun. Most murders that attract the attention of BLM are of unarmed men. Having a weapon in your hand and not complying I think is arguable of force in situations. Having a weapon in your hand and not complying is the situation he said DID qualify. No. He specifically said "pulling". --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886267384] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>SupremeZero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>A lot of if is in response to justified shootings of criminals or suspects who did not comply to orders.</quote> Also no one should ever be shot because they "didn't comply to orders" unless that non-compliance literally means they pulled a gun. Most murders that attract the attention of BLM are of unarmed men.</quote> Having a weapon in your hand and not complying I think is arguable of force in situations.</quote> Having a weapon in your hand and not complying is the situation he said DID qualify.</quote> No. He specifically said "pulling".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 09/08/17 7:05:05 PM #363:	hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:886267952] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark Young Link 09/08/17 7:08:42 PM #364:	Corrik posted... Black Lives Matters is more inherently racist btw as it singles out one race of people whose lives matter. The too being understood is not a relatively good argument. I know a lot of good people are probably involved with it, but a few have done violence in the name of Black Lives Matters because it has not done a good job at differentiating between it being a black power group and a call for civil rights group. Arguing Blue Lives Matters, All Lives Matter are racist before Black Lives Matter just seems like a convenient argument and not a sound one. Hey Corrik, gonna assume this is in good faith and respond sincerely here. You are missing the intent of X Lives Matter in this case. Black Lives Matter: The issue is that police are killing an alarmingly high amount of black people under suspicious circumstances and getting away with it. Almost as if the lives of black people was less than anyone else. The group wishes to stop that. It's not implying white people aren't important, or Hispanics, or anyone else isn't important. Just, more or less, "Can you stop killing black people for no reason please?" The issue with "All Lives Matter" is that it's insincere. It's implying that BLM doesn't already believe that. An incorrect assumption for what I imagine is the majority of the people that fall under BLM(There's a few knuckleheads of course, but they don't represent the true message of BLM). The other issue is that ALM people.... don't really seem to care to do anything. It seems to exist purely to take attention away from black people. It's changing the subject, while offering no solution to the previous problem. You've probably heard this example used before. But it's like going into a cancer ward, and complaining that there are other disease out there that needs curing too. While that's true, that person is doing absolutely nothing to contribute to curing cancer, and basically wants to end the conversation. Blue Lives Matter is even worse because the police ALREADY gets so much support, it's difficult to believe that a lot of people don't value the lives of police officers. Yes yes "F The Police" but outside of criminals and edgelords, who actually says that? Who actually believes that? Cop killers are near universally derided, as is anyone who would support killing a cop. Additionally, who exactly gets away with killing a cop? If someone kills one and avoids getting arrested, sure. But who has killed a cop, been arrested, and was found 'Not Guilty' for killing a cop because of reasons? It also feeds into the misconception that supporting the cops, and total subservience of the cops are the same thing. You can support the cops, yet still believe that disobeying one shouldn't result in an automatic death sentence. You can support the cops, yet still believe one should be fairly punished in a court of law. You can support the cops, yet still believe there is a serious problem with corrupt cops getting off easy for their crimes, and be against the "good" cops who turn a blind eye to them because "one of us". TLDR: Black Lives Matter has a message All/Blue Lives Matter is changing the subject without offering a solution. --- http://i.imgur.com/gOGzcN4.gif DYL <cite>Dark Young Link posted [p:886268130] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Black Lives Matters is more inherently racist btw as it singles out one race of people whose lives matter. The too being understood is not a relatively good argument. I know a lot of good people are probably involved with it, but a few have done violence in the name of Black Lives Matters because it has not done a good job at differentiating between it being a black power group and a call for civil rights group. Arguing Blue Lives Matters, All Lives Matter are racist before Black Lives Matter just seems like a convenient argument and not a sound one.</quote> Hey Corrik, gonna assume this is in good faith and respond sincerely here. You are missing the intent of X Lives Matter in this case. Black Lives Matter: The issue is that police are killing an alarmingly high amount of black people under suspicious circumstances and getting away with it. Almost as if the lives of black people was less than anyone else. The group wishes to stop that. It's not implying white people aren't important, or Hispanics, or anyone else isn't important. Just, more or less, "Can you stop killing black people for no reason please?" The issue with "All Lives Matter" is that it's insincere. It's implying that BLM doesn't already believe that. An incorrect assumption for what I imagine is the majority of the people that fall under BLM(There's a few knuckleheads of course, but they don't represent the true message of BLM). The other issue is that ALM people.... don't really seem to care to do anything. It seems to exist purely to take attention away from black people. It's changing the subject, while offering no solution to the previous problem. You've probably heard this example used before. But it's like going into a cancer ward, and complaining that there are other disease out there that needs curing too. While that's true, that person is doing absolutely nothing to contribute to curing cancer, and basically wants to end the conversation. Blue Lives Matter is even worse because the police ALREADY gets so much support, it's difficult to believe that a lot of people don't value the lives of police officers. Yes yes "F The Police" but outside of criminals and edgelords, who actually says that? Who actually believes that? Cop killers are near universally derided, as is anyone who would support killing a cop. Additionally, who exactly gets away with killing a cop? If someone kills one and avoids getting arrested, sure. But who has killed a cop, been arrested, and was found 'Not Guilty' for killing a cop because of reasons? It also feeds into the misconception that supporting the cops, and total subservience of the cops are the same thing. You can support the cops, yet still believe that disobeying one shouldn't result in an automatic death sentence. You can support the cops, yet still believe one should be fairly punished in a court of law. You can support the cops, yet still believe there is a serious problem with corrupt cops getting off easy for their crimes, and be against the "good" cops who turn a blind eye to them because "one of us". TLDR: Black Lives Matter has a message All/Blue Lives Matter is changing the subject without offering a solution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 09/08/17 7:10:01 PM #365:	transience posted... I've long believed that Bernie did the Democratic party a disservice by saying "i don't care about your damn emails." that was going to come long and hard in the general election (and apparently a year later, ugh) and he stopped it from being an issue early on. it might have even won him the nomination, who knows. He was never going to win. Not beating up Clinton is what he should have done. I guess the argument is that if we had had that argument all the way out in the primaries that they'd have been dead as an issue by the general. But i just dont know if thats true. The entire problem is no one who could have won besides hillary was in the race. Joe Biden should very probably be President right now. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:886268211] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>transience posted...</cite> <quote>I've long believed that Bernie did the Democratic party a disservice by saying "i don't care about your damn emails." that was going to come long and hard in the general election (and apparently a year later, ugh) and he stopped it from being an issue early on. it might have even won him the nomination, who knows.</quote> He was never going to win. Not beating up Clinton is what he should have done. I guess the argument is that if we had had that argument all the way out in the primaries that they'd have been dead as an issue by the general. But i just dont know if thats true. The entire problem is no one who could have won besides hillary was in the race. Joe Biden should very probably be President right now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 09/08/17 7:13:23 PM #366:	Eddv posted... The entire problem is no one who could have won besides hillary was in the race. Are you talking the primary or the general? --- Phantom Dust. <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:886268362] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Eddv posted...</cite> <quote>The entire problem is no one who could have won besides hillary was in the race. </quote> Are you talking the primary or the general?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
transience 09/08/17 7:14:43 PM #367:	Eddv posted... transience posted... I've long believed that Bernie did the Democratic party a disservice by saying "i don't care about your damn emails." that was going to come long and hard in the general election (and apparently a year later, ugh) and he stopped it from being an issue early on. it might have even won him the nomination, who knows. He was never going to win. Not beating up Clinton is what he should have done. I guess the argument is that if we had had that argument all the way out in the primaries that they'd have been dead as an issue by the general. But i just dont know if thats true. The entire problem is no one who could have won besides hillary was in the race. Joe Biden should very probably be President right now. I agree with all of this --- xyzzy <cite>transience posted [p:886268436] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Eddv posted...</cite> <quote><cite>transience posted...</cite> <quote>I've long believed that Bernie did the Democratic party a disservice by saying "i don't care about your damn emails." that was going to come long and hard in the general election (and apparently a year later, ugh) and he stopped it from being an issue early on. it might have even won him the nomination, who knows.</quote> He was never going to win. Not beating up Clinton is what he should have done. I guess the argument is that if we had had that argument all the way out in the primaries that they'd have been dead as an issue by the general. But i just dont know if thats true. The entire problem is no one who could have won besides hillary was in the race. Joe Biden should very probably be President right now.</quote> I agree with all of this</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 7:25:24 PM #368:	Jakyl25 posted... Here's a question for Corrik: At what point would you say blacks achieved full societal equality in America? Not legal equality. Somewhere within the past 50 years. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886268915] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Here's a question for Corrik: At what point would you say blacks achieved full societal equality in America? Not legal equality.</quote> Somewhere within the past 50 years.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 09/08/17 7:32:28 PM #369:	Ouch. --- **** Netflix <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:886269265] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>Ouch.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 09/08/17 7:36:37 PM #370:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... Eddv posted... The entire problem is no one who could have won besides hillary was in the race. Are you talking the primary or the general? Both. I am entirely convinced the primaries were only as close as they were in the first place because it was a two person race and the 'not-clinton' was as strong or stronger than the 'yay bernie' --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:886269462] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Eddv posted...</cite> <quote>The entire problem is no one who could have won besides hillary was in the race. </quote> Are you talking the primary or the general?</quote> Both. I am entirely convinced the primaries were only as close as they were in the first place because it was a two person race and the 'not-clinton' was as strong or stronger than the 'yay bernie'</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 09/08/17 7:41:12 PM #371:	Dark Young Link posted... TLDR: Black Lives Matter has a message All/Blue Lives Matter is changing the subject without offering a solution. Corrik doesn't believe in understanding the histories behind words, just what they mean to him right this very moment. --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:886269693] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dark Young Link posted...</cite> <quote>TLDR: Black Lives Matter has a message All/Blue Lives Matter is changing the subject without offering a solution.</quote> Corrik doesn't believe in understanding the histories behind words, just what they mean to him right this very moment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 7:41:50 PM #372:	What a long post, DYL. No one really is against the Black Lives Matter message as it is intended (though many would argue it unnecessary). It is the vagueness of the name and intent. By all accounts, BLM isn't a group with a hierarchy supposedly (though they have leaders) but a group of people who just meet with a common idea. It is easy to transpose the idea to what you want it to mean. You have BLM marchers with signs to kill cops or fuck the police or so on. Which, according to the actual message, is not what is meant. However, we have seen rallies where signs were present. I am sure people were there for other means and that sign doesn't represent their wishes (marching at Unite the Right comparisons possibly?) As a collective group. However, you have a conservative media who easily takes that image with "Black Lives Matter" and there you go. You have the narrative. The typical person doesn't debate politics online or read up on half of shit. Most of the politics you get is what your local news plays and facebook (let's be honest). The names vagueness easily is able to be labeled to many as an affront. My grandmother retorts All Lives Matter when she sees someone say Black Lives Matter on her facebook. And, I know she literally means that all lives matter not just Black. Now, you are arguing there is no message behind either. That is false. The message behind Blue Lives Matter is to support the police and treat them with respect so they can do their job and because they are there to help you in times of need. One major retort to BLM from the BlueLM is that they have signs saying to kill cops and fuck the police when they would absolutely call the police first if their life was in danger to help and protect them. It is again a retort to the mindset that BLM has been labeled as a group that is anti-cops and/or a group that is seen as one that is one of Black Power. You can argue whether or not this is deserved. However, when you have a claimed BLM activist killing cops and saying he wants to kill WHITE police officers specifically, you start to let that narrative run rampant. It doesn't really matter what BLM is or stands for. It matters what people who say Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter THINK it stands for. You automatically assume it is from a negative, racist place (which I won't lie I could see racists trying to blend in behind it), but you fail to see how it could be from a positive, supportive place. Blue Lives Matters doesn't mean go shoot Black people. It means support the cops, respect them, understand they have stressful jobs and to give them the benefit of the doubt at first if something goes wrong. All Lives Matter doesn't mean to fuck yourself Black people. It means no race is better than any other and all lives matter and should matter and races shouldn't be differentiated in regards to it. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886269727] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>What a long post, DYL. No one really is against the Black Lives Matter message as it is intended (though many would argue it unnecessary). It is the vagueness of the name and intent. By all accounts, BLM isn't a group with a hierarchy supposedly (though they have leaders) but a group of people who just meet with a common idea. It is easy to transpose the idea to what you want it to mean. You have BLM marchers with signs to kill cops or fuck the police or so on. Which, according to the actual message, is not what is meant. However, we have seen rallies where signs were present. I am sure people were there for other means and that sign doesn't represent their wishes (marching at Unite the Right comparisons possibly?) As a collective group. However, you have a conservative media who easily takes that image with "Black Lives Matter" and there you go. You have the narrative. The typical person doesn't debate politics online or read up on half of shit. Most of the politics you get is what your local news plays and facebook (let's be honest). The names vagueness easily is able to be labeled to many as an affront. My grandmother retorts All Lives Matter when she sees someone say Black Lives Matter on her facebook. And, I know she literally means that all lives matter not just Black. Now, you are arguing there is no message behind either. That is false. The message behind Blue Lives Matter is to support the police and treat them with respect so they can do their job and because they are there to help you in times of need. One major retort to BLM from the BlueLM is that they have signs saying to kill cops and fuck the police when they would absolutely call the police first if their life was in danger to help and protect them. It is again a retort to the mindset that BLM has been labeled as a group that is anti-cops and/or a group that is seen as one that is one of Black Power. You can argue whether or not this is deserved. However, when you have a claimed BLM activist killing cops and saying he wants to kill WHITE police officers specifically, you start to let that narrative run rampant. It doesn't really matter what BLM is or stands for. It matters what people who say Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter THINK it stands for. You automatically assume it is from a negative, racist place (which I won't lie I could see racists trying to blend in behind it), but you fail to see how it could be from a positive, supportive place. Blue Lives Matters doesn't mean go shoot Black people. It means support the cops, respect them, understand they have stressful jobs and to give them the benefit of the doubt at first if something goes wrong. All Lives Matter doesn't mean to fuck yourself Black people. It means no race is better than any other and all lives matter and should matter and races shouldn't be differentiated in regards to it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 7:42:26 PM #373:	Kenri posted... hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point Is this a serious post? --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886269758] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote>hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point</quote> Is this a serious post?