Poll of the Day > Lmao are people really blaming Trump for those Mail Bombs?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Mead 10/27/18 6:49:36 AM #51:	Zeus posted... darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Considering that all of the packages were immediately flagged and everybody is looking out for them, obviously nobody is in danger. Dude, are you fucking serious? Live bombs are being sent around - of fucking course people are in danger. You mean non-functioning devices WERE being sent around and nobody is or was being hurt. I guess we can add this to the insane number of horrendous things that Zeus has decided to defend or justify --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:911252103] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Considering that all of the packages were immediately flagged and everybody is looking out for them, obviously nobody is in danger.</quote> Dude, are you fucking serious? Live bombs are being sent around - of fucking course people are in danger. </quote> You mean non-functioning devices WERE being sent around and nobody is or was being hurt.</quote> I guess we can add this to the insane number of horrendous things that Zeus has decided to defend or justify</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/27/18 7:33:41 AM #52:	And it's funny, a lot of the dipshits - in the press and elsewhere - who are saying "This is clearly all a big conspiracy by the left!" are the same ones who, during the Kavanaugh confirmations, were relentlessly bloviating about how he was being declared guilty with zero proof. Pick a standard and stick with it, guys. --- 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:911253025] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>And it's funny, a lot of the dipshits - in the press and elsewhere - who are saying "This is clearly all a big conspiracy by the left!" are the same ones who, during the Kavanaugh confirmations, were relentlessly bloviating about how he was being declared guilty with zero proof. Pick a standard and stick with it, guys.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Phantom_Nook 10/27/18 7:56:11 AM #53:	darkknight109 posted... And it's funny, a lot of the dipshits - in the press and elsewhere - who are saying "This is clearly all a big conspiracy by the left!" are the same ones who, during the Kavanaugh confirmations, were relentlessly bloviating about how he was being declared guilty with zero proof. Pick a standard and stick with it, guys. Their standard is Trump = good literally anything else = bad --- Posted with GameRaven 3.5.1 <cite>Phantom_Nook posted [p:911253518] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>And it's funny, a lot of the dipshits - in the press and elsewhere - who are saying "This is clearly all a big conspiracy by the left!" are the same ones who, during the Kavanaugh confirmations, were relentlessly bloviating about how he was being declared guilty with zero proof. Pick a standard and stick with it, guys.</quote> Their standard is Trump = good literally anything else = bad</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/27/18 8:28:55 AM #54:	I just like that weve gotten to the point where Trump Supports say things like Its no big deal to send around bombs that dont work. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:911254226] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>I just like that weve gotten to the point where Trump Supports say things like Its no big deal to send around bombs that dont work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
teddy241 10/27/18 9:21:59 AM #55:	A normal president would calm the country down and would address the situation by saying i dont condone the attacks and we need to work together etc Naw this dumbass just continues to draw a bigger line in the sand between republicans and democrats. Its like he is still in WWE/reality tv mode and isnt being 100% genuine and honest. Idk trump loves a divided country. Its always an us against them motto vs a hey we are all americans lets work to find a middle ground and start winning. <cite>teddy241 posted [p:911255640] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>A normal president would calm the country down and would address the situation by saying i dont condone the attacks and we need to work together etc Naw this dumbass just continues to draw a bigger line in the sand between republicans and democrats. Its like he is still in WWE/reality tv mode and isnt being 100% genuine and honest. Idk trump loves a divided country. Its always an us against them motto vs a hey we are all americans lets work to find a middle ground and start winning.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 10/27/18 9:26:06 AM #56:	people blamed bush for hurricane katrina. some people are fucking stupid --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:911255759] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>people blamed bush for hurricane katrina. some people are fucking stupid</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OneTimeBen 10/27/18 9:48:23 AM #57:	How does a package that feels exactly like a small pipe bomb get too far? The photos show them delivered in a paper package not boxes. --- Still waters run deep. C-walk. IntelDarkWeb <cite>OneTimeBen posted [p:911256426] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>How does a package that feels exactly like a small pipe bomb get too far? The photos show them delivered in a paper package not boxes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 10/27/18 10:35:05 AM #58:	WarGreymon77 posted... It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left. Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right? <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:911258066] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>WarGreymon77 posted...</cite> <quote>It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left.</quote> Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
teddy241 10/27/18 10:58:55 AM #59:	Krazy_Kirby posted... people blamed bush for hurricane katrina. some people are fucking stupid I think they blamed the delayed fema response cos the people impacted were primarily colored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyryUHItuc" data-time=" <cite>teddy241 posted [p:911258981] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote>people blamed bush for hurricane katrina. some people are fucking stupid</quote> I think they blamed the delayed fema response cos the people impacted were primarily colored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyryUHItuc" data-time="</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BUMPED2002 10/27/18 11:09:34 AM #60:	Trump is the symptom not disease of what's wrong in America. <cite>BUMPED2002 posted [p:911259381] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>Trump is the symptom not disease of what's wrong in America.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 3:42:37 PM #61:	darkknight109 posted... Settle down, Skippy, no need for name calling. Ah, right, I forgot this is the internet for a moment and people actually do that. I guess I should explain. Obviously, you are not an idiot. But everyone has their own misled biases, heuristics, and ideological blindness. I'll explain more in a bit when it's more relevant, but essentially, simply dismissing or coming to a full stop without understanding the argument isn't hurting your opposition (even if they are actually being stupid) but your own ability to understand the actual argument they are making. Such a dismissal prevents you from making a solid argument that someone might understand from THEIR point of view and changing their mind. Not only that, but it reeks of a lack of epistemic humility. How can you be sure you're right if you do not truly understand your opposition? Not in this case, to be fair, but in general. darkknight109 posted... I wouldn't know. Same above. I guess I should've been clearer. Or used an /s tag. Again more on this later, but it is relevant. darkknight109 posted... Sure. I also think the idea that the guy that did this is a left-winger trying to pull a frame job is ridiculous to the point of lunacy. Is it technically possible, in the strictest sense of the term? Yes, in the same way it's also technically possible that Sandy Hook really was an inside job with no actual deaths. It's also about as likely, which you've already agreed with. The Sandy Hook comparison would be even more ridiculous than this one. And part of the issue here is that anyone who did this would have to be insane regardless of motivation. No matter how you slice it, it IS ridiculous to the point of lunacy. darkknight109 posted... You're not wrong, but before "birther" caught on as a label, the Obama birth certificate crowd were calling themselves "Obama truthers" or other such nonsense. And the "Sandy Hook Truthers" did use that exact title. Yeah, the OG truthers were the 9/11 conspiracy nuts, but others have since claimed the title for themselves (presumably because they still think it sounds less crazy than "conspiracy theorist"). Pretty much. Fortunately, words are able to evolve quite quickly, so it sounds just as crazy as conspiracy theorist. In no small part to the 9/11 'truther' nuts. <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911272989] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Settle down, Skippy, no need for name calling. </quote> Ah, right, I forgot this is the internet for a moment and people actually do that. I guess I should explain. Obviously, you are not an idiot. But everyone has their own misled biases, heuristics, and ideological blindness. I'll explain more in a bit when it's more relevant, but essentially, simply dismissing or coming to a full stop without understanding the argument isn't hurting your opposition (even if they are actually being stupid) but your own ability to understand the actual argument they are making. Such a dismissal prevents you from making a solid argument that someone might understand from THEIR point of view and changing their mind. Not only that, but it reeks of a lack of epistemic humility. How can you be sure you're right if you do not truly understand your opposition? Not in this case, to be fair, but in general. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>I wouldn't know. </quote> Same above. I guess I should've been clearer. Or used an /s tag. Again more on this later, but it is relevant. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Sure. I also think the idea that the guy that did this is a left-winger trying to pull a frame job is ridiculous to the point of lunacy. Is it technically possible, in the strictest sense of the term? Yes, in the same way it's also technically possible that Sandy Hook really was an inside job with no actual deaths. It's also about as likely, which you've already agreed with.</quote> The Sandy Hook comparison would be even more ridiculous than this one. And part of the issue here is that anyone who did this would have to be insane regardless of motivation. No matter how you slice it, it IS ridiculous to the point of lunacy. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>You're not wrong, but before "birther" caught on as a label, the Obama birth certificate crowd were calling themselves "Obama truthers" or other such nonsense. And the "Sandy Hook Truthers" did use that exact title. Yeah, the OG truthers were the 9/11 conspiracy nuts, but others have since claimed the title for themselves (presumably because they still think it sounds less crazy than "conspiracy theorist").</quote> Pretty much. Fortunately, words are able to evolve quite quickly, so it sounds just as crazy as conspiracy theorist. In no small part to the 9/11 'truther' nuts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 3:42:41 PM #62:	darkknight109 posted... I can see exactly where they're coming from, which is from a fetid swamp of hyperpartisan bullshit. That's exactly why I'm calling it out in as blunt terms as I am, because treating it like it's a valid viewpoint worthy of discussion is not unlike treating climate skepticism with that same level of respect - it feeds into the incorrect idea that it's something other than completely fabricated nonsense with no basis in reality. This is what I was talking about before. You get to 'hyperpartisan bullshit' and dismiss it, but that's not enough to make a decent argument against what people are thinking. You are unlikely to change someone's mind as you argue, that's just human nature. But thoughts and ideas presented can...fester. You may change their mind long after the argument if you can present it well enough. You may change the mind of people watching, during or after the argument. But not if you refuse to even try. It's fine to say "This is bullshit" because it does seem to be, but you cannot stop there, you know the opposing arguments and it's better to understand each point and try to disprove it. Dismissing it offhand just because it's bullshit (or for any other reason really) is part of the reason politics are so contentious in the first place. Argue against their specific points, not the general idea. Offer a different point of view and interpretation of events. Explain why they might be wrong, and try to ignore the tendancy to assign blame to a single political side, and you'll be a lot more persuasive. On that note, I'm not accusing you of anything and don't really even want to know (feel free not to answer, but I hope you'll think about it) have you ever agreed with your political opponents on certain ideas? If not, you might want to avoid throwing around the term 'hyperpartisan bullshit' because the idea that one side is wrong about everything and one side is right, among so many issues, is far more ridiculous than even this stupid false flag bomb theory. <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911272991] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>I can see exactly where they're coming from, which is from a fetid swamp of hyperpartisan bullshit. That's exactly why I'm calling it out in as blunt terms as I am, because treating it like it's a valid viewpoint worthy of discussion is not unlike treating climate skepticism with that same level of respect - it feeds into the incorrect idea that it's something other than completely fabricated nonsense with no basis in reality.</quote> This is what I was talking about before. You get to 'hyperpartisan bullshit' and dismiss it, but that's not enough to make a decent argument against what people are thinking. You are unlikely to change someone's mind as you argue, that's just human nature. But thoughts and ideas presented can...fester. You may change their mind long after the argument if you can present it well enough. You may change the mind of people watching, during or after the argument. But not if you refuse to even try. It's fine to say "This is bullshit" because it does seem to be, but you cannot stop there, you know the opposing arguments and it's better to understand each point and try to disprove it. Dismissing it offhand just because it's bullshit (or for any other reason really) is part of the reason politics are so contentious in the first place. Argue against their specific points, not the general idea. Offer a different point of view and interpretation of events. Explain why they might be wrong, and try to ignore the tendancy to assign blame to a single political side, and you'll be a lot more persuasive. On that note, I'm not accusing you of anything and don't really even want to know (feel free not to answer, but I hope you'll think about it) have you ever agreed with your political opponents on certain ideas? If not, you might want to avoid throwing around the term 'hyperpartisan bullshit' because the idea that one side is wrong about everything and one side is right, among so many issues, is far more ridiculous than even this stupid false flag bomb theory.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/27/18 4:07:00 PM #63:	IronicFool posted... I'll explain more in a bit when it's more relevant, but essentially, simply dismissing or coming to a full stop without understanding the argument isn't hurting your opposition (even if they are actually being stupid) but your own ability to understand the actual argument they are making. You completely missed my point - I understand their argument perfectly well. That's why I'm responding the way I am. IronicFool posted... You are unlikely to change someone's mind as you argue, that's just human nature. But thoughts and ideas presented can...fester. You may change their mind long after the argument if you can present it well enough. You may change the mind of people watching, during or after the argument. If you stick around this board long enough, you'll find that I routinely argue this exact point and have done so many, many times in the past. IronicFool posted... It's fine to say "This is bullshit" because it does seem to be, but you cannot stop there, you know the opposing arguments and it's better to understand each point and try to disprove it. Dismissing it offhand just because it's bullshit (or for any other reason really) is part of the reason politics are so contentious in the first place. Argue against their specific points, not the general idea. You can't argue against specific points of a position that doesn't have any. Again, "It's all a big conspiracy by the Democrats!" isn't an argument founded on evidence or logic. I can't argue with that any more than someone could argue with another person who is adamantly convinced that the Sandy Hook victims were all actors, because that's a viewpoint completely unmoored from reality. In arguments about fiscal policy or immigration or the justice system? Yeah, I have no problem doing a point-by-point takedown of a view I disagree with, because most of the time viewpoints on those subjects that I disagree with are still based on rationality. This, though? This is not. The people saying that this is a false-flag operation aren't interested in discussion or defending their views, they're interested in generating political cover out of fear of losing power or deluding themselves into thinking their side can do no wrong (which is extraordinarily dangerous thinking). IronicFool posted... If not, you might want to avoid throwing around the term 'hyperpartisan bullshit' because the idea that one side is wrong about everything and one side is right, among so many issues, is far more ridiculous than even this stupid false flag bomb theory. You understand that's not what the phrase "hyperpartisan bullshit" (or its more polite synonyms) means, right? I'm not suggesting that the false-flag argument is wrong because Republicans are always wrong, I'm saying that the false-flag argument is scummy because it's born out of a toxic political environment where crafting an elaborate fantasy is seen as preferable to ceding moral ground to your political opponents, no matter how minor. IronicFool posted... On that note, I'm not accusing you of anything and don't really even want to know (feel free not to answer, but I hope you'll think about it) have you ever agreed with your political opponents on certain ideas? Of course I have. I'm a liberal, in a country that is already significantly to the left of the US, and there are plenty of points where I disagree with leftist politics. I think the legalization of marijuana without proper understanding of its long term effects is dangerous. I think the idea of "cultural appropriation" being verboten is nonsense. I think current economic thinking on both sides of the spectrum is unsustainable. To pick just a few issues. --- 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:911274272] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote> I'll explain more in a bit when it's more relevant, but essentially, simply dismissing or coming to a full stop without understanding the argument isn't hurting your opposition (even if they are actually being stupid) but your own ability to understand the actual argument they are making.</quote> You completely missed my point - I understand their argument perfectly well. That's why I'm responding the way I am. <cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>You are unlikely to change someone's mind as you argue, that's just human nature. But thoughts and ideas presented can...fester. You may change their mind long after the argument if you can present it well enough. You may change the mind of people watching, during or after the argument. </quote> If you stick around this board long enough, you'll find that I routinely argue this exact point and have done so many, many times in the past. <cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>It's fine to say "This is bullshit" because it does seem to be, but you cannot stop there, you know the opposing arguments and it's better to understand each point and try to disprove it. Dismissing it offhand just because it's bullshit (or for any other reason really) is part of the reason politics are so contentious in the first place. Argue against their specific points, not the general idea.</quote> You can't argue against specific points of a position that doesn't have any. Again, "It's all a big conspiracy by the Democrats!" isn't an argument founded on evidence or logic. I can't argue with that any more than someone could argue with another person who is adamantly convinced that the Sandy Hook victims were all actors, because that's a viewpoint completely unmoored from reality. In arguments about fiscal policy or immigration or the justice system? Yeah, I have no problem doing a point-by-point takedown of a view I disagree with, because most of the time viewpoints on those subjects that I disagree with are still based on rationality. This, though? This is not. The people saying that this is a false-flag operation aren't interested in discussion or defending their views, they're interested in generating political cover out of fear of losing power or deluding themselves into thinking their side can do no wrong (which is extraordinarily dangerous thinking). <cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>If not, you might want to avoid throwing around the term 'hyperpartisan bullshit' because the idea that one side is wrong about everything and one side is right, among so many issues, is far more ridiculous than even this stupid false flag bomb theory.</quote> You understand that's not what the phrase "hyperpartisan bullshit" (or its more polite synonyms) means, right? I'm not suggesting that the false-flag argument is wrong because Republicans are always wrong, I'm saying that the false-flag argument is scummy because it's born out of a toxic political environment where crafting an elaborate fantasy is seen as preferable to ceding moral ground to your political opponents, no matter how minor. <cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>On that note, I'm not accusing you of anything and don't really even want to know (feel free not to answer, but I hope you'll think about it) have you ever agreed with your political opponents on certain ideas?</quote> Of course I have. I'm a liberal, in a country that is already significantly to the left of the US, and there are plenty of points where I disagree with leftist politics. I think the legalization of marijuana without proper understanding of its long term effects is dangerous. I think the idea of "cultural appropriation" being verboten is nonsense. I think current economic thinking on both sides of the spectrum is unsustainable. To pick just a few issues.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 4:26:38 PM #64:	darkknight109 posted... You completely missed my point - I understand their argument perfectly well. That's why I'm responding the way I am. Then you missed my point as well. Hell, even in this topic, I pointed out how the defective nature of the bomb could be just as easily explained by someone not knowing what they were doing. I mean, there was actually zero reason for that clock to be there. But that also lets me understand why someone would think it's a false flag. Bombs aren't hard to build but you need to understand what you're doing. Otherwise, you'll either kill yourself or make something that won't kill anyone. The idea that this is a false flag is valid in this respect, but at the same time there is NO ACTUAL PROOF. I mean, it taking place two weeks before elections COULD be an attempt to garner sympathy I suppose but it could also be the perfect time to actually try something like this to remove political opponents. darkknight109 posted... If you stick around this board long enough, you'll find that I routinely argue this exact point and have done so many, many times in the past. Yeah, I am pretty new here so I don't know most people's point of view beyond what I've seen in that past two weeks. Point taken. darkknight109 posted... You can't argue against specific points of a position that doesn't have any. Again, "It's all a big conspiracy by the Democrats!" isn't an argument founded on evidence or logic I've seen plenty. Here's a short list of their reasoning: -Postage is not cancelled. -AAA batteries do not have the requisite power to set off a cap or detonator. 6.4v is the lowest voltage detonator Ive ever heard of (Si) and theyre too expensive for the DoD. -The pipe is too thin walled to be an effective powder casing, but it definitely isnt powder because the leads go to different ends of the device. -The pipe is too small to contain enough powder to do anything but make a loud noise, but the pipe is too thin walled to even produce that. -The leads go to opposite ends of the device, a cap or detonator would be in one end and require both leads be connected to it. -Everyone says bomb or device but they arent saying what kind of explosive, if there were any it would be part of the news cycle. -They were delivered simultaneously at various locations around the country, USPS doesnt work like that. -UPS does not deliver to anyone protected by Secret Service and several of these were sent to SS principles. -There is absolutely no reason to have a clock taped to this device. -The flag is an obvious false lead meant to point at Larry fans. Not cool, Larry is a cool dude and doesnt deserve his name being drug through the mud like this. No fan of his would do that. Hell, even 9/11 truthers had reasons for believing their ideas, and those were summarily debunked. Like you don't need to melt steel to weaken to the point of bending and collapsing if there is enough weight on it. And most points above could be addressed by assuming that the terrorist was inept and that we started to look for the bombs. Hell, I think after the first one or two were delivered the rest were found quickly. It has nothing to do with delivery. <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911275347] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>You completely missed my point - I understand their argument perfectly well. That's why I'm responding the way I am. </quote> Then you missed my point as well. Hell, even in this topic, I pointed out how the defective nature of the bomb could be just as easily explained by someone not knowing what they were doing. I mean, there was actually zero reason for that clock to be there. But that also lets me understand why someone would think it's a false flag. Bombs aren't hard to build but you need to understand what you're doing. Otherwise, you'll either kill yourself or make something that won't kill anyone. The idea that this is a false flag is valid in this respect, but at the same time there is NO ACTUAL PROOF. I mean, it taking place two weeks before elections COULD be an attempt to garner sympathy I suppose but it could also be the perfect time to actually try something like this to remove political opponents. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>If you stick around this board long enough, you'll find that I routinely argue this exact point and have done so many, many times in the past. </quote> Yeah, I am pretty new here so I don't know most people's point of view beyond what I've seen in that past two weeks. Point taken. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>You can't argue against specific points of a position that doesn't have any. Again, "It's all a big conspiracy by the Democrats!" isn't an argument founded on evidence or logic</quote> I've seen plenty. Here's a short list of their reasoning: -Postage is not cancelled. -AAA batteries do not have the requisite power to set off a cap or detonator. 6.4v is the lowest voltage detonator Ive ever heard of (Si) and theyre too expensive for the DoD. -The pipe is too thin walled to be an effective powder casing, but it definitely isnt powder because the leads go to different ends of the device. -The pipe is too small to contain enough powder to do anything but make a loud noise, but the pipe is too thin walled to even produce that. -The leads go to opposite ends of the device, a cap or detonator would be in one end and require both leads be connected to it. -Everyone says bomb or device but they arent saying what kind of explosive, if there were any it would be part of the news cycle. -They were delivered simultaneously at various locations around the country, USPS doesnt work like that. -UPS does not deliver to anyone protected by Secret Service and several of these were sent to SS principles. -There is absolutely no reason to have a clock taped to this device. -The flag is an obvious false lead meant to point at Larry fans. Not cool, Larry is a cool dude and doesnt deserve his name being drug through the mud like this. No fan of his would do that. Hell, even 9/11 truthers had reasons for believing their ideas, and those were summarily debunked. Like you don't need to melt steel to weaken to the point of bending and collapsing if there is enough weight on it. And most points above could be addressed by assuming that the terrorist was inept and that we started to look for the bombs. Hell, I think after the first one or two were delivered the rest were found quickly. It has nothing to do with delivery.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 4:26:42 PM #65:	darkknight109 posted... You understand that's not what the phrase "hyperpartisan bullshit" (or its more polite synonyms) means, right? I'm not suggesting that the false-flag argument is wrong because Republicans are always wrong, I'm saying that the false-flag argument is scummy because it's born out of a toxic political environment where crafting an elaborate fantasy is seen as preferable to ceding moral ground to your political opponents, no matter how minor. I...didn't say you were. My point was that dismissing something for being hyperpartisan bullshit is an inherently horrible argument, even if you're right. And I feel the need to reiterate that I think you are right here, just wrong in your approach. It doesn't matter what the issue is, if you stop at 'hyperpartisan bullshit' you've lost the argument. darkknight109 posted... Of course I have. I'm a liberal, in a country that is already significantly to the left of the US, and there are plenty of points where I disagree with leftist politics. I think the legalization of marijuana without proper understanding of its long term effects is dangerous. I think the idea of "cultural appropriation" being verboten is nonsense. I think current economic thinking on both sides of the spectrum is unsustainable. To pick just a few issues. That's good I guess. For marijuana, I could argue that part of the reason long term effects are not known is because of the long term ban, and if things like alcohol and cigarettes are allowed, with KNOWN negative long term impacts, then marijuana should be as well until we can show conclusively that it's much worse. The cultural appropriation is ridiculous on its face to anyone who isn't extreme left (not to suggest the extreme right is any better) and should be opposed. You took a pretty middle ground economic position but I would go on to say that no economic system today would do well in its pure practice. I don't want to get off-topic here, but the point being that some of these things are not inherently left-wing and have little to do with politics (apologies if you're not left wing, I'm guessing based on your use of 'liberal' and your general stance). The marijuana one is a good example though, that does seem to be an inherently left wing position...or libertarian. <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911275350] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>You understand that's not what the phrase "hyperpartisan bullshit" (or its more polite synonyms) means, right? I'm not suggesting that the false-flag argument is wrong because Republicans are always wrong, I'm saying that the false-flag argument is scummy because it's born out of a toxic political environment where crafting an elaborate fantasy is seen as preferable to ceding moral ground to your political opponents, no matter how minor.</quote> I...didn't say you were. My point was that dismissing something for being hyperpartisan bullshit is an inherently horrible argument, even if you're right. And I feel the need to reiterate that I think you are right here, just wrong in your approach. It doesn't matter what the issue is, if you stop at 'hyperpartisan bullshit' you've lost the argument. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Of course I have. I'm a liberal, in a country that is already significantly to the left of the US, and there are plenty of points where I disagree with leftist politics. I think the legalization of marijuana without proper understanding of its long term effects is dangerous. I think the idea of "cultural appropriation" being verboten is nonsense. I think current economic thinking on both sides of the spectrum is unsustainable. To pick just a few issues.</quote> That's good I guess. For marijuana, I could argue that part of the reason long term effects are not known is because of the long term ban, and if things like alcohol and cigarettes are allowed, with KNOWN negative long term impacts, then marijuana should be as well until we can show conclusively that it's much worse. The cultural appropriation is ridiculous on its face to anyone who isn't extreme left (not to suggest the extreme right is any better) and should be opposed. You took a pretty middle ground economic position but I would go on to say that no economic system today would do well in its pure practice. I don't want to get off-topic here, but the point being that some of these things are not inherently left-wing and have little to do with politics (apologies if you're not left wing, I'm guessing based on your use of 'liberal' and your general stance). The marijuana one is a good example though, that does seem to be an inherently left wing position...or libertarian.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/27/18 4:35:26 PM #66:	darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Considering that all of the packages were immediately flagged and everybody is looking out for them, obviously nobody is in danger. Dude, are you fucking serious? Live bombs are being sent around - of fucking course people are in danger. Don't be an idiot. As far as I know, all mail is automatically thoroughly inspected before it ever reaches any major political figure... which is why I have no idea why people would even try to do this on the first place. It's pretty much common knowledge that it doesn't work <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:911275819] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Considering that all of the packages were immediately flagged and everybody is looking out for them, obviously nobody is in danger.</quote> Dude, are you fucking serious? Live bombs are being sent around - of fucking course people are in danger. Don't be an idiot.</quote> As far as I know, all mail is automatically thoroughly inspected before it ever reaches any major political figure... which is why I have no idea why people would even try to do this on the first place. It's pretty much common knowledge that it doesn't work</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 10/27/18 4:36:38 PM #67:	OhhhJa posted... darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Considering that all of the packages were immediately flagged and everybody is looking out for them, obviously nobody is in danger. Dude, are you fucking serious? Live bombs are being sent around - of fucking course people are in danger. Don't be an idiot. As far as I know, all mail is automatically thoroughly inspected before it ever reaches any major political figure... which is why I have no idea why people would even try to do this on the first place. It's pretty much common knowledge that it doesn't work It was a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorists don't tend to be the smartest people around. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:911275885] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Considering that all of the packages were immediately flagged and everybody is looking out for them, obviously nobody is in danger.</quote> Dude, are you fucking serious? Live bombs are being sent around - of fucking course people are in danger. Don't be an idiot.</quote> As far as I know, all mail is automatically thoroughly inspected before it ever reaches any major political figure... which is why I have no idea why people would even try to do this on the first place. It's pretty much common knowledge that it doesn't work</quote> It was a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorists don't tend to be the smartest people around.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Fierce_Deity_08 10/27/18 4:39:27 PM #68:	What I saw as the main reason that people blame Trump for this is that on the package meant for Hillary, her name was spelled wrong. --- Official Fierce Deity in my own mind. GT: OnikaraStar, PSN: Onikara, NNID: OnikaraStar <cite>Fierce_Deity_08 posted [p:911276040] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>What I saw as the main reason that people blame Trump for this is that on the package meant for Hillary, her name was spelled wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 4:39:31 PM #69:	OhhhJa posted... darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Considering that all of the packages were immediately flagged and everybody is looking out for them, obviously nobody is in danger. Dude, are you fucking serious? Live bombs are being sent around - of fucking course people are in danger. Don't be an idiot. As far as I know, all mail is automatically thoroughly inspected before it ever reaches any major political figure... which is why I have no idea why people would even try to do this on the first place. It's pretty much common knowledge that it doesn't work Well...plus they were all duds. So they weren't live. But you could argue the attempt itself was endangering, just not the specific situation. BlackScythe0 posted... It was a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorists don't tend to be the smartest people around. Also this. <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911276044] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Considering that all of the packages were immediately flagged and everybody is looking out for them, obviously nobody is in danger.</quote> Dude, are you fucking serious? Live bombs are being sent around - of fucking course people are in danger. Don't be an idiot.</quote> As far as I know, all mail is automatically thoroughly inspected before it ever reaches any major political figure... which is why I have no idea why people would even try to do this on the first place. It's pretty much common knowledge that it doesn't work</quote> Well...plus they were all duds. So they weren't live. But you could argue the attempt itself was endangering, just not the specific situation. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>It was a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorists don't tend to be the smartest people around. </quote> Also this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WarGreymon77 10/27/18 4:41:44 PM #70:	BlackScythe0 posted... WarGreymon77 posted... It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left. Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right? No, that was orchestrated by the left too. They need new illegal voters. --- Creator of the official Digimon: Digital Monsters community board! https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1430-digimon-digital-monsters <cite>WarGreymon77 posted [p:911276183] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WarGreymon77 posted...</cite> <quote>It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left.</quote> Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right?</quote> No, that was orchestrated by the left too. They need new illegal voters.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 4:43:20 PM #71:	WarGreymon77 posted... BlackScythe0 posted... WarGreymon77 posted... It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left. Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right? No, that was orchestrated by the left too. They need new illegal voters. I'm like 90% sure you're joking here. <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911276278] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>WarGreymon77 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WarGreymon77 posted...</cite> <quote>It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left.</quote> Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right?</quote> No, that was orchestrated by the left too. They need new illegal voters.</quote> I'm like 90% sure you're joking here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 10/27/18 5:47:15 PM #72:	IronicFool posted... WarGreymon77 posted... BlackScythe0 posted... WarGreymon77 posted... It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left. Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right? No, that was orchestrated by the left too. They need new illegal voters. I'm like 90% sure you're joking here. I don't know conservatives find new ways to baffle me with the delusions. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:911279932] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WarGreymon77 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WarGreymon77 posted...</cite> <quote>It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left.</quote> Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right?</quote> No, that was orchestrated by the left too. They need new illegal voters.</quote> I'm like 90% sure you're joking here.</quote> I don't know conservatives find new ways to baffle me with the delusions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/27/18 5:50:30 PM #73:	https://www.soundvision.com/article/some-statistics-and-facts-on-right-wing-extremism-in-the-united-states Anyone trying to tie this crap to anything but poor mental health access in America, a climate of terrible television (all around, but especially right wing), terrible stuff on the internet, general denial of factual information by politicians, corruption of politicians, and encouragement of violence by national leaders, is in my opinion, a bit beyond my comprehension. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:911280115] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>https://www.soundvision.com/article/some-statistics-and-facts-on-right-wing-extremism-in-the-united-states Anyone trying to tie this crap to anything but poor mental health access in America, a climate of terrible television (all around, but especially right wing), terrible stuff on the internet, general denial of factual information by politicians, corruption of politicians, and encouragement of violence by national leaders, is in my opinion, a bit beyond my comprehension.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 5:50:40 PM #74:	BlackScythe0 posted... IronicFool posted... WarGreymon77 posted... BlackScythe0 posted... WarGreymon77 posted... It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left. Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right? No, that was orchestrated by the left too. They need new illegal voters. I'm like 90% sure you're joking here. I don't know conservatives find new ways to baffle me with the delusions. 85% <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911280128] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WarGreymon77 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WarGreymon77 posted...</cite> <quote>It's a setup, of course. Just in time for midterms. Orchestrated by the left.</quote> Does that mean the caravan was orchestrated by the right?</quote> No, that was orchestrated by the left too. They need new illegal voters.</quote> I'm like 90% sure you're joking here.</quote> I don't know conservatives find new ways to baffle me with the delusions.</quote> 85%</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/27/18 5:51:57 PM #75:	The left is dumb, but they're too busy working their peachy jobs and switching between keto/vegan diets to orchestrate something this dumb lmfao --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:911280207] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>The left is dumb, but they're too busy working their peachy jobs and switching between keto/vegan diets to orchestrate something this dumb lmfao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 6:10:24 PM #76:	ReturnOfFa posted... The left is dumb, but they're too busy working their peachy jobs and switching between keto/vegan diets to orchestrate something this dumb lmfao It's been some time since I saw actual dumb. <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911281213] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>ReturnOfFa posted...</cite> <quote>The left is dumb, but they're too busy working their peachy jobs and switching between keto/vegan diets to orchestrate something this dumb lmfao</quote> It's been some time since I saw actual dumb.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Fierce_Deity_08 10/27/18 8:05:13 PM #77:	IronicFool posted... ReturnOfFa posted... The left is dumb, but they're too busy working their peachy jobs and switching between keto/vegan diets to orchestrate something this dumb lmfao It's been some time since I saw actual dumb. You really have been walking around with your eyes closed. --- Official Fierce Deity in my own mind. GT: OnikaraStar, PSN: Onikara, NNID: OnikaraStar <cite>Fierce_Deity_08 posted [p:911287568] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ReturnOfFa posted...</cite> <quote>The left is dumb, but they're too busy working their peachy jobs and switching between keto/vegan diets to orchestrate something this dumb lmfao</quote> It's been some time since I saw actual dumb.