Poll of the Day > Cornel West and right-wing black man lose it on Fox News.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Video is 20 seconds in

https://youtu.be/FDAiuH_Drk8

Lol wow

---

Leo Terrell is right wing?

Lefty looks crazy AF and off his rocker when speaking. The right-wing black man let him speak his turn, and then could barely get a word in when the crazy lefty starts going off. And the dumbass host is like "something is wrong with you if you can't get along with lefty."

Yeah, okay.

Cornel West is the one speaking actual reason. Fuck those other two clowns.

Right wing morons want everyone to focus on the small percentage of crime thats happened around all this turmoil and hope that they can distract their geriatric and brain dead audience from the massive amount of peaceful protesting going on in most cities and the broken system that led up to this.

---

the way the other black guy says "my brother" is hilarious

---

Mead posted...

Cornel West is the one speaking actual reason. Fuck those other two clowns.

Right wing morons want everyone to focus on the small percentage of crime thats happened around all this turmoil and hope that they can distract their geriatric and brain dead audience from the massive amount of peaceful protesting going on in most cities and the broken system that led up to this.

Funny how the lock down protesters were considered terrorists even though no violence broke out but these protests are considered "mostly peaceful" when there's tons of violence every where

Mead posted...

Right wing morons want everyone to focus on the small percentage of crime thats happened around all this turmoil

This which is funny cause they dont want to hear about the "small percentage" of bad cops tho.

---

Anyone that set fires or looted stores is a criminal and could be considered a terrorist imo, just like those dumbass rednecks with assault rifles to defend themselves against the government, aka the cops and troops they claim they support, they cant fucking wait to have an excuse to shoot them

---

OhhhJa posted...

Funny how the lock down protesters were considered terrorists even though no violence broke out but these protests are considered "mostly peaceful" when there's tons of violence every where

Most of the violence is being done by the police.

Oh wait, its ohhja

---

You mean Cornel West can't keep his shit together?

https://i.imgur.com/qOgLlpM.gif

Mead posted...

Anyone that set fires or looted stores is a criminal and could be considered a terrorist imo, just like those dumbass rednecks with assault rifles to defend themselves against the government, aka the cops and troops they claim they support, they cant fucking wait to have an excuse to shoot them

You heard Mead say it -- If you open-carry a gun, which is your legal right, you're as bad as people committing crimes including arson and looting!

---

This is why you don't turn a homeless bum into a college professor.

Zeus posted...

You heard Mead say it -- If you open-carry a gun, which is your legal right, you're as bad as people committing crimes including arson and looting!

big difference between just having a gun on your person and touting the fact that you and a small militia all have weapons designed for war, but hey thats just my opinion

---

Mead posted...

big difference between just having a gun on your person and touting the fact that you and a small militia all have weapons designed for war, but hey thats just my opinion

...literally the exact same thing. You're still talking about guns and, like most weapons, guns were designed for warfare/combat. Soldiers don't just carry semi-auto rifles, they carry side-arms/pistols as well.

---

OhhhJa posted...

Funny how the lock down protesters were considered terrorists even though no violence broke out

Are you really going to try and claim that people who stormed the capitol building with rifles weren't threatening violence? Sure, it was all legal and within their rights and blah blah blah, but are you really going to try claiming that they just happened to be heavily armed while also peacefully protesting and not trying to use the threat of violence to effect the political change they wanted in any way?

---

Zeus posted...

...literally the exact same thing. You're still talking about guns and, like most weapons, guns were designed for warfare/combat. Soldiers don't just carry semi-auto rifles, they carry side-arms/pistols as well.

ok but some guns are clearly appropriate for personal protection or home defense, and some guns are by design far more destructive and potentially more deadly

so I dont agree with your view that they are the same, and if you dont think a large group of people with that kind of firepower might instill terror in some people, then Im sure youd also be comfortable marching downtown with a bunch of BLM protesters all armed with semi-automatics

---

Mead posted...

ok but some guns are clearly appropriate for personal protection or home defense, and some guns are by design far more destructive and potentially more deadly

The more powerful the gun, the more appropriate it is for home defense and protection.