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HaRRicH 09/08/17 7:44:19 PM #374:	transience posted... I've long believed that Bernie did the Democratic party a disservice by saying "i don't care about your damn emails." that was going to come long and hard in the general election (and apparently a year later, ugh) and he stopped it from being an issue early on. it might have even won him the nomination, who knows. I'm not sure what inspired this...it's interesting to think about but I don't think I agree. Hillary already had plenty of distrust. I do think Bernie would be less influential today if he had done that in 2015 though. --- GameFlux: Unofficial GameFAQs board browser <cite>HaRRicH posted [p:886269847] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>transience posted...</cite> <quote>I've long believed that Bernie did the Democratic party a disservice by saying "i don't care about your damn emails." that was going to come long and hard in the general election (and apparently a year later, ugh) and he stopped it from being an issue early on. it might have even won him the nomination, who knows.</quote> I'm not sure what inspired this...it's interesting to think about but I don't think I agree. Hillary already had plenty of distrust. I do think Bernie would be less influential today if he had done that in 2015 though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 09/08/17 7:47:35 PM #375:	I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense. --- Phantom Dust. <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:886270030] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 7:47:38 PM #376:	She literally could have made Bernie her running mate and still won. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886270033] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>She literally could have made Bernie her running mate and still won.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 09/08/17 7:52:20 PM #377:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense. Basic transitive property. It makes perfect sense. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:886270303] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote>I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense.</quote> Basic transitive property. It makes perfect sense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 09/08/17 7:53:09 PM #378:	Dude if Bernie was VP we'd live in such a different world. Tim Kaine seems like an ok guy (outside of the weirdly possible DNC tit for tat conspiracy theory), but holy shit what an uninspired choice. --- Phantom Dust. <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:886270344] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>Dude if Bernie was VP we'd live in such a different world. Tim Kaine seems like an ok guy (outside of the weirdly possible DNC tit for tat conspiracy theory), but holy shit what an uninspired choice.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HaRRicH 09/08/17 7:53:47 PM #379:	All Lives Matter = supporting the obvious Blue Lives Matter = supporting the powerful Neither are wrong, but neither are as necessary. Neither have an end-goal and neither existed before Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter = supporting the suppressed And just to be clear: out of all/blue/black, which one has been historically attacked the most? I sympathize with Corrik in that as an NAACP member I do think black communities have made lots and lots of progress in the past fifty years, but there are some still-real issues that cost people their lives and bring distrust in one of our most necessary institutions. --- Posted using GameFlux <cite>HaRRicH posted [p:886270375] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>All Lives Matter = supporting the obvious Blue Lives Matter = supporting the powerful Neither are wrong, but neither are as necessary. Neither have an end-goal and neither existed before Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter = supporting the suppressed And just to be clear: out of all/blue/black, which one has been historically attacked the most? I sympathize with Corrik in that as an NAACP member I do think black communities have made lots and lots of progress in the past fifty years, but there are some still-real issues that cost people their lives and bring distrust in one of our most necessary institutions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 09/08/17 7:56:34 PM #380:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... Dude if Bernie was VP we'd live in such a different world. Tim Kaine seems like an ok guy (outside of the weirdly possible DNC tit for tat conspiracy theory), but holy shit what an uninspired choice. I wanted a damn harmonica playing VP. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:886270526] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote>Dude if Bernie was VP we'd live in such a different world. Tim Kaine seems like an ok guy (outside of the weirdly possible DNC tit for tat conspiracy theory), but holy shit what an uninspired choice.</quote> I wanted a damn harmonica playing VP.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HaRRicH 09/08/17 7:57:34 PM #381:	Corrik posted... She literally could have made Bernie her running mate and still won. I don't think Bernie or Hillary wanted this, and the same goes for if Bernie offered Hillary a VP position. Still, yes, I think Hillary could have done better if she reached out to progressives more. I voted for her because she allowed some progressive viewpoints to get into the DNC platform, even though I didn't trust her to follow through all the way on them. It would have been nice to see, say, Warren be her VP choice instead of the wet sweatervest that was Tim Kaine. --- Posted using GameFlux <cite>HaRRicH posted [p:886270593] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>She literally could have made Bernie her running mate and still won.</quote> I don't think Bernie or Hillary wanted this, and the same goes for if Bernie offered Hillary a VP position. Still, yes, I think Hillary could have done better if she reached out to progressives more. I voted for her because she allowed some progressive viewpoints to get into the DNC platform, even though I didn't trust her to follow through all the way on them. It would have been nice to see, say, Warren be her VP choice instead of the wet sweatervest that was Tim Kaine.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 09/08/17 7:58:21 PM #382:	"Blue Lives Matter" = "top complaining about us slaughtering black kids" --- http://i.imgur.com/U7qSWmn.jpg something something hung something horse something <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:886270637] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>"Blue Lives Matter" = "top complaining about us slaughtering black kids"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 09/08/17 7:58:40 PM #383:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense. It only makes no sense if you are still buying this lie that Trump didn't have enthusiastic support and turn out a large number of voters for himself or the other lie that hillary did not turn out voters. Clinton basically equalled 2012 Obama. Trump just blew out Romney. Therefore, for Bernie to have won he would have had to be a lot closer to 2008 Obama. And if he was close to being 2008 Obama, he wouldn't have lost to Hillary. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:886270662] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote>I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense.</quote> It only makes no sense if you are still buying this lie that Trump didn't have enthusiastic support and turn out a large number of voters for himself or the other lie that hillary did not turn out voters. Clinton basically equalled 2012 Obama. Trump just blew out Romney. Therefore, for Bernie to have won he would have had to be a lot closer to 2008 Obama. And if he was close to being 2008 Obama, he wouldn't have lost to Hillary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 09/08/17 8:00:33 PM #384:	TheRock1525 posted... ChaosTonyV4 posted... I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense. Basic transitive property. It makes perfect sense. Care to elaborate? Because setting aside that literally every poll showed Bernie beating Trump, he had none of her weaknesses and his strength undercut Trump's? Sure, he'd lose Status Quo people like Eddv, but you think actual Democrats were gonna vote Trump? Bernie picks up the dyed in the wool Dem vote and all those white swing voters Hillary was radioactive to for an easy win. Hell, the night after the election CNN and Fox both held interviews with people who said "I'd have voted Bernie, but I don't trust Hillary so I voted Trump". I mean what's the counter argument to that? --- Phantom Dust. <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:886270736] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote>I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense.</quote> Basic transitive property. It makes perfect sense.</quote> Care to elaborate? Because setting aside that literally every poll showed Bernie beating Trump, he had none of her weaknesses and his strength undercut Trump's? Sure, he'd lose Status Quo people like Eddv, but you think actual Democrats were gonna vote Trump? Bernie picks up the dyed in the wool Dem vote and all those white swing voters Hillary was radioactive to for an easy win. Hell, the night after the election CNN and Fox both held interviews with people who said "I'd have voted Bernie, but I don't trust Hillary so I voted Trump". I mean what's the counter argument to that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SupremeZero 09/08/17 8:02:32 PM #385:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... TheRock1525 posted... ChaosTonyV4 posted... I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense. Basic transitive property. It makes perfect sense. Care to elaborate? Because setting aside that literally every poll showed Bernie beating Trump, he had none of her weaknesses and his strength undercut Trump's? Sure, he'd lose Status Quo people like Eddv, but you think actual Democrats were gonna vote Trump? Bernie picks up the dyed in the wool Dem vote and all those white swing voters Hillary was radioactive to for an easy win. Hell, the night after the election CNN and Fox both held interviews with people who said "I'd have voted Bernie, but I don't trust Hillary so I voted Trump". I mean what's the counter argument to that? The logic is "Trump > Hillary, Hillary > Bernie, therefore Trump > Bernie" Unfortunately elections aren't math, but whatever. --- There's always hope for better things in life. But you can't let anything, friend, lover,God himself,be your hope. You have to be your own hope <cite>SupremeZero posted [p:886270823] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote>I really wish people would stop saying Bernie would have lost against Trump. It just makes no logical sense.</quote> Basic transitive property. It makes perfect sense.</quote> Care to elaborate? Because setting aside that literally every poll showed Bernie beating Trump, he had none of her weaknesses and his strength undercut Trump's? Sure, he'd lose Status Quo people like Eddv, but you think actual Democrats were gonna vote Trump? Bernie picks up the dyed in the wool Dem vote and all those white swing voters Hillary was radioactive to for an easy win. Hell, the night after the election CNN and Fox both held interviews with people who said "I'd have voted Bernie, but I don't trust Hillary so I voted Trump". I mean what's the counter argument to that?</quote> The logic is "Trump > Hillary, Hillary > Bernie, therefore Trump > Bernie" Unfortunately elections aren't math, but whatever.