Chip Z'Hoy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:41 am
But DitD is right. If you think the violent rhetoric of Antifa equals that of the white supremacist/Trumpist right, I don't know what to tell you. A couple whacked-out hippies busting windows and punching Nazis in the ear has nothing on the Trump cult. The Proud Boys alone make Antifa look like a book club but nobody seems to give a fuck about them. Thats the thing when it’s the left. It’s just some hippies setting trash cans on fire. Almost quaint, really. Fuck that. Violence is violence. Trumptards don’t have a monopoly on it. Just because they’re not yelling racial epithets while turning those cop cars over doesn’t mean the magnitude is less.
Rhetoric is one thing. Words are words and you’ve got a right to them, shitty or otherwise. Sure, I’d take anti-fascism (although I don’t think most Antifa marchers have a clue what fascism is) over neo-Nazi rhetoric, but In my lifetime, I’ve seen as much actual violence from the left as the right. I can hate Trump and his swamp all I want and still acknowledge that. I’ll be voting Democrat in 2020, but I’m not deluding myself into thinking the Democrats aren’t scum too.
Let's say you were a minority. Black, Latino, gay, Muslim, whatever. You're walking down the street at night. You see two crowds and you have to walk through one of them to get to where you need to be. One is a crowd of Bernie Sanders supporters. The other is a crowd of Donald Trump supporters. Which crowd are you going to walk through?
It's disingenuous to suggest that there's equal violence on both sides, that there's equal danger. To you, perhaps. But to a black Krogers customer, there's now a threat that white supremacists are going to murder them while they shop for groceries.
There's a significant portion of the country where the threat of right-wing violence is A LOT more prevalent. It's not equal.
Chip Z'Hoy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:44 am
Let's say you were a minority. Black, Latino, gay, Muslim, whatever. You're walking down the street at night. You see two crowds and you have to walk through one of them to get to where you need to be. One is a crowd of Bernie Sanders supporters. The other is a crowd of Donald Trump supporters. Which crowd are you going to walk through?
It's disingenuous to suggest that there's equal violence on both sides, that there's equal danger. To you, perhaps. But to a black Krogers customer, there's now a threat that white supremacists are going to murder them while they shop for groceries.
There's a significant portion of the country where the threat of right-wing violence is A LOT more prevalent. It's not equal.
I think we’re gauging violence differently. You’re talking about murders and I’m including riots, burning shit, etc. So yeah, you’re totally right. Neo Nazis kill people and obviously that’s worse than liberals breaking windows.
I was just taking the whole spectrum of violence as violence without really making a distinction as I should have. Leftists carry out more general violence, like riots, than conservatives do. You’re more likely to find someone claiming support for Bernie turning over a cop car than you are a Reaganite and leftists are quicker to go that route than the right. But yeah, if I saw a lynching, I’d bet Trumptard without a second thought.
Rooster wrote:
I hunt with a handgun.
pieceofme wrote:
Yeah, Mojo is a lot of peoples favourite!
Judge waits to hear if sitting president can be sued before ruling on Trump Foundation
New York (CNN) — The judge overseeing the New York attorney general's lawsuit against President Donald Trump's charitable foundation suggested Thursday that she will wait until an appeals court rules on whether a sitting president can be the subject of a civil lawsuit before determining whether to dismiss the state's case.
A New York appeals court is weighing that question after a judge in a separate case allowed a defamation lawsuit against Trump brought by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice," to proceed.
At issue is whether the president can be sued in state court for conduct outside his official duties. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that President Bill Clinton could be subject to a federal lawsuit over such conduct, but it didn't determine that issue on the state level.
You know, if you're going to do a (prepared) speech calling for unity, end the hateful rhetoric and violence, and then turn around and continue to slam the Dems and the media, why fucking bother with the prepared speech? Kind of a waste of time. He can never be Presidential.
TawnyVonJagger wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:25 pm
You know, if you're going to do a (prepared) speech calling for unity, end the hateful rhetoric and violence, and then turn around and continue to slam the Dems and the media, why fucking bother with the prepared speech? Kind of a waste of time. He can never be Presidential.
Trump always has the grueling task of trying to play both sides. Saying the mainstream liberal media has caused these assassination attempts is ridiculous when he surely won't be able to find video evidence of those networks advocating violence in the culture or slamming Clinton, Obama, Soros, Booker, Harris, etc. the way he has. The elected officials targeted represent a network like CNN's side of the equation.
Trump will go off-script but his handlers have learned he can't be reined in. Luckily for him, his fanatics can be convinced of anything which compensates for his deficiencies.
Trump says Pittsburgh synagogue should have had armed guards
Seriously?
(CNN) — President Donald Trump said Saturday that the outcome of the deadly shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue would have been different had an armed guard been in place.
"If there was an armed guard inside the temple, they would have been able to stop him," he said to reporters before boarding a flight to a pair of events later in the afternoon.
Yes, seriously. I am hugely in favor of stationing an armed guard at every one of the estimated 300,000 churches in the US on the off chance that a crazed hillbilly with a gun wants to shoot it up. Makes total sense from every angle.
Rooster wrote:
I hunt with a handgun.
pieceofme wrote:
Yeah, Mojo is a lot of peoples favourite!
Yes, seriously. I am hugely in favor of stationing an armed guard at every one of the estimated 300,000 churches in the US on the off chance that a crazed hillbilly with a gun wants to shoot it up. Makes total sense from every angle.
That's just scratching the surface. Trump figures we need them at shopping centers, schools, coffee shops, nightclubs, sports stadiums, movie theaters, etc., on and on and on. What's the population of the country again and what percentage of those people will need to take up a new vocation as a sentry watcher? 70%? 80%?
Shit, I think Trump might actually solve the unemployment problem. Between just churches and schools, we’re talking a million new jobs, here. Praise him!
Rooster wrote:
I hunt with a handgun.
pieceofme wrote:
Yeah, Mojo is a lot of peoples favourite!
Yes, seriously. I am hugely in favor of stationing an armed guard at every one of the estimated 300,000 churches in the US on the off chance that a crazed hillbilly with a gun wants to shoot it up. Makes total sense from every angle.
Well, when you put it that way. It makes sense.
milk-milk-lemonade wrote:USA USA USA!! !
milk-milk-lemonade wrote:'Oh boy...' is a 300 Part Series
Wait, isn't the right to bare arms in the constitution supposed to be so that armed militia can be formed when required? There should be no need to spend money on armed guards, local gun owners who love America, the flag and the constitution should be first in line to pick up the slack.
MickeyG wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:39 pm
Wait, isn't the right to bare arms in the constitution supposed to be so that armed militia can be formed when required? There should be no need to spend money on armed guards, local gun owners who love America, the flag and the constitution should be first in line to pick up the slack.
It exists to enable the composition of a militia against the government, not to police the citizenry at your discretion.
Rooster wrote:
I hunt with a handgun.
pieceofme wrote:
Yeah, Mojo is a lot of peoples favourite!
Yes, seriously. I am hugely in favor of stationing an armed guard at every one of the estimated 300,000 churches in the US on the off chance that a crazed hillbilly with a gun wants to shoot it up. Makes total sense from every angle.
Wouldn't it make more sense if God protected them? I mean they are in his house.
Insane Clown Potsie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:17 pm
Wouldn't it make more sense if God protected them? I mean they are in his house.
God is too busy hating fags and watching wards of innocent children die of cancer. He can't be expected to hang around and protect people. Especially the Jews.
Rooster wrote:
I hunt with a handgun.
pieceofme wrote:
Yeah, Mojo is a lot of peoples favourite!
MickeyG wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:39 pm
Wait, isn't the right to bare arms in the constitution supposed to be so that armed militia can be formed when required? There should be no need to spend money on armed guards, local gun owners who love America, the flag and the constitution should be first in line to pick up the slack.
It exists to enable the composition of a militia against the government, not to police the citizenry at your discretion.
I thought it says "necessary to the security of a free state" and doesn't mention government anywhere. If citizens can't go to a place of worship without threat of being shot, I'd say it isn't a free state.
MickeyG wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:38 pm
If citizens can't go to a place of worship without threat of being shot, I'd say it isn't a free state.
They can't go to a place of worship without the threat of being robbed, stabbed, raped, or mildly annoyed by a shitty church choir, either. No amendment can protect against random acts of violence, regardless of the wording. If acts of violence negate the status of a free state, then the US would have ceased to exist the day it was incorporated.
Rooster wrote:
I hunt with a handgun.
pieceofme wrote:
Yeah, Mojo is a lot of peoples favourite!
MickeyG wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:39 pm
Wait, isn't the right to bare arms in the constitution supposed to be so that armed militia can be formed when required? There should be no need to spend money on armed guards, local gun owners who love America, the flag and the constitution should be first in line to pick up the slack.
It exists to enable the composition of a militia against the government, not to police the citizenry at your discretion.
No, the purpose of the militia is to defend the United States.
Danzig in the Dark wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:27 pm
No, the purpose of the militia is to defend the United States.
Against whom?
It's enemies.
John Madison, father of the Constitution, wrote:The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Danzig in the Dark wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:51 pm
They didn't like standing armies back then so it was expected that regular folk with guns would provide the forces to repel invasions and shit.
The standing armies they didn't like were those controlled by central governments, like the one they just finished overthrowing. The entire point of 2A was to allow the citizenry to defend against exactly what they just finished defending against - their own tyrannical government. It didn't prevent a centralized standing army, as evidenced by the many branches of it that still exist today. It gave the citizenry equal footing in a time when that was actually possible. Its efficacy today is an entirely different argument, but 2A was specifically written as a guard against our own government getting too big for its britches. Not for the citizenry to draw up a militia whenever and over whatever it feels like.
Rooster wrote:
I hunt with a handgun.
pieceofme wrote:
Yeah, Mojo is a lot of peoples favourite!
Danzig in the Dark wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:51 pm
They didn't like standing armies back then so it was expected that regular folk with guns would provide the forces to repel invasions and shit.
The standing armies they didn't like were those controlled by central governments, like the one they just finished overthrowing. The entire point of 2A was to allow the citizenry to defend against exactly what they just finished defending against - their own tyrannical government. It didn't prevent a centralized standing army, as evidenced by the many branches of it that still exist today. It gave the citizenry equal footing in a time when that was actually possible. Its efficacy today is an entirely different argument, but 2A was specifically written as a guard against our own government getting too big for its britches. Not for the citizenry to draw up a militia whenever and over whatever it feels like.
Holy motherfuckin' NRA talking points, Batman. Does Ollie North have his hand up your ass like Charlie McCarthy? What I don't understand is how people read the bullshit you write and not shove your clown shoes up your ass sideways like they do TenLenny.
Danzig in the Dark wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:37 pm
Holy motherfuckin' NRA talking points, Batman. Does Ollie North have his hand up your ass like Charlie McCarthy? What I don't understand is how people read the bullshit you write and not shove your clown shoes up your ass sideways like they do TenLenny.
Your not knowing history doesn’t make it any less true, whether you like it pointed out to you or not.
Rooster wrote:
I hunt with a handgun.
pieceofme wrote:
Yeah, Mojo is a lot of peoples favourite!
Danzig in the Dark wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:37 pm
Holy motherfuckin' NRA talking points, Batman. Does Ollie North have his hand up your ass like Charlie McCarthy? What I don't understand is how people read the bullshit you write and not shove your clown shoes up your ass sideways like they do TenLenny.
Your not knowing history doesn’t make it any less true, whether you like it pointed out to you or not.
The authors of the Constitution wrote:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
