hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1081 of 1088 FirstFirst ... 81581981103110711078107910801081108210831084 ... LastLast
Results 21,601 to 21,620 of 21752

Thread: Political Shots Fired Thread

  1. #21601
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    And there’s no precedent at all in those millennia of military training for troops to ignore the chain of command or go into rebellion, or take sides in a revolution or a civil war. And certainly no elite troops have ever done this.

    Nope, none at all.

    Glad we got that sorted.
    As I said, G-Forces aren't the only reasons to get rid of the "fallible meatbag factor"
    meh

  2. #21602
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    And there’s no precedent at all in those millennia of military training for troops to ignore the chain of command or go into rebellion, or take sides in a revolution or a civil war. And certainly no elite troops have ever done this.

    Nope, none at all.

    Glad we got that sorted.
    As I said, G-Forces aren't the only reasons to get rid of the "fallible meatbag factor"
    So what you're saying is that the poor must kill the rich before they get their hands on reliable robots at which point it's over for 99% of the population.

  3. #21603
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.
    I've seen a couple of these happen. I saw a documentary about it and the amount of firepower the militias brought to that place and how they positioned themselves down on the ground i front of the gate and up on the bridge, with all sorts of assault rifles, sniper rifles and literally aiming at the feds ... I'm not sure that would be a peaceful transition.

    The actual reason for this was different, but the main argument "the gubment took away our rights!" remains. And this one didn't even involve taking away their guns.
    That's fine. If they actually shoot at the feds, we call in the Apaches.
    And what happens when/if the kid in the Apache decides to shoot at the feds instead? Or, more likely, what happens when the guy ordering the Apache canít be 100% confident that the kid in the Apache wonít shoot at the feds? Does he still order the Apache?
    You have a real stiffy for this revolution of the right idea, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    You (Isyel) are at the ranking top of all the other users in here that consistently just dishes out insults without any other content. You had it coming. Take it like a man and grow up.

  4. #21604
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    And there’s no precedent at all in those millennia of military training for troops to ignore the chain of command or go into rebellion, or take sides in a revolution or a civil war. And certainly no elite troops have ever done this.

    Nope, none at all.

    Glad we got that sorted.
    As I said, G-Forces aren't the only reasons to get rid of the "fallible meatbag factor"
    So what you're saying is that the poor must kill the rich before they get their hands on reliable robots at which point it's over for 99% of the population.
    it's over for 99% of the population already. We're sorting out the last 0.9%
    meh

  5. #21605
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    And there’s no precedent at all in those millennia of military training for troops to ignore the chain of command or go into rebellion, or take sides in a revolution or a civil war. And certainly no elite troops have ever done this.

    Nope, none at all.

    Glad we got that sorted.
    As I said, G-Forces aren't the only reasons to get rid of the "fallible meatbag factor"
    So what you're saying is that the poor must kill the rich before they get their hands on reliable robots at which point it's over for 99% of the population.
    it's over for 99% of the population already. We're sorting out the last 0.9%
    Think you'll have a bunk on the moon base?

  6. #21606
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    And there’s no precedent at all in those millennia of military training for troops to ignore the chain of command or go into rebellion, or take sides in a revolution or a civil war. And certainly no elite troops have ever done this.

    Nope, none at all.

    Glad we got that sorted.
    As I said, G-Forces aren't the only reasons to get rid of the "fallible meatbag factor"
    So what you're saying is that the poor must kill the rich before they get their hands on reliable robots at which point it's over for 99% of the population.
    it's over for 99% of the population already. We're sorting out the last 0.9%
    Think you'll have a bunk on the moon base?
    I don't care. I probably don't get to see that so it's not really my problem.
    meh

  7. #21607
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.
    I've seen a couple of these happen. I saw a documentary about it and the amount of firepower the militias brought to that place and how they positioned themselves down on the ground i front of the gate and up on the bridge, with all sorts of assault rifles, sniper rifles and literally aiming at the feds ... I'm not sure that would be a peaceful transition.

    The actual reason for this was different, but the main argument "the gubment took away our rights!" remains. And this one didn't even involve taking away their guns.
    That's fine. If they actually shoot at the feds, we call in the Apaches.
    And what happens when/if the kid in the Apache decides to shoot at the feds instead? Or, more likely, what happens when the guy ordering the Apache can’t be 100% confident that the kid in the Apache won’t shoot at the feds? Does he still order the Apache?
    You have a real stiffy for this revolution of the right idea, eh?
    Who said anything about ‘the right’ in this context? The issue of whether the folks your troops don’t want to shoot at are broadly left or right wing is a separate issue from whether or not troops can be relied on to attack the civilians they signed up to protect.