Mead posted...

so I dont agree with your view that they are the same, and if you dont think a large group of people with that kind of firepower might instill terror in some people, then Im sure youd also be comfortable marching downtown with a bunch of BLM protesters all armed with semi-automatics

Are you asking whether a group that can't control itself to the extent that it doesn't loot, vandalize, and commit arson can be trusted with to carry semi-auto weapons? While I'd support their right to open-carry, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that crowd because it will end very, very badly. Meanwhile those "gun-toting terrorists" you keep what-aboutting haven't seemed to burn anything down or loot anything, and their weapons are just for show.

---

Zeus posted...

Soldiers don't just carry semi-auto rifles, they carry side-arms/pistols as well.

A few specific jobs do. A majority of soldiers dont.

Zeus posted...

The more powerful the gun, the more appropriate it is for home defense and protection.

What kind of dumbass logic is this?

Zeus posted...

Are you asking whether a group that can't control itself to the extent that it doesn't loot, vandalize, and commit arson can be trusted with to carry semi-auto weapons?

as opposed to the group that cant control itself and seems to regularly perform modern day lynches, drives vehicles into peaceful crowds, and sends explosives through the mail to politicians that they dont like?

Funny how youre comfortable with one group despite their extremists but terrified of another because of theirs

I wonder what the key difference is between the two groups that makes you feel this way

---

Zeus posted...

The more powerful the gun, the more appropriate it is for home defense and protection.

So an attack helicopter gun is more appropriate for home defense than a pistol or a shotgun?

adjl posted...

Are you really going to try and claim that people who stormed the capitol building with rifles weren't threatening violence? Sure, it was all legal and within their rights and blah blah blah, but are you really going to try claiming that they just happened to be heavily armed while also peacefully protesting and not trying to use the threat of violence to effect the political change they wanted in any way?

Cool I'm glad we agree on that. It's a shame these new protestors can't all protest legally. And feel the need to light business is on fire, assault people, and set up their own nations within a city

Zeus posted...

The more powerful the gun, the more appropriate it is for home defense and protection.

You do know that real guns aren't like video games, right? Short of trying to penetrate body armour (which the vast, vast majority of home invaders aren't going to have), just about any gun is going to be adequate for inserting a bullet into the appropriate squishy bits. When dealing with home defense, you're generally going to want something with a shorter barrel to function better in close quarters and/or a shotgun so you don't have to worry as much about aiming. Stopping power (beyond the basic minimum that virtually all firearms have) doesn't affect much, and in fact a higher-powered gun is actually a terrible idea for home defense because it increases the risk of penetrating walls and causing collateral damage (potentially including the family you're supposedly so keen on defending).

OhhhJa posted...

Cool I'm glad we agree on that.

If you're going to make such a habit of avoiding questions you don't have answers to, you should probably learn to be more subtle and convincing in your deflections. As it stands, you're really not helping yourself.

---

adjl posted...

If you're going to make such a habit of avoiding questions you don't have answers to, you should probably learn to be more subtle and convincing in your deflections. As it stands, you're really not helping yourself.

OK just to satisfy your bs. No threats were made that I know of unless there were isolated ones. I don't think any group made any explicit threats and it was pretty clear they were just there to exercise their rights one of them being there 2nd amendment. In short, it was an obvious show of expressing their rights and not being about violence

These protests are the opposite. Everyone wants to put themselves on a morality pedestal while acting like toddlers

OhhhJa posted...

OK just to satisfy your bs. No threats were made that I know of unless there were isolated ones. I don't think any group made any explicit threats and it was pretty clear they were just there to exercise their rights one of them being there 2nd amendment. In short, it was an obvious show of expressing their rights and not being about violence

So yes, you are going to claim that. Next question: Are you claiming that because you're really that clueless, or because you're being being deliberately obtuse and hoping you can do so convincingly enough that nobody will notice?

OhhhJa posted...

These protests are the opposite. Everyone wants to put themselves on a morality pedestal while acting like toddlers

Why shouldn't peaceful protesters feel like they have the moral high ground? The mere existence of rioters that agree with them doesn't invalidate their position, after all, and surely you wouldn't be so absurd as to generalize the misbehaviour of a violent minority to the entirety of the protests (you totally would, but patronizing sarcasm is fun).