</quote> You really have been walking around with your eyes closed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/27/18 8:35:14 PM #78:	I still feel like you're missing what I'm trying to say. IronicFool posted... I've seen plenty. Here's a short list of their reasoning: -Postage is not cancelled. -AAA batteries do not have the requisite power to set off a cap or detonator. 6.4v is the lowest voltage detonator Ive ever heard of (Si) and theyre too expensive for the DoD. -The pipe is too thin walled to be an effective powder casing, but it definitely isnt powder because the leads go to different ends of the device. -The pipe is too small to contain enough powder to do anything but make a loud noise, but the pipe is too thin walled to even produce that. -The leads go to opposite ends of the device, a cap or detonator would be in one end and require both leads be connected to it. -Everyone says bomb or device but they arent saying what kind of explosive, if there were any it would be part of the news cycle. -They were delivered simultaneously at various locations around the country, USPS doesnt work like that. -UPS does not deliver to anyone protected by Secret Service and several of these were sent to SS principles. -There is absolutely no reason to have a clock taped to this device. -The flag is an obvious false lead meant to point at Larry fans. Not cool, Larry is a cool dude and doesnt deserve his name being drug through the mud like this. No fan of his would do that. First of all, two of those are straight-up incorrect (the bombs were not delivered simultaneously, they were staggered over a period of several days; and USPS does deliver packages to people under Secret Service protection, just not directly - it gets sent to the SS field office for screening first, which is exactly where those packages were found) and absolutely nothing in the rest points in any way to Democratic involvement; instead, it points - as you already said - to someone who is just really bad at making bombs and who doesn't know what they're doing. Moreover - and I feel this is not stressed enough - what was done here was a series of federal crimes that will very likely result in the perpetrator spending the rest of his life behind bars with zero chance of ever being released. I know some pretty nutty political people, but I don't know anybody who is that far off the deep end to commit those sorts of crimes purely for the sake of making the other guys look bad. I mean, let's use basic logic - if you hate Trump so much that you're willing to risk spending the rest of your life in prison, wouldn't it make more sense to make an actual attack on Trump, rather than fake an attack on his opponents? This is why I say these arguments have no basis in fact. There is zero evidence - absolutely none - that in any way suggests this was coordinated by Democrats for partisan purposes. It's conspiracy theorism, plain and simple, and as the various conspiracy theories over the years have shown, the more you treat it like a valid argument that needs debunking as opposed to a straight-up fantasy cooked up in some right-wing fanatic's fevered imagination, the more its believers start to think it is a valid argument. I mean, look at the 9/11 Truthers - their numbers fucking exploded after several high-profile attempts to debunk their claims. Trying to "disprove" a conspiracy theory is like throwing water on a grease fire - it seems like a great idea until you see the resultant fireball. Anyways, at risk of segueing the topic into several additional arguments: --- 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:911289182] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>I still feel like you're missing what I'm trying to say. <cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>I've seen plenty. Here's a short list of their reasoning: -Postage is not cancelled. -AAA batteries do not have the requisite power to set off a cap or detonator. 6.4v is the lowest voltage detonator Ive ever heard of (Si) and theyre too expensive for the DoD. -The pipe is too thin walled to be an effective powder casing, but it definitely isnt powder because the leads go to different ends of the device. -The pipe is too small to contain enough powder to do anything but make a loud noise, but the pipe is too thin walled to even produce that. -The leads go to opposite ends of the device, a cap or detonator would be in one end and require both leads be connected to it. -Everyone says bomb or device but they arent saying what kind of explosive, if there were any it would be part of the news cycle. -They were delivered simultaneously at various locations around the country, USPS doesnt work like that. -UPS does not deliver to anyone protected by Secret Service and several of these were sent to SS principles. -There is absolutely no reason to have a clock taped to this device. -The flag is an obvious false lead meant to point at Larry fans. Not cool, Larry is a cool dude and doesnt deserve his name being drug through the mud like this. No fan of his would do that.</quote> First of all, two of those are straight-up incorrect (the bombs were not delivered simultaneously, they were staggered over a period of several days; and USPS does deliver packages to people under Secret Service protection, just not directly - it gets sent to the SS field office for screening first, which is exactly where those packages were found) and absolutely nothing in the rest points in any way to Democratic involvement; instead, it points - as you already said - to someone who is just really bad at making bombs and who doesn't know what they're doing. Moreover - and I feel this is not stressed enough - what was done here was a series of federal crimes that will very likely result in the perpetrator spending the rest of his life behind bars with zero chance of ever being released. I know some pretty nutty political people, but I don't know anybody who is that far off the deep end to commit those sorts of crimes purely for the sake of making the other guys look bad. I mean, let's use basic logic - if you hate Trump so much that you're willing to risk spending the rest of your life in prison, wouldn't it make more sense to make an actual attack on Trump, rather than fake an attack on his opponents? This is why I say these arguments have no basis in fact. There is zero evidence - absolutely none - that in any way suggests this was coordinated by Democrats for partisan purposes. It's conspiracy theorism, plain and simple, and as the various conspiracy theories over the years have shown, the more you treat it like a valid argument that needs debunking as opposed to a straight-up fantasy cooked up in some right-wing fanatic's fevered imagination, the more its believers start to think it is a valid argument. I mean, look at the 9/11 Truthers - their numbers fucking exploded after several high-profile attempts to debunk their claims. Trying to "disprove" a conspiracy theory is like throwing water on a grease fire - it seems like a great idea until you see the resultant fireball. Anyways, at risk of segueing the topic into several additional arguments:</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/27/18 8:35:26 PM #79:	IronicFool posted... For marijuana, I could argue that part of the reason long term effects are not known is because of the long term ban Which is, in and of itself, stupid. If there is no good data, how are we supposed to make good policy decisions? My viewpoint is, and has been for a long time, the drug should have been decriminalized (as incarceration was a grossly disproportionate punishment for simple possession) and extensively studied long before any attempt at legalization was made. After all, pharmaceuticals don't reach store shelves before extensive testing, so why should weed? As it is, there are far too many holes in our knowledge of marijuana's effects, particularly long-term and on those already suffering from mental illness, for me to feel comfortable with legalization. IronicFool posted... and if things like alcohol and cigarettes are allowed, with KNOWN negative long term impacts, then marijuana should be as well until we can show conclusively that it's much worse This is an excellent argument for making alcohol and cigarettes illegal and a terrible one for legalizing marijuana. First off, if you trace the argument through, there's a pretty significant leap of logic that pops up - specifically that just because we have "Dangerous Thing X" that is legal, that does not mean we are in any way obligated to legalize everything that is less dangerous than X. Moreover, talking about health and safety with regards to weed doesn't really help, because we know that weed is - on some level - unsafe and unhealthy, meaning arguing for its legalization is arguing for society to become less safe and less healthy overall. Now this is not, in and of itself, a dealbreaker - we have plenty of unsafe and unhealthy substances and activities that are 100% legal and uncontroversially so. But trying to say "Well, weed's not as bad as booze or cigs" always sounds to me like a kid in a video game store whining to his parents "But Timmy's mom lets him play Grand Theft Auto and that's way more violent!" The only argument I have heard in favour of weed legalization that I think has good logical consistency is a purely libertarian one - "I should be allowed to go down to the store, buy some weed, and be able to smoke up in the comfort of my home without worrying about being arrested and having my kids taken away." That is a sound and rational viewpoint - I don't agree with it (at least, not fully), but I can see the logic behind it. --- 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:911289192] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>For marijuana, I could argue that part of the reason long term effects are not known is because of the long term ban</quote> Which is, in and of itself, stupid. If there is no good data, how are we supposed to make good policy decisions? My viewpoint is, and has been for a long time, the drug should have been decriminalized (as incarceration was a grossly disproportionate punishment for simple possession) and extensively studied long before any attempt at legalization was made. After all, pharmaceuticals don't reach store shelves before extensive testing, so why should weed? As it is, there are far too many holes in our knowledge of marijuana's effects, particularly long-term and on those already suffering from mental illness, for me to feel comfortable with legalization. <cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>and if things like alcohol and cigarettes are allowed, with KNOWN negative long term impacts, then marijuana should be as well until we can show conclusively that it's much worse</quote> This is an excellent argument for making alcohol and cigarettes illegal and a terrible one for legalizing marijuana. First off, if you trace the argument through, there's a pretty significant leap of logic that pops up - specifically that just because we have "Dangerous Thing X" that is legal, that does not mean we are in any way obligated to legalize everything that is less dangerous than X. Moreover, talking about health and safety with regards to weed doesn't really help, because we know that weed is - on some level - unsafe and unhealthy, meaning arguing for its legalization is arguing for society to become less safe and less healthy overall. Now this is not, in and of itself, a dealbreaker - we have plenty of unsafe and unhealthy substances and activities that are 100% legal and uncontroversially so. But trying to say "Well, weed's not as bad as booze or cigs" always sounds to me like a kid in a video game store whining to his parents "But Timmy's mom lets him play Grand Theft Auto and that's way more violent!" The only argument I have heard in favour of weed legalization that I think has good logical consistency is a purely libertarian one - "I should be allowed to go down to the store, buy some weed, and be able to smoke up in the comfort of my home without worrying about being arrested and having my kids taken away." That is a sound and rational viewpoint - I don't agree with it (at least, not fully), but I can see the logic behind it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/27/18 8:36:21 PM #80:	IronicFool posted... You took a pretty middle ground economic position but I would go on to say that no economic system today would do well in its pure practice. To elaborate on what I was referring to, classical liberal economics - in a grossly simplified form - called for high government services and involvement in the economy, paid for by high taxes. Alright, that works. Classic conservative economics advocates a more laissez-faire approach, with low government involvement, few services, and low taxes. I think that has a lot more problems than the liberal approach, but it does balance the budget. Over the last few decades, the Keynesian idea of spending your way out of economic malaise has gained significant popularity - spend high and tax low during hard times (when low interest rates and high unemployment make services cheap and government investment can help put people to work and restart the economy). Alright, that works fine... as long as you follow through on the upswing, which involves jumping taxes and cutting services once the economy is booming. And it's that last part that everyone has forgotten about, because both of those are enormously unpopular. For a variety of reasons that I could talk about far longer than anyone would care to listen, politicians are now far more focused on getting re-elected and holding on to power than actually doing their job, which can involve making tough economic decisions for the good of the country. Because of that, the Western world (not just the US) has many countries that are increasing spending while cutting taxes, with no plans to moderate themselves and take advantage of the soaring economy to pay down their debt. Trump made one of the dumbest economic decisions I've ever seen along that line when he cut taxes despite record low unemployment and a hot economy, which is exacerbating a deficit that was already ridiculously high for a bull market (that his feckless Republican enablers in Congress seem to have suddenly developed amnesia about how important a balanced budget is, despite screaming about it nonstop during the Obama years, only proves my point). I'm a strong believer in leftist economic principles - high government involvement and services, supported by high taxes, weighted towards big business and the wealthy - because it tends to yield socially stable, happy countries. I'm still a believer in Keynesian economics, but politicians only run half of it, which is a recipe for disaster. IronicFool posted... I don't want to get off-topic here, but the point being that some of these things are not inherently left-wing and have little to do with politics (apologies if you're not left wing, I'm guessing based on your use of 'liberal' and your general stance). "Left wing" and "liberal" are synonymous for most intents and purposes, so yes, I consider myself left wing on many issues. Beyond that, though, both of the items I mentioned touch on the political realm (marijuana legalization is absolutely a political issue; economics is a socioeconomic one, but the politicians set the policy there, so I consider it political as well). More to the point, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, even from a purely partisan angle, as long as they can back up their arguments with evidence, facts, and logic. --- 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:911289238] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>You took a pretty middle ground economic position but I would go on to say that no economic system today would do well in its pure practice.</quote> To elaborate on what I was referring to, classical liberal economics - in a grossly simplified form - called for high government services and involvement in the economy, paid for by high taxes. Alright, that works. Classic conservative economics advocates a more laissez-faire approach, with low government involvement, few services, and low taxes. I think that has a lot more problems than the liberal approach, but it does balance the budget. Over the last few decades, the Keynesian idea of spending your way out of economic malaise has gained significant popularity - spend high and tax low during hard times (when low interest rates and high unemployment make services cheap and government investment can help put people to work and restart the economy). Alright, that works fine... as long as you follow through on the upswing, which involves jumping taxes and cutting services once the economy is booming. And it's that last part that everyone has forgotten about, because both of those are enormously unpopular. For a variety of reasons that I could talk about far longer than anyone would care to listen, politicians are now far more focused on getting re-elected and holding on to power than actually doing their job, which can involve making tough economic decisions for the good of the country. Because of that, the Western world (not just the US) has many countries that are increasing spending while cutting taxes, with no plans to moderate themselves and take advantage of the soaring economy to pay down their debt. Trump made one of the dumbest economic decisions I've ever seen along that line when he cut taxes despite record low unemployment and a hot economy, which is exacerbating a deficit that was already ridiculously high for a bull market (that his feckless Republican enablers in Congress seem to have suddenly developed amnesia about how important a balanced budget is, despite screaming about it nonstop during the Obama years, only proves my point). I'm a strong believer in leftist economic principles - high government involvement and services, supported by high taxes, weighted towards big business and the wealthy - because it tends to yield socially stable, happy countries. I'm still a believer in Keynesian economics, but politicians only run half of it, which is a recipe for disaster. <cite>IronicFool posted...</cite> <quote>I don't want to get off-topic here, but the point being that some of these things are not inherently left-wing and have little to do with politics (apologies if you're not left wing, I'm guessing based on your use of 'liberal' and your general stance).</quote> "Left wing" and "liberal" are synonymous for most intents and purposes, so yes, I consider myself left wing on many issues. Beyond that, though, both of the items I mentioned touch on the political realm (marijuana legalization is absolutely a political issue; economics is a socioeconomic one, but the politicians set the policy there, so I consider it political as well). More to the point, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, even from a purely partisan angle, as long as they can back up their arguments with evidence, facts, and logic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IronicFool 10/27/18 10:43:06 PM #81:	Fierce_Deity_08 posted... You really have been walking around with your eyes closed. No, I just tend to give the benefit of the doubt. There's just no doubt here. darkknight109 posted... I mean, look at the 9/11 Truthers - their numbers fucking exploded after several high-profile attempts to debunk their claims. Trying to "disprove" a conspiracy theory is like throwing water on a grease fire - it seems like a great idea until you see the resultant fireball. I pretty much agree with everything else in this section, but I will say this: The truthers DO appear much more legit without the debunking to argue against them. Are there stupid people who will believe them anyway? Of course. And I don't disagree that there are more of them because of the debunking. But there are also fewer people who take them seriously and much less who don't know what the conspiracy is, because of it. You cannot argue that ignorance is the best course of action when something sounds legitimate because most people are not that stupid. I would suggest that debunking them, and then mocking them, is a much better course of action. Otherwise, you have more people knowing less about it when they come into contact with it. Hell, I remember a time myself when I didn't know enough about building infrastructure when I thought they might have a point, but the debunking of the stupidity made far more sense. Knowledge is never a bad thing, even if some choose to ignore it. darkknight109 posted... Which is, in and of itself, stupid. If there is no good data, how are we supposed to make good policy decisions? There's no good data BECAUSE of policy decisions. darkknight109 posted... My viewpoint is, and has been for a long time, the drug should have been decriminalized (as incarceration was a grossly disproportionate punishment for simple possession) and extensively studied long before any attempt at legalization was made. After all, pharmaceuticals don't reach store shelves before extensive testing, so why should weed? As it is, there are far too many holes in our knowledge of marijuana's effects, particularly long-term and on those already suffering from mental illness, for me to feel comfortable with legalization. This is an excellent point, but fails to take into account two things: 1) Despite its extensive use in spite of the ban, there is no indication that there are any long-term side effects. There are some indicators, such as a causal link between causing schizophrenic episodes for people at risk for schizophrenia, but nothing that indicates it is going to cause anything bad that someone isn't already susceptible to. 2) As long as it doesn't hurt other people, someone should be free to do what they want. More on this in a second though. darkknight109 posted... This is an excellent argument for making alcohol and cigarettes illegal and a terrible one for legalizing marijuana. I'll be addressing the entire section you made here (because of the GF text limit) but the point is not that other things should be illegal. Rather the idea is you should be allowed to do what you want so long as it only harms you. Alcohol and cigarettes should NOT be illegal, and neither should weed for the same reasons. But I'm extremely tired and want to make this fast, so I won't elaborate here...for now. Request more if you like. I'll address the rest later after I sleep. <cite>IronicFool posted [p:911295694] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>Fierce_Deity_08 posted...</cite> <quote>You really have been walking around with your eyes closed. </quote> No, I just tend to give the benefit of the doubt. There's just no doubt here. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, look at the 9/11 Truthers - their numbers fucking exploded after several high-profile attempts to debunk their claims. Trying to "disprove" a conspiracy theory is like throwing water on a grease fire - it seems like a great idea until you see the resultant fireball.</quote> I pretty much agree with everything else in this section, but I will say this: The truthers DO appear much more legit without the debunking to argue against them. Are there stupid people who will believe them anyway? Of course. And I don't disagree that there are more of them because of the debunking. But there are also fewer people who take them seriously and much less who don't know what the conspiracy is, because of it. You cannot argue that ignorance is the best course of action when something sounds legitimate because most people are not that stupid. I would suggest that debunking them, and then mocking them, is a much better course of action. Otherwise, you have more people knowing less about it when they come into contact with it. Hell, I remember a time myself when I didn't know enough about building infrastructure when I thought they might have a point, but the debunking of the stupidity made far more sense. Knowledge is never a bad thing, even if some choose to ignore it. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Which is, in and of itself, stupid. If there is no good data, how are we supposed to make good policy decisions? </quote> There's no good data BECAUSE of policy decisions. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>My viewpoint is, and has been for a long time, the drug should have been decriminalized (as incarceration was a grossly disproportionate punishment for simple possession) and extensively studied long before any attempt at legalization was made. After all, pharmaceuticals don't reach store shelves before extensive testing, so why should weed? As it is, there are far too many holes in our knowledge of marijuana's effects, particularly long-term and on those already suffering from mental illness, for me to feel comfortable with legalization.</quote> This is an excellent point, but fails to take into account two things: 1) Despite its extensive use in spite of the ban, there is no indication that there are any long-term side effects. There are some indicators, such as a causal link between causing schizophrenic episodes for people at risk for schizophrenia, but nothing that indicates it is going to cause anything bad that someone isn't already susceptible to. 2) As long as it doesn't hurt other people, someone should be free to do what they want. More on this in a second though. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>This is an excellent argument for making alcohol and cigarettes illegal and a terrible one for legalizing marijuana.</quote> I'll be addressing the entire section you made here (because of the GF text limit) but the point is not that other things should be illegal. Rather the idea is you should be allowed to do what you want so long as it only harms you. Alcohol and cigarettes should NOT be illegal, and neither should weed for the same reasons. But I'm extremely tired and want to make this fast, so I won't elaborate here...for now. Request more if you like. I'll address the rest later after I sleep.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
St_Kevin 10/27/18 10:55:07 PM #82:	--- [:D] That Canadian Emperor Guy King of ** posts and memes [:)] <cite>St_Kevin posted [p:911296359] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote> --- [:D] That Canadian Emperor Guy King of ** posts and memes [:)] </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 10/27/18 11:35:12 PM #83:	Wait, what? Why are people talking about weed? --- ImmortalityV, "I would like to kiss Icoyar to be honest in a non gay way though" <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:911298292] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>Wait, what? Why are people talking about weed?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 10/27/18 11:46:29 PM #84:	I like weed. Im in favor of it but I worry too many people will drive while high. --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:911298854] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote>I like weed. Im in favor of it but I worry too many people will drive while high.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 10/27/18 11:47:44 PM #85:	ReturnOfFa posted... The left is dumb, but they're too busy working their peachy jobs and switching between keto/vegan diets to orchestrate something this dumb lmfao Those damn leftists with their peachy jobs --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:911298915] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>ReturnOfFa posted...</cite> <quote>The left is dumb, but they're too busy working their peachy jobs and switching between keto/vegan diets to orchestrate something this dumb lmfao</quote> Those damn leftists with their peachy jobs</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 10/28/18 4:19:53 AM #86:	BUMPED2002 posted... Trump is the symptom not disease of what's wrong in America. The problem is the less electorally educated, get a vote, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:911308115] in Lmao are p... [t:77132996]...</cite> <quote><cite>BUMPED2002 posted...</cite> <quote>Trump is the symptom not disease of what's wrong in America.</quote> The problem is the less electorally educated, get a vote, ok?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Lmao are people really blaming Trump for those Mail Bombs? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Lmao are people really blaming Trump for those Mail Bombs?