Poll of the Day > We should ban all white people from owning guns #TrumpLogic

Topic List	Page List: 1
Truth_Decay 10/02/17 9:45:42 AM #1:	If we should ban travel into the States from certain Muslim countries to avert potential acts of terror, then we should end 2nd Amendment rights for white people. "Why white people? People of all races have used guns in violent crimes." True, but because #TrumpLogic, that's why. Many terrorist acts are committed by Muslims, but not all. Trump wants to ban travel from a handful of countries in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. Many mass shootings are perpetrated by white people, so following #TrumpLogic, we should do all we can to prevent future mass shootings. I can think of no better solution than a blanket ban on gun ownership for white people. Any Trump supporter would agree. --- Seek the truth / Free your mind Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind <cite>Truth_Decay posted [p:887660308] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote>If we should ban travel into the States from certain Muslim countries to avert potential acts of terror, then we should end 2nd Amendment rights for white people. "Why white people? People of all races have used guns in violent crimes." True, but because #TrumpLogic, that's why. Many terrorist acts are committed by Muslims, but not all. Trump wants to ban travel from a handful of countries in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. Many mass shootings are perpetrated by white people, so following #TrumpLogic, we should do all we can to prevent future mass shootings. I can think of no better solution than a blanket ban on gun ownership for white people. Any Trump supporter would agree.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#2	Post #2 was unavailable or deleted.
pionear 10/02/17 10:07:13 AM #3:	Oh boy, this is gonna be fun <cite>pionear posted [p:887661219] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote>Oh boy, this is gonna be fun</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Truth_Decay 10/02/17 10:40:41 AM #4:	Zangulus posted... No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution. That's the basis for the travel ban. Your entire stupid topic has unraveled at step one. Close it. #TrumpLogic still applies. If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Aa a private organization, the NFL can discipline players as they see fit. Trump and the government in general should keep their noses out of it. Your argument holds no water. --- Seek the truth / Free your mind Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind <cite>Truth_Decay posted [p:887662738] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution. That's the basis for the travel ban. Your entire stupid topic has unraveled at step one. Close it.</quote> #TrumpLogic still applies. If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Aa a private organization, the NFL can discipline players as they see fit. Trump and the government in general should keep their noses out of it. Your argument holds no water.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster 10/02/17 10:41:51 AM #5:	Truth_Decay posted... If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact? <cite>TheWorstPoster posted [p:887662801] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Truth_Decay posted...</cite> <quote>If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech.</quote> Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#6	Post #6 was unavailable or deleted.
TheWorstPoster 10/02/17 10:48:10 AM #7:	Zangulus posted... You do realize hate speech is NOT protected under the constitution right? Well, I am asking that but your statement says otherwise... Define "hate speech" <cite>TheWorstPoster posted [p:887663094] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>You do realize hate speech is NOT protected under the constitution right? Well, I am asking that but your statement says otherwise...</quote> Define "hate speech"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Troll_Police_ 10/02/17 10:50:31 AM #8:	jesus christ this topic is almost as bad as icoyar's how does that make you feel TC? to be on the same shitposting level as the biggest shitposter to ever shitpost? --- Is this going to be one of those times when you pretend not to have a plan until the last moment? And then turn out to really not have one? <cite>Troll_Police_ posted [p:887663211] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote>jesus christ this topic is almost as bad as icoyar's how does that make you feel TC? to be on the same shitposting level as the biggest shitposter to ever shitpost?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#9	Post #9 was unavailable or deleted.
Truth_Decay 10/02/17 10:51:54 AM #10:	TheWorstPoster posted... Truth_Decay posted... If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact? What does this have to do with the government/Trump trying to suppress free speech? At least Zangulus had a good point, it just doesn't hold up under #TrumpLogic. You just don't know what you're talking about at all. --- Seek the truth / Free your mind Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind <cite>Truth_Decay posted [p:887663284] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Truth_Decay posted...</cite> <quote>If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech.</quote> Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact?</quote> What does this have to do with the government/Trump trying to suppress free speech? At least Zangulus had a good point, it just doesn't hold up under #TrumpLogic. You just don't know what you're talking about at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster 10/02/17 10:55:15 AM #11:	Zangulus posted... Let's see... calling for the mass genocide or expulsion of entire races and religions for one Calling for that is one thing, and, while repugnant, is protected under the Constitution. Actively doing it however, is highly illegal. <cite>TheWorstPoster posted [p:887663429] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>Let's see... calling for the mass genocide or expulsion of entire races and religions for one</quote> Calling for that is one thing, and, while repugnant, is protected under the Constitution. Actively doing it however, is highly illegal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dikitain 10/02/17 11:34:13 AM #12:	People who use hashtags in places where they don't actually do anything should be forced to have 100 Carolina Reapers shoved up their ass then sit on a running drill bit. Trump Logic. --- I am a senior software engineer. If you see me post here, I am tired of writing TPS reports. <cite>Dikitain posted [p:887665453] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote>People who use hashtags in places where they don't actually do anything should be forced to have 100 Carolina Reapers shoved up their ass then sit on a running drill bit. Trump Logic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Far-Queue 10/02/17 2:04:18 PM #13:	googles Carolina Reapers Oh! That... sounds uncomfortable. --- https://i.imgur.com/ZwO4qO2.gifv Bluer than velvet was the night... Softer than satin was the light... From the stars... <cite>Far-Queue posted [p:887673763] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote>googles Carolina Reapers Oh! That... sounds uncomfortable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrndNhbrHdCEman 10/02/17 2:09:06 PM #14:	TheWorstPoster posted... Zangulus posted... Let's see... calling for the mass genocide or expulsion of entire races and religions for one Calling for that is one thing, and, while repugnant, is protected under the Constitution. Actively doing it however, is highly illegal. Crazy you're a real person fam. --- Official nosy neighbor and gossip http://imgur.com/uGKwGsK <cite>FrndNhbrHdCEman posted [p:887674045] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>Let's see... calling for the mass genocide or expulsion of entire races and religions for one</quote> Calling for that is one thing, and, while repugnant, is protected under the Constitution. Actively doing it however, is highly illegal.</quote> Crazy you're a real person fam.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tropic_Sunset 10/02/17 2:18:46 PM #15:	Zangulus posted... TheWorstPoster posted... Truth_Decay posted... If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact? You do realize hate speech is NOT protected under the constitution right? Well, I am asking that but your statement says otherwise... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/mark https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-upholds-offensive-trademarks-form-free-speech/100618478/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/supreme-court-free-speech-gerrymandering.html --- "Nostalgia is a hell of a drug." -Magus 10 <cite>Tropic_Sunset posted [p:887674588] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Truth_Decay posted...</cite> <quote>If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech.</quote> Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact?</quote> You do realize hate speech is NOT protected under the constitution right? Well, I am asking that but your statement says otherwise...</quote> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/mark https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-upholds-offensive-trademarks-form-free-speech/100618478/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/supreme-court-free-speech-gerrymandering.html</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/02/17 2:24:11 PM #16:	Truth_Decay posted... "Why white people? People of all races have used guns in violent crimes." True, but because #TrumpLogic, that's why. That wouldn't even make sense for Trump logic. You're trying equate 1% of the US population which is responsible for the vast majority of terror attacks in the US with 62% of the population which is responsible for less than HALF of all gun deaths in the US. But nice lazy trolling right after a national tragedy, pal. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887674866] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Truth_Decay posted...</cite> <quote>"Why white people? People of all races have used guns in violent crimes." True, but because #TrumpLogic, that's why. </quote> That wouldn't even make sense for Trump logic. You're trying equate 1% of the US population which is responsible for the vast majority of terror attacks in the US with 62% of the population which is responsible for less than HALF of all gun deaths in the US. But nice lazy trolling right after a national tragedy, pal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/02/17 2:25:00 PM #17:	Zangulus posted... No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution. This isn't technically true. Some (though not all) parts of the Constitution do apply to non-citizens under American authority. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887674912] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution.</quote> This isn't technically true. Some (though not all) parts of the Constitution do apply to non-citizens under American authority.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/02/17 2:27:45 PM #18:	Zangulus posted... TheWorstPoster posted... Truth_Decay posted... If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact? You do realize hate speech is NOT protected under the constitution right? Well, I am asking that but your statement says otherwise... The only problem with that statement is that it currently is protected until SCOTUS decides otherwise. Truth_Decay posted... Zangulus posted... No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution. That's the basis for the travel ban. Your entire stupid topic has unraveled at step one. Close it. #TrumpLogic still applies. If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Aa a private organization, the NFL can discipline players as they see fit. Trump and the government in general should keep their noses out of it. Your argument holds no water. ...what? Do you understand how any of this shit works? Let alone the fact that calling somebody out has never been considered "suppressing free speech" by any definition, except maybe SJW definitions which make Trump look like the most enlightened philosopher in human history. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887675076] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Truth_Decay posted...</cite> <quote>If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech.</quote> Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact?</quote> You do realize hate speech is NOT protected under the constitution right? Well, I am asking that but your statement says otherwise...</quote> The only problem with that statement is that it currently is protected until SCOTUS decides otherwise. <cite>Truth_Decay posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution. That's the basis for the travel ban. Your entire stupid topic has unraveled at step one. Close it.</quote> #TrumpLogic still applies. If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Aa a private organization, the NFL can discipline players as they see fit. Trump and the government in general should keep their noses out of it. Your argument holds no water.</quote> ...what? Do you understand how any of this shit works? Let alone the fact that calling somebody out has never been considered "suppressing free speech" by any definition, except maybe SJW definitions which make Trump look like the most enlightened philosopher in human history.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/02/17 2:29:50 PM #19:	darkknight109 posted... Zangulus posted... No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution. This isn't technically true. Some (though not all) parts of the Constitution do apply to non-citizens under American authority. Until they enter the country or a US territory, they're not under American authority. Are you suggesting that our constitution applies to foreigners in foreign lands? Because that's overreaching on so many levels. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887675204] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution.</quote> This isn't technically true. Some (though not all) parts of the Constitution do apply to non-citizens under American authority.</quote> Until they enter the country or a US territory, they're not under American authority. Are you suggesting that our constitution applies to foreigners in foreign lands? Because that's overreaching on so many levels.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/02/17 3:05:15 PM #20:	Zeus posted... darkknight109 posted... Zangulus posted... No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution. This isn't technically true. Some (though not all) parts of the Constitution do apply to non-citizens under American authority. Until they enter the country or a US territory, they're not under American authority. Are you suggesting that our constitution applies to foreigners in foreign lands? Because that's overreaching on so many levels. If they are under US authority (for instance, under the care of the American military while operating in a foreign area), then yes, they are actually afforded some constitutional rights. That's not me "suggesting" anything - that's just how it works. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887677212] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution.</quote> This isn't technically true. Some (though not all) parts of the Constitution do apply to non-citizens under American authority.</quote> Until they enter the country or a US territory, they're not under American authority. Are you suggesting that our constitution applies to foreigners in foreign lands? Because that's overreaching on so many levels.</quote> If they are under US authority (for instance, under the care of the American military while operating in a foreign area), then yes, they are actually afforded some constitutional rights. That's not me "suggesting" anything - that's just how it works.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cruddy_horse 10/02/17 3:13:50 PM #21:	Dikitain posted... People who use hashtags in places where they don't actually do anything should be forced to have 100 Carolina Reapers shoved up their ass then sit on a running drill bit. Trump Logic. I'm convinced people who do this are either under the age of 17 or have the mentality of someone under 17. --- equo ne credite! <cite>Cruddy_horse posted [p:887677646] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dikitain posted...</cite> <quote>People who use hashtags in places where they don't actually do anything should be forced to have 100 Carolina Reapers shoved up their ass then sit on a running drill bit. Trump Logic.</quote> I'm convinced people who do this are either under the age of 17 or have the mentality of someone under 17.