---

Imagine the crying we'd be seeing if conservatives burned businesses and homeless camps and set up their own nation inside Seattle

Instead, we just see deflecting to those big scary guys with guns a few weeks ago that didn't hurt anyone or destroy anyone's property

adjl posted...

Are you really going to try and claim that people who stormed the capitol building with rifles weren't threatening violence? Sure, it was all legal and within their rights and blah blah blah, but are you really going to try claiming that they just happened to be heavily armed while also peacefully protesting and not trying to use the threat of violence to effect the political change they wanted in any way?

Of course he is, you know he loves the taste of boot.

---

Oh hey you ignored another two questions you don't have an answer to. On a scale from 1 to surprised, I am up to a 16.

---

Zareth posted...

Of course he is, you know he loves the taste of boot.

Says the guy mad at people for exercising their 2nd amendment. I'm sure the irony is lost on you

OhhhJa posted...

Imagine the crying we'd be seeing if conservatives burned businesses and homeless camps and set up their own nation inside Seattle

Good thing that's NEVER happened in this country before.

---

Zeus posted...

The more powerful the gun, the more appropriate it is for home defense and protection.

LOL

The guy on the left might have been getting worked up but it was only cause the guy on the right was clearly sucking up to the host. The guy on the right was calm because he had a smugness and he knew he was being supported by the host

OhhhJa posted...

OK just to satisfy your bs. No threats were made that I know of unless there were isolated ones. I don't think any group made any explicit threats and it was pretty clear they were just there to exercise their rights one of them being there 2nd amendment. In short, it was an obvious show of expressing their rights and not being about violence

So why bring guns then?

Guns have precisely one use - violence. That violence can be for good aims or for ill, but there is no secondary function of a gun other than effecting violence.

So why did these protesters - at a protest that had nothing to with weapons or their availability - feel the need to bring along weapons if not as an implicit threat to those they were protesting against?

---

darkknight109 posted...

So why bring guns then?

Guns have precisely one use - violence. That violence can be for good aims or for ill, but there is no secondary function of a gun other than effecting violence.

So why did these protesters - at a protest that had nothing to with weapons or their availability - feel the need to bring along weapons if not as an implicit threat to those they were protesting against?

No, you dont understand, they needed the guns to fight COVID. Not to scare people.

---

OhhhJa posted...

Cool I'm glad we agree on that. It's a shame these new protestors can't all protest legally. And feel the need to light business is on fire, assault people, and set up their own nations within a city

Don't worry. That little leftist nation is going to fail miserably, as will all the blue cities that are turning into shit holes before our eyes, continuing to demonstrate to the world what happens when you crank leftist ideologies to 11.

I wonder who the virtue-signaling, perpetual victims lefties are going to blame when they fail again?

---

The_tall_midget posted...

Don't worry. That little leftist nation is going to fail miserably, as will all the blue cities that are turning into shit holes before our eyes, continuing to demonstrate to the world what happens when you crank leftist ideologies to 11.

I wonder who the virtue-signaling, perpetual victims lefties are going to blame when they fail again?

goddamn, you just never stop crying, do you?

adjl posted...

Are you really going to try and claim that people who stormed the capitol building with rifles weren't threatening violence? Sure, it was all legal and within their rights and blah blah blah, but are you really going to try claiming that they just happened to be heavily armed while also peacefully protesting and not trying to use the threat of violence to effect the political change they wanted in any way?

Just holding a gun isn't violent and as far as I'm aware no one got shot. I don't agree with this dude but I know you can make better points than that

---

darkknight109 posted...

So why bring guns then?

Guns have precisely one use - violence. That violence can be for good aims or for ill, but there is no secondary function of a gun other than effecting violence.

So why did these protesters - at a protest that had nothing to with weapons or their availability - feel the need to bring along weapons if not as an implicit threat to those they were protesting against?

Sometimes the government needs a reminder that the people know their rights and are willing to exercise them if need be. I think that time has come in the US

Cacciato posted...

goddamn, you just never stop crying, do you?

Pointing out the neverending failures of leftist ideologies is not crying. I know this is complicated for you, but do try to keep up.

Do you not enjoy always being wrong in the end? Does it not get old to always seeing your ideologies fail miserably?

Now just sit back and watch as another leftist attempt at showing the world ends the same way it always does.

---

The_tall_midget posted...

Don't worry. That little leftist nation is going to fail miserably, as will all the blue cities that are turning into s*** holes before our eyes, continuing to demonstrate to the world what happens when you crank leftist ideologies to 11.

Oh it's pretty inevitable Woodstock will fail as a nation. Crapping in the street and begging for outside resources can only sustain itself for so long

OhhhJa posted...

Oh it's pretty inevitable Woodstock will fail as a nation. Crapping in the street and begging for outside resources can only sustain itself for so long

Lol the idiots in Antifastan have demonstrated how racism is a problem and unnaceptable by encouraging segregation.

I AM SO SHOCKED TO HEAR that the people who always scream about racism are actually the actual racists!

---

The_tall_midget posted...

Pointing out the neverending failures of leftist ideologies is not crying. I know this is complicated for you, but do try to keep up.

Do you not enjoy always being wrong in the end? Does it not get old to always seeing your ideologies fail miserably?

Now just sit back and watch as another leftist attempt at showing the world ends the same way it always does.

shit, you just keep going

Muscles posted...

Just holding a gun isn't violent

depending on the circumstances it can certainly be threatening

I mean how many people get killed by police because a cop thinks they MIGHT have a gun

---

The_tall_midget posted...

Do you not enjoy always being wrong in the end? Does it not get old to always seeing your ideologies fail miserably?

Are you asking yourself that question? Because if not, you should be.

Let's take a look at the US, for instance. The top 15 states by murder rate are, in order, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Maryland, Arkansas, Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Illinois, South Carolina, Tennessee, New Mexico, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio. That's three blue states, two swing states (and that's being generous given that one of them is Ohio, which has been trending red lately), and a full ten Republican states, including some of the reddest states in the country.

By contrast, the 15 lowest are New Hampshire, North Dakota, Maine, Idaho, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Nebraska, Vermont, Utah, Massachusetts, Oregon, Wyoming, Hawaii, Connecticut, and New York - five red states, three swing (all blue-leaning), and seven Democrat.

Left-wing states are simply safer than their right-wing peers. Seems to be a point in favour of more leftist policies.

Well, maybe that right-wing ideology pays better? I mean, that's supposed to be what conservatives are all about, right?

Except no, of the 10 wealthiest US states by median income, all but two are strongly Democratic (in order: Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Alaska, California, Virginia, and Washington). The exceptions are republican Alaska (most of which comes from a combination of a small population and the presence of large amounts of easily accessible oil) and swing-state New Hampshire.

By contrast, the 10 poorest states are (with just one exception in blue New Mexico) all strongly Republican: West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, Lousiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Not looking good for conservatism so far.

Let's take a look at the world as a whole. The US has a soaring murder rate of 5.35 per 100k - clocking in just ahead of powerhouses like Ecuador, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, but not quite matching such safety heavyweights as Pakistan, Lebanon, or Cuba in terms of safety. Meanwhile, the socialist and democratic-socialist European states manage to do pretty well for themselves - Finland (not coincidentally the most gun-friendly socialist country) is the closest to the US, with roughly a quarter of the murder rate (1.35 per 100k), but not quite matching Sweden (1.08), Denmark (0.98), Greece (0.75), the Netherlands (0.55), Norway (0.51), or Iceland (0.3).

Meanwhile, the World Happiness Report's top 10 of happiest countries is dominated by European socialist countries (top 10 2019 countries are, in order, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, and Austria). Most have comparable GDP per capita (Norway actually beats out the US, which is #10 overall, while the Netherlands, Iceland, Sweden, and Denmark are all in the top 20). Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all have higher median household incomes than the US (and the Netherlands and Finland aren't far behind) and virtually all the socialist nations enjoy much lower levels of income inequality than the US. Norway is the highest ranked country on the Human Development Index, with Iceland, Sweden and the Netherlands also in the top 10. All of those, plus Denmark, are higher than the US (which ranks 13th).

All these "leftist wastelands" honestly sound vastly more pleasant to live in than America, to be quite honest...

---