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 09/08/17 8:07:48 PM #386:	there is zero gauge for Bernie vs Trump Trump literally praises Bernie because it helps him - he made his own base view Bernie positively. That wouldn't be the case if they were actually opponents could bernie win? absolutely, it was a close election where Hillary already had the popular vote. but claiming it's an obvious victory is nonsense based on nothing - Hillary beating Trump was already supposed to be the "obvious" result --- http://i.imgur.com/U7qSWmn.jpg something something hung something horse something <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:886271096] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>there is zero gauge for Bernie vs Trump Trump literally praises Bernie because it helps him - he made his own base view Bernie positively. That wouldn't be the case if they were actually opponents could bernie win? absolutely, it was a close election where Hillary already had the popular vote. but claiming it's an obvious victory is nonsense based on nothing - Hillary beating Trump was already supposed to be the "obvious" result</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 09/08/17 8:09:32 PM #387:	Corrik posted... Kenri posted... hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point Is this a serious post? define "serious" --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:886271196] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote>hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point</quote> Is this a serious post?</quote> define "serious"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 09/08/17 8:10:30 PM #388:	Eddv posted... It only makes no sense if you are still buying this lie that Trump didn't have enthusiastic support and turn out a large number of voters for himself or the other lie that hillary did not turn out voters. Clinton basically equalled 2012 Obama. Trump just blew out Romney. Therefore, for Bernie to have won he would have had to be a lot closer to 2008 Obama. I mean if you want to be reductive like this, there were 5 million more third party voters in 2016 compared to 2012. If even 100,000 of them went to Bernie in the right states...(remember, the Bernie's Dank Meme Stash Facebook group that basically went Bernie or Bust had almost 500,000 members) --- Phantom Dust. <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:886271256] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Eddv posted...</cite> <quote> It only makes no sense if you are still buying this lie that Trump didn't have enthusiastic support and turn out a large number of voters for himself or the other lie that hillary did not turn out voters. Clinton basically equalled 2012 Obama. Trump just blew out Romney. Therefore, for Bernie to have won he would have had to be a lot closer to 2008 Obama. </quote> I mean if you want to be reductive like this, there were 5 million more third party voters in 2016 compared to 2012. If even 100,000 of them went to Bernie in the right states...(remember, the Bernie's Dank Meme Stash Facebook group that basically went Bernie or Bust had almost 500,000 members)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 09/08/17 8:13:18 PM #389:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... Eddv posted... It only makes no sense if you are still buying this lie that Trump didn't have enthusiastic support and turn out a large number of voters for himself or the other lie that hillary did not turn out voters. Clinton basically equalled 2012 Obama. Trump just blew out Romney. Therefore, for Bernie to have won he would have had to be a lot closer to 2008 Obama. I mean if you want to be reductive like this, there were 5 million more third party voters in 2016 compared to 2012. If even 100,000 of them went to Bernie in the right states...(remember, the Bernie's Dank Meme Stash Facebook group that basically went Bernie or Bust had almost 500,000 members) There are obviously a lot of different things in play here. How many urban voters decide "you know what I'm not waiting in a 2 hour line to vote for Bernie?" The point is overall strength and AT BEST Bernie is at or below Hillary in that aspect even if she wasn't in your bubble. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:886271396] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Eddv posted...</cite> <quote> It only makes no sense if you are still buying this lie that Trump didn't have enthusiastic support and turn out a large number of voters for himself or the other lie that hillary did not turn out voters. Clinton basically equalled 2012 Obama. Trump just blew out Romney. Therefore, for Bernie to have won he would have had to be a lot closer to 2008 Obama. </quote> I mean if you want to be reductive like this, there were 5 million more third party voters in 2016 compared to 2012. If even 100,000 of them went to Bernie in the right states...(remember, the Bernie's Dank Meme Stash Facebook group that basically went Bernie or Bust had almost 500,000 members)</quote> There are obviously a lot of different things in play here. How many urban voters decide "you know what I'm not waiting in a 2 hour line to vote for Bernie?" The point is overall strength and AT BEST Bernie is at or below Hillary in that aspect even if she wasn't in your bubble.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 8:28:45 PM #390:	HaRRicH posted... Corrik posted... She literally could have made Bernie her running mate and still won. I don't think Bernie or Hillary wanted this, and the same goes for if Bernie offered Hillary a VP position. Still, yes, I think Hillary could have done better if she reached out to progressives more. I voted for her because she allowed some progressive viewpoints to get into the DNC platform, even though I didn't trust her to follow through all the way on them. It would have been nice to see, say, Warren be her VP choice instead of the wet sweatervest that was Tim Kaine. She lost bernie voters that would have coalesced if Bernie was literally a heart attack from the presidency. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886272110] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>HaRRicH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>She literally could have made Bernie her running mate and still won.</quote> I don't think Bernie or Hillary wanted this, and the same goes for if Bernie offered Hillary a VP position. Still, yes, I think Hillary could have done better if she reached out to progressives more. I voted for her because she allowed some progressive viewpoints to get into the DNC platform, even though I didn't trust her to follow through all the way on them. It would have been nice to see, say, Warren be her VP choice instead of the wet sweatervest that was Tim Kaine.</quote> She lost bernie voters that would have coalesced if Bernie was literally a heart attack from the presidency.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 8:32:11 PM #391:	Kenri posted... Corrik posted... Kenri posted... hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point Is this a serious post? define "serious" Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886272269] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote>hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point</quote> Is this a serious post?</quote> define "serious"</quote> Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 09/08/17 8:35:53 PM #392:	Corrik posted... Kenri posted... Corrik posted... Kenri posted... hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point Is this a serious post? define "serious" Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand. Are you this literal and pedantic all the time, or only while arguing politics on the internet? --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:886272436] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote>hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point</quote> Is this a serious post?</quote> define "serious"</quote> Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand.</quote> Are you this literal and pedantic all the time, or only while arguing politics on the internet?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 09/08/17 8:38:23 PM #393:	I just want to say to Corrik that he's relying heavily on violent anti-police rhetoric as muddying BLM's cause I wonder if you realize a lot of those are fake? Or at least not from actual BLM rallies The one that gets passed around the most is from before BLM even existed --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:886272551] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>I just want to say to Corrik that he's relying heavily on violent anti-police rhetoric as muddying BLM's cause I wonder if you realize a lot of those are fake? Or at least not from actual BLM rallies The one that gets passed around the most is from before BLM even existed</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 8:38:58 PM #394:	Not_an_Owl posted... Corrik posted... Kenri posted... Corrik posted... Kenri posted... hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point Is this a serious post? define "serious" Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand. Are you this literal and pedantic all the time, or only while arguing politics on the internet? It is literally two different scenarios. And, I feel confident that Jakyl was specifically referring to the 2nd scenario. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886272578] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote>hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point</quote> Is this a serious post?</quote> define "serious"</quote> Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand.</quote> Are you this literal and pedantic all the time, or only while arguing politics on the internet?</quote> It is literally two different scenarios. And, I feel confident that Jakyl was specifically referring to the 2nd scenario.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 09/08/17 8:40:15 PM #395:	To be fair, his point is that what BLM is doesn't actually matter here. If people are easily duped into thinking BLM is evil, then they aren't evil for opposing it. --- JeffRaze, for all your random spellcasting needs <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:886272641] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>To be fair, his point is that what BLM is doesn't actually matter here. If people are easily duped into thinking BLM is evil, then they aren't evil for opposing it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 09/08/17 8:43:24 PM #396:	I should note that I don't actually agree with Corrik here, there's definitely a lot of racist sentiment behind Blue/All lives matter. But he seems to be restating the old idiom, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. --- JeffRaze, for all your random spellcasting needs <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:886272788] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>I should note that I don't actually agree with Corrik here, there's definitely a lot of racist sentiment behind Blue/All lives matter. But he seems to be restating the old idiom, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 09/08/17 8:48:26 PM #397:	Corrik posted... Kenri posted... Corrik posted... Kenri posted... hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point Is this a serious post? define "serious" Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand. wow, that's a weird definition for the word "serious" can you use it in a sentence --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:886273037] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote>hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point</quote> Is this a serious post?</quote> define "serious"</quote> Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand.</quote> wow, that's a weird definition for the word "serious" can you use it in a sentence</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 8:54:32 PM #398:	Kenri posted... Corrik posted... Kenri posted... Corrik posted... Kenri posted... hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point Is this a serious post? define "serious" Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand. wow, that's a weird definition for the word "serious" can you use it in a sentence Sure. Are you serious? --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886273297] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote>hard to have a gun in your hand without pulling it at some point</quote> Is this a serious post?</quote> define "serious"</quote> Cops come up to a man holding a gun in the car. He is ordered to put the gun down repeatedly with the threat of force if he does not comply. He is talking abd acting erractically with hand gestures where the gun is flailing about and being pointed in cops directions. Cops come up to man. He pulls a gun out of his pocket. Scenario 1 jakyl thinks that does not justify force. Scenario 2 he says does. You literally just said scenario 1 can never happen cuz he cant be holding a weapon before a cop is there and can only pull a weapon on a cop if its in his hand.</quote> wow, that's a weird definition for the word "serious" can you use it in a sentence</quote> Sure. Are you serious?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 09/08/17 8:56:49 PM #399:	Corrik posted... It is literally two different scenarios. And, I feel confident that Jakyl was specifically referring to the 2nd scenario. If it helps, take out "pulling a gun" and replace it with "pointing a gun" Erratic flailing would be pointing since I assume it's finger on the trigger --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:886273412] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It is literally two different scenarios. And, I feel confident that Jakyl was specifically referring to the 2nd scenario.</quote> If it helps, take out "pulling a gun" and replace it with "pointing a gun" Erratic flailing would be pointing since I assume it's finger on the trigger</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 09/08/17 8:56:50 PM #400:	Corrik posted... Sure. Are you serious? No, I'm not interacting with police in any way right now. --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:886273417] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Sure. Are you serious?</quote> No, I'm not interacting with police in any way right now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 09/08/17 8:57:32 PM #401:	JeffreyRaze posted... To be fair, his point is that what BLM is doesn't actually matter here. If people are easily duped into thinking BLM is evil, then they aren't evil for opposing it. This is a good post. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:886273460] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>JeffreyRaze posted...</cite> <quote>To be fair, his point is that what BLM is doesn't actually matter here. If people are easily duped into thinking BLM is evil, then they aren't evil for opposing it.</quote> This is a good post.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 09/08/17 9:08:14 PM #402:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... It is literally two different scenarios. And, I feel confident that Jakyl was specifically referring to the 2nd scenario. If it helps, take out "pulling a gun" and replace it with "pointing a gun" Erratic flailing would be pointing since I assume it's finger on the trigger I feel if the cop feels his life is in danger he has the right to use force if he deems it necessary. Now, cops are people. They make mistakes or get scared or paranoid. There is a small range of benefit of doubt I apply here. I can think of many cases where I deem force to be a viable option. I can think of some that didn't require it but it still was a fair option. And, I can think of some where it would be blatantly wrong. I do not expect our cops are robocops with sensors and they can analyze body heart rates and shit to ascertain what is truly going on to interpret actions correctly. I do, however, expect them to err on the side of their safety and that of public with as much leniency as that safety provides. Is banging your head off the wall cause for being shot? No. Faking going to your pocket for a weapon even if you don't have one? Justifiable. Threatening to shoot the cop then putting hand into pocket? Justifiable. Pulling out a cigarette from a pack in your hnd and trying to light it when the cop said not to? No. Trying to hand your ID to a cop and clearly stating so while following orders? No. Pulling out a realistic looking toy gun quickly and raising it towards cop? Justifiable. Pointing a nerf gun at a cop? No. Having a knife and coming towards cop? Justifiable. Coming towards cop unarmed despite repeated warnings not to and tryibg to grab for cops gun? Justifiable. The whole thing though is that those who are arrested are going to make it seem like they weren't wrong and the cops were. The cops are going to say they weren't wrong and defend themselves. That is why with our technology that having their cameras on is extremely important so we know what happened. Is there shady cops? YES. Do cops deserve our respect and our benefit of the doubt? YES. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:886273880] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It is literally two different scenarios. And, I feel confident that Jakyl was specifically referring to the 2nd scenario.</quote> If it helps, take out "pulling a gun" and replace it with "pointing a gun" Erratic flailing would be pointing since I assume it's finger on the trigger</quote> I feel if the cop feels his life is in danger he has the right to use force if he deems it necessary. Now, cops are people. They make mistakes or get scared or paranoid. There is a small range of benefit of doubt I apply here. I can think of many cases where I deem force to be a viable option. I can think of some that didn't require it but it still was a fair option. And, I can think of some where it would be blatantly wrong. I do not expect our cops are robocops with sensors and they can analyze body heart rates and shit to ascertain what is truly going on to interpret actions correctly. I do, however, expect them to err on the side of their safety and that of public with as much leniency as that safety provides. Is banging your head off the wall cause for being shot? No. Faking going to your pocket for a weapon even if you don't have one? Justifiable. Threatening to shoot the cop then putting hand into pocket? Justifiable. Pulling out a cigarette from a pack in your hnd and trying to light it when the cop said not to? No. Trying to hand your ID to a cop and clearly stating so while following orders? No. Pulling out a realistic looking toy gun quickly and raising it towards cop? Justifiable. Pointing a nerf gun at a cop? No. Having a knife and coming towards cop? Justifiable. Coming towards cop unarmed despite repeated warnings not to and tryibg to grab for cops gun? Justifiable. The whole thing though is that those who are arrested are going to make it seem like they weren't wrong and the cops were. The cops are going to say they weren't wrong and defend themselves. That is why with our technology that having their cameras on is extremely important so we know what happened. Is there shady cops? YES. Do cops deserve our respect and our benefit of the doubt? YES.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 09/08/17 9:09:23 PM #403:	american police the biggest pussies in the planet --- http://i.imgur.com/U7qSWmn.jpg something something hung something horse something <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:886273932] in Politics C... [t:75747014]...</cite> <quote>american police the biggest pussies in the planet</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 131: Deferred Action by Childish Administration (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 131: Deferred Action by Childish Administration