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/02/17 3:38:12 PM #22:	darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... darkknight109 posted... Zangulus posted... No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution. This isn't technically true. Some (though not all) parts of the Constitution do apply to non-citizens under American authority. Until they enter the country or a US territory, they're not under American authority. Are you suggesting that our constitution applies to foreigners in foreign lands? Because that's overreaching on so many levels. If they are under US authority (for instance, under the care of the American military while operating in a foreign area), then yes, they are actually afforded some constitutional rights. That's not me "suggesting" anything - that's just how it works. Given that military bases are considered US territory, that was kinda established in my initial claim and didn't need a follow-up. What I was asking -- and what you almost seemed to apply -- is that a man on the streets of Moscow (not in an embassy, not on a military base -- ie, US territory) is afforded protections under the constitution. Cruddy_horse posted... I'm convinced people who do this are either under the age of 17 or have the mentality of someone under 17. Or they're too used to doing it in other places or just doing it ironically. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887679022] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>No. Because people who are not citizens of this country are not guaranteed protections under its constitution.</quote> This isn't technically true. Some (though not all) parts of the Constitution do apply to non-citizens under American authority.</quote> Until they enter the country or a US territory, they're not under American authority. Are you suggesting that our constitution applies to foreigners in foreign lands? Because that's overreaching on so many levels.</quote> If they are under US authority (for instance, under the care of the American military while operating in a foreign area), then yes, they are actually afforded some constitutional rights. That's not me "suggesting" anything - that's just how it works.</quote> Given that military bases are considered US territory, that was kinda established in my initial claim and didn't need a follow-up. What I was asking -- and what you almost seemed to apply -- is that a man on the streets of Moscow (not in an embassy, not on a military base -- ie, US territory) is afforded protections under the constitution. <cite>Cruddy_horse posted...</cite> <quote>I'm convinced people who do this are either under the age of 17 or have the mentality of someone under 17.</quote> Or they're too used to doing it in other places or just doing it ironically.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/02/17 3:47:34 PM #23:	Zeus posted... What I was asking -- and what you almost seemed to apply -- is that a man on the streets of Moscow (not in an embassy, not on a military base -- ie, US territory) is afforded protections under the constitution. In what way would a man on the streets of Moscow be under American authority? That stipulation was in my original post, which you quoted - I wasn't implying anything. You're reading your own narrative into things again, Zeus. Hasn't that got you in enough trouble today? --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887679540] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>What I was asking -- and what you almost seemed to apply -- is that a man on the streets of Moscow (not in an embassy, not on a military base -- ie, US territory) is afforded protections under the constitution. </quote> In what way would a man on the streets of Moscow be under American authority? That stipulation was in my original post, which you quoted - I wasn't implying anything. You're reading your own narrative into things again, Zeus. Hasn't that got you in enough trouble today?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/02/17 4:13:48 PM #24:	darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... What I was asking -- and what you almost seemed to apply -- is that a man on the streets of Moscow (not in an embassy, not on a military base -- ie, US territory) is afforded protections under the constitution. In what way would a man on the streets of Moscow be under American authority? That stipulation was in my original post, which you quoted - I wasn't implying anything. You're reading your own narrative into things again, Zeus. Hasn't that got you in enough trouble today? Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887680981] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>What I was asking -- and what you almost seemed to apply -- is that a man on the streets of Moscow (not in an embassy, not on a military base -- ie, US territory) is afforded protections under the constitution. </quote> In what way would a man on the streets of Moscow be under American authority? That stipulation was in my original post, which you quoted - I wasn't implying anything. You're reading your own narrative into things again, Zeus. Hasn't that got you in enough trouble today?</quote> Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/02/17 5:34:40 PM #25:	Zeus posted... Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty. If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887685763] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty.</quote> If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/02/17 6:25:30 PM #26:	darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty. If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want. Seriously, dude, it was made during the night before I went to bed. No day = not today. It's why we have two words, tonight and today, to differentiate the time. More importantly, while my comments were made using the material available at the time, your comments are nowhere near as informed. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887688740] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty.</quote> If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want.</quote> Seriously, dude, it was made during the night before I went to bed. No day = not today. It's why we have two words, tonight and today, to differentiate the time. More importantly, while my comments were made using the material available at the time, your comments are nowhere near as informed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#27	Post #27 was unavailable or deleted.
FrndNhbrHdCEman 10/03/17 8:26:17 PM #28:	Zeus posted... darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty. If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want. Seriously, dude, it was made during the night before I went to bed. No day = not today. It's why we have two words, tonight and today, to differentiate the time. More importantly, while my comments were made using the material available at the time, your comments are nowhere near as informed. Why do ya edit your posts so much? Every post ya make ya edit. --- Official nosy neighbor and gossip http://imgur.com/uGKwGsK <cite>FrndNhbrHdCEman posted [p:887759593] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty.</quote> If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want.</quote> Seriously, dude, it was made during the night before I went to bed. No day = not today. It's why we have two words, tonight and today, to differentiate the time. More importantly, while my comments were made using the material available at the time, your comments are nowhere near as informed.</quote> Why do ya edit your posts so much? Every post ya make ya edit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/04/17 12:40:46 AM #29:	Zeus posted... darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty. If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want. Seriously, dude, it was made during the night before I went to bed. No day = not today. It's why we have two words, tonight and today, to differentiate the time. More importantly, while my comments were made using the material available at the time, your comments are nowhere near as informed. If you really don't know the various ways the word "today" is used, I don't really think you should be participating in this debate. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887774103] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty.</quote> If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want.</quote> Seriously, dude, it was made during the night before I went to bed. No day = not today. It's why we have two words, tonight and today, to differentiate the time. More importantly, while my comments were made using the material available at the time, your comments are nowhere near as informed.</quote> If you really don't know the various ways the word "today" is used, I don't really think you should be participating in this debate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/04/17 12:51:32 AM #30:	darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty. If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want. Seriously, dude, it was made during the night before I went to bed. No day = not today. It's why we have two words, tonight and today, to differentiate the time. More importantly, while my comments were made using the material available at the time, your comments are nowhere near as informed. If you really don't know the various ways the word "today" is used, I don't really think you should be participating in this debate. And if you can't acknowledge the difference between night and day, you shouldn't be making claims in regards to time especially because the difference is as clear as.... night and day! --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887774503] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Overlooking that these are completely different circumstances, I should also remind you that my other comment made very late last night so "today" is just trying to project a narrative of which you yourself are guilty.</quote> If you want to be that pedantic, your comment was made today (as was all the fallout from it) unless you happen to live in Hawaii. Seriously, dude, the timestamp is right on your post. You can go to the other topic and check it right now if you want.</quote> Seriously, dude, it was made during the night before I went to bed. No day = not today. It's why we have two words, tonight and today, to differentiate the time. More importantly, while my comments were made using the material available at the time, your comments are nowhere near as informed.</quote> If you really don't know the various ways the word "today" is used, I don't really think you should be participating in this debate.</quote> And if you can't acknowledge the difference between night and day, you shouldn't be making claims in regards to time especially because the difference is as clear as.... night and day!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tropic_Sunset 10/06/17 9:09:06 PM #31:	Zangulus posted... Tropic_Sunset posted... Zangulus posted... TheWorstPoster posted... Truth_Decay posted... If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech. Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact? You do realize hate speech is NOT protected under the constitution right? Well, I am asking that but your statement says otherwise... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/mark https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-upholds-offensive-trademarks-form-free-speech/100618478/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/supreme-court-free-speech-gerrymandering.html Thanks for the links. I was thinking of the Fighting Words ruling. That wouldn't be hate speech though. With the refinement over the years, Fighting Words essentially just mean you're allowed to defend yourself against threats made specifically toward you prior to violence from the other party during a face-to-face interaction. If someone is not in your physical presence and doesn't announce an intention to actually harm you, you'd have a hard time using Fighting Words in a court. That being said, assuming you misused the legal definition of hate speech, then yes, holding a knife at someone and saying you're going to slice their throat is not protected speech. --- "Nostalgia is a hell of a drug." -Magus 10 <cite>Tropic_Sunset posted [p:887951794] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tropic_Sunset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Truth_Decay posted...</cite> <quote>If Trump cares about the Constitution, he should understand the government has no place suppressing free speech.</quote> Is that why Antifa is actively trying to suppress free speech, and not trying to hide that fact?</quote> You do realize hate speech is NOT protected under the constitution right? Well, I am asking that but your statement says otherwise...</quote> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/mark https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-upholds-offensive-trademarks-form-free-speech/100618478/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/supreme-court-free-speech-gerrymandering.html</quote> Thanks for the links. I was thinking of the Fighting Words ruling.</quote> That wouldn't be hate speech though. With the refinement over the years, Fighting Words essentially just mean you're allowed to defend yourself against threats made specifically toward you prior to violence from the other party during a face-to-face interaction. If someone is not in your physical presence and doesn't announce an intention to actually harm you, you'd have a hard time using Fighting Words in a court. That being said, assuming you misused the legal definition of hate speech, then yes, holding a knife at someone and saying you're going to slice their throat is not protected speech.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PS2_4Life 10/06/17 9:11:28 PM #32:	Blacks and Mexicans commit more gun crime in their ghettos <cite>PS2_4Life posted [p:887951915] in We should ... [t:75835865]...</cite> <quote>Blacks and Mexicans commit more gun crime in their ghettos</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Poll of the Day > We should ban all white people from owning guns #TrumpLogic (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > We should ban all white people from owning guns #TrumpLogic