  8. #21608
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.
    I've seen a couple of these happen. I saw a documentary about it and the amount of firepower the militias brought to that place and how they positioned themselves down on the ground i front of the gate and up on the bridge, with all sorts of assault rifles, sniper rifles and literally aiming at the feds ... I'm not sure that would be a peaceful transition.

    The actual reason for this was different, but the main argument "the gubment took away our rights!" remains. And this one didn't even involve taking away their guns.
    That's fine. If they actually shoot at the feds, we call in the Apaches.
    And what happens when/if the kid in the Apache decides to shoot at the feds instead? Or, more likely, what happens when the guy ordering the Apache can’t be 100% confident that the kid in the Apache won’t shoot at the feds? Does he still order the Apache?
    You have a real stiffy for this revolution of the right idea, eh?
    Who said anything about ‘the right’ in this context? The issue of whether the folks your troops don’t want to shoot at are broadly left or right wing is a separate issue from whether or not troops can be relied on to attack the civilians they signed up to protect.
    The American Left isn't going to foment a Revolution over gun rights being withdrawn.

    Notice the first post few posts in this pyramid? All started with "take away muh guns!" and what would happen if....

    So yes, we're talking about the Right. Not a theoretical group.

    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    You (Isyel) are at the ranking top of all the other users in here that consistently just dishes out insults without any other content. You had it coming. Take it like a man and grow up.

  9. #21609
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,778
    True leftists believe the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, change my mind.


  10. #21610
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    20,932
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    And there’s no precedent at all in those millennia of military training for troops to ignore the chain of command or go into rebellion, or take sides in a revolution or a civil war. And certainly no elite troops have ever done this.

    Nope, none at all.

    Glad we got that sorted.
    As I said, G-Forces aren't the only reasons to get rid of the "fallible meatbag factor"
    So what you're saying is that the poor must kill the rich before they get their hands on reliable robots at which point it's over for 99% of the population.
    it's over for 99% of the population already. We're sorting out the last 0.9%
    Think you'll have a bunk on the moon base?
    I don't care. I probably don't get to see that so it's not really my problem.
    And that's how we got here in the first place

  11. #21611
    Movember 2012 Elriche Oshego's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 21, 2011
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    True leftists believe the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, change my mind.


  12. #21612
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,340
    Uhh George Orwell was a radical leftist.

  13. #21613
    Movember 2012 Elriche Oshego's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 21, 2011
    Posts
    7,983
    Oh, really? I didn't know!

  14. #21614
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,340
    So then what’s the context here?

  15. #21615
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    So then what’s the context here?
    A knowing look is as good as a wink to a blind bat.
    meh

  16. #21616
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,340
    Grandpa Lampshade was, undoubtedly, a problem. In a bygone era, he might have donned a hood and burned a cross in a remote field. But he likely would have been little more than a local malignancy. In the social media age, however, he could reach through his keyboard and contact the world. The neo-Nazi next door could be your neighbor. Your own kid could be listening to Grandpa Lampshade. And the anonymity of the internet allowed him to operate without hindrance or consequence.

    Until now.

    Behind the Pepe mask and the Nazi pseudonym is a very average 51-year-old who represents how commonplace racism is in America. He lives about an hour outside Fort Worth, Texas, in a small town called Granbury. He works at an auto parts store. He likes motorcycles. He used to chew Red Man tobacco. He got married. He had a son. He got divorced. He remarried in blue jeans. He supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

    Meet Daniel Kenneth Jeffreys
    https://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/us...rce=reddit.com

    HuffPo taking on that master race bullshit. Color me somewhat surprised.

  17. #21617
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Grandpa Lampshade was, undoubtedly, a problem. In a bygone era, he might have donned a hood and burned a cross in a remote field. But he likely would have been little more than a local malignancy. In the social media age, however, he could reach through his keyboard and contact the world. The neo-Nazi next door could be your neighbor. Your own kid could be listening to Grandpa Lampshade. And the anonymity of the internet allowed him to operate without hindrance or consequence.

    Until now.

    Behind the Pepe mask and the Nazi pseudonym is a very average 51-year-old who represents how commonplace racism is in America. He lives about an hour outside Fort Worth, Texas, in a small town called Granbury. He works at an auto parts store. He likes motorcycles. He used to chew Red Man tobacco. He got married. He had a son. He got divorced. He remarried in blue jeans. He supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

    Meet Daniel Kenneth Jeffreys
    https://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/us...rce=reddit.com

    HuffPo taking on that master race bullshit. Color me somewhat surprised.
    I can tell he's a cunt just from his vacant look and his beard and haircut.
    meh

  18. #21618
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    10,069
    Link is borked for me. Not a cookie or JS issue, can't read.

  19. #21619
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,340
    Link is now borked for me too.

    Another link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffp...87b557717a/amp

    Or just google “The Neo-Nazi Podcaster Next Door”

  20. #21620
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    6,739
    and again

    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •