America Is Disgusting
- Thread starter TheGrassIsGreenerInAus
- Start date
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
so 400 dollars a week is what it takes to buy you? 400 dollars a week to turn a blind eye to the administration gutting social programs, gutting the national parks, trying to turn nasa into a military appendix, silencing the epa, withdrawing from the kyoto accord......you're not just a whore, you're a cheap whore
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
how do you separate the responsible from the irresponsible? is your freedom to bear arms more important than the lives of children killed with weapons stolen from the irresponsible? you can quote the second amendment all you want, but it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." this was written when "arms" were muzzle loading pistols and muskets. and they were to be kept to help fight off invading armies, not to kill kids in schools.
i am not in favor of just taking peoples guns, but i am in favor of making it impossible for criminals and mentally unstable people to get them, and to make the owners more responsible for crimes committed with their weapons
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
the people behind the scenes don't give a fuck about the details, they just want their goals met. the details are what we are left to quibble over. the details are what make our lives bearable. and trump wants to fuck up all the details that sensible, sane people care about.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I appreciate you offering your opinion in a reasonable way.
I don't care if some piece of paper claims I get to have a gun or I don't get to have a gun. I believe it's my right to defend myself and not my right to remove another persons ability to defend themselves against "real criminals" .
I would define a criminal as a person who initiates aggression against other people and/or their property. Which is why I question government, since that is the underlying means government uses to exist.
I would not always define a law breaker as a criminal though. For instance while it was illegal to hide a Jew in your attack or assist a runaway slave in the USA 160 years ago, I would have broken those laws, since the law itself was criminal. I would not define a person who consumed prohibited substances as a criminal even if some people determined that behavior was illegal. I DID and DO and will forever ignore those kinds of laws, because I own myself and I don't own others.
I'm curious if you agree with what I said above and if not which part doesn't make sense to you ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Mentally unstable people? Yes, they make me nervous too. Good call.
For instance a person who claims they and their friends have a right to do something to other people which would be wrong if you or I did it, I consider mentally unstable or at least somebody I'd say is engaging in promoting an idea which features a large dose of contradiction.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i break laws every day...the first being growing and using weed in a prohibition state. i guess that makes me a criminal in the eyes of some people, and i don't particularly care. but i'm a "harmless" criminal, i don't steal, the only time i ever hurt anyone else is when they try to hurt me first, and i try to mind my own business. the criminals i'm concerned about aren't harmless, some are mentally disturbed, and some are just murdering fucks. if someone breaks in and steals my weed, i'm the only one hurt (unless i can find them)...if someone breaks in and steals my gun, who the fuck knows what they're going to do with it? nothing good, thats for damn sure.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
In my eyes the behavior you described might make you an outlaw, but not a criminal.
When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Whew, what a wall of text. Triggered, were you?That's exactly what progressives are working to achieve. I certainly don't want a politician who voted in support of banking deregulation to be accepting such exorbitant "campaign contributions" from the same people/organizations they voted in support of during their tenure in government. It's as clear as day when someone like James Inhofe accepts millions from Exxon and other energy corporations, then votes in favor of deregulating the oil and gas industry and against any climate change bills, that his votes directly correlate with the amount of money he accepts from said industry. If you believe otherwise, that the money politicians receive from special interest groups does not affect their votes, like Marco Rubio just reiterated at the gun control meeting, I have a bridge to sell you... Because you're a naive child who doesn't understand how American politics actually works. I've posted clips and interviews from Democratic congressmen, like Barney Frank who has admitted it on air, and Democratic donors like Stephen Cloobeck who said he won't give another dollar to Democrats who talk about income and wealth inequality. Politicians like Dianne Feinstein who push strawman arguments created by Republicans to argue against single payer healthcare while accepting tens of thousands from the pharmaceutical industry. Or Debbie Wasserman Schultz who accepts thousands from the predatory lending industry, then votes in favor of it in Florida.. You yourself have even said that Republicans take money from special interests so Democrats have to, too, if they want to be able to compete, which is false.
Do you believe money has no effect on a politicians vote? Or do you just believe money only influences Republicans when it comes to the vote?
I said that Hillary Clinton's vote in support of the Iraq War was not created by "Russian propaganda". That is a very legitimate reason why a progressive would not vote for her. Donald Trump is a con artist, he sold lies and duped people into voting for him.
Russian's, as in a group of trolls, not the Russian government
No, that is not clear. A small group of trolls based in Russia with a very small finance account posted memes on social media that did not sway a significant amount of votes to alter the outcome of the election. Have you seen the memes in question? Post one you believe swayed some votes. The whole idea was to cause confusion and distrust in American institutions. It can be said that distrust among Democrats and left leaning people towards these same institutions before Trump ever came along was high; police, FBI, CIA, etc. the same institutions that establishment Democrats are fawning over now because of Meulers investigation into the Trump campaign. Before Trump, conservatives called progressives "unAmerican" for opposing law enforcement, "unpatriotic" for opposing the wars.. now it seems we've come full circle..
What does the Democratic primary have to do with this?
No, you mistake civility for the sake of actually trying to help understand the problem for kindness. Just because I choose not to respond emotionally to someone I disagree with, like you, doesn't mean I'm trying to be their friend. Does it feel like I'm trying to be your friend? I (try to) respond unemotionally and stoic because if I don't, it will only add fuel to the fire in the other person in their response. I'm not trying to argue with people, I'm trying to understand why they believe what they believe. Why would I want to try to elicit an emotional reaction out of them? The only reason I've come up with is to inflate your own ego. I know that because that's how I used to respond to people earlier on before I started trying to understand it. It gets nobody anywhere, quick.
MLK and the majority of the non-violent Civil Rights Movement were black. Even white people who supported the CRM were targeted by white racists at the time;
I didn't say the Civil Rights Movement was founded on being tolerant of racism. You do not have to be an asshole, like you are, towards people you disagree with politically in order to disavow racist sentiment or disapprove of people who hold racist ideals. In fact, that's proven to be counter intuitive to the process of reeducating people who are racist. It actually creates more racist sentiment among people. We both abhor racism/racists, the difference is that I actually give a fuck when it comes to trying to reform and reeducate them and help them try to see where they might be wrong while you simply post here to stir shit up and worsen the problem because it inflates your ego to feel intellectually superior to those you've deemed less than you.
I want to understand them. You want to make fun of them. My strategy has been proven to work, your strategy has failed every time. I want to help change this to help people, you want to stroke your ego and help yourself
Regarding Russian interference in our election, as spelled out in the recent indictments, it was sponsored by the Russian government to at least the tune of $1.5 M per month and it achieved their objectives of discrediting our elections. If you are OK with that, then I disagree.
Regarding the election, I still think that Clinton was the better choice over Trump regardless of her vote in 2003 over the Iraq war.
Regarding campaign finance reforms, I have no idea what you propose. I propose we hold Democrats to their promise of reforming the system and repealing CU when they hold power to do so. My reps have held that position for a long time. If yours don't then do what you think is right.
Regarding your desire to coddle racists, I think the right thing to do is confront them like the people in the picture you posted of the Walgreen's sit in did. Racists were absolutely livid over his participation. The sit in was peaceful but raised their ire. That was a perfect example of how to confront racism in spite of how racists felt about it.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
naive
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
More likely $400 a month.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you apply that same definition to black people shopping at the store.
TheGrassIsGreenerInAus
Well-Known Member
AMEN buddy. Couldn't have said it better.
TheGrassIsGreenerInAus
Well-Known Member
Well THATS racist......
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That all depends. If any person forces another person to serve them against their will, I'd say the person initiating the force is the person in the wrong, regardless of the race of either party.
I'm a little surprised you'd threaten force to make a black person serve you though, given that you claim not to be a racist. Why don't you think black people should be able to decline serving you against their will?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If somebody breaks in and steals his gun and they go next door to your house and decide to rob you, because they know you don't have a gun, will you laugh at them and say...
"hey buddy, you're breaking the law and what you're doing is impossible because there are laws which prevent you from doing this so when I count to 3, you will disappear and I will smoke some more of this marijuana that the FEDERAL LAWS made illegal and hence nobody can ever ever possess, grow or consume any because "the law" !!!! ?
Or will you call a person with a gun, (who will arrive to identify your body and file a report) the same badged person who will willingly use his gun against you to enforce the law that was magically going to make all marijuana disappear just like gun laws will magically prevent people from possessing them ?
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
People like me. You seem to be the only one with trouble being served. I probably wouldn't serve your racist ass either. You're a sad echo chamber. You've been asked several times now from multiple members, when are you going to stop spamming the forum with white nationalist talking points?
Last edited: