"One of the most effective self defence techniques is screaming effectively."
- Queensland Police, With Honor We Serve
All women everywhere might not have a gun on them and thus might require some other way to defend or protect themselves. Imagine that.
Anyone remember Guantanamo? You know, the real life Azkaban where we imprisoned hundreds of men as young as 15 for over a decade without charges? Where we tortured people without even the flimsiest connection to terrorism "just because"? The place Obama pledged he would close?
>Last Kuwaiti Held in Guantanamo Released: Fayiz al-Kandari has been repatriated after being held for more than 14 years without charge
104 prisoners remain in Guantanamo.
>Since its 2013 inception for reviewing “forever prisoners” – those detainees deemed too dangerous to release but for whom the administration lacks sufficient untainted evidence to charge with an offense – the review board has cleared 15 detainees for release out of 21 reviewed, a pace that human rights activists and even administration officials have warned is insufficient for Obama to close Guantánamo in his final year in office. Only four of those cleared have actually left Guantánamo, owing to internal bureaucracy and laborious diplomacy.
>Campaigners point out that Obama has exclusive executive authority to empty Guantánamo and shut the detention center down. Doing so would involve freeing all detainees wholesale, a step that Obama has indicated throughout his presidency he believes would place national security at risk, despite only a tenth of current Guantánamo detainees actively facing charges or sentencing.
Why not pepper spray? or a taser? both easier to get, less chance of collateral damage and the attacker can be arrested and possibly charged with other crimes he may have committed.
Because you don't get the visceral thrill of killing someone else with pepper spray or a taser. Why pass up an opportunity to legally kill someone in self defense by using non-lethal methods?
What this really makes me wonder is why we don't see people who aren't quite deranged enough to mass murder going instead of mass pepper-spraying/tasering sprees. I mean it's not like it'd be all that less of a power fantasy fullfillment, as it puts the attacker in a similar position of temporary dominance over others.
Because mass-murderers aren't deranged for the most part, they're just alienated young people brought up in a violent society that venerates killers.
But what about the visceral feeling of faking a coughing fit and asking for a glass of water?
Seriously, it must be a pretty shitty attack for that to have an effect on anything. Some of those tips are worthless (but others are effective)
>And whose fault is THAT?
The fault of women who might not be comfortable carrying a gun? There are women who might not be comfortable carrying a gun, you know.
In "Everyone has a gun utopia," women who don't carry guns DESERVE to get raped.
But in all seriousness isn't "THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR WOMEN" among one of the oldest and most effective fear mongering tactics?
Like, I want women to be able to defend themselves with whatever means necessary but are you really going to let such antiquated rhetoric seize your heart?
>Women would surprise you with their gumption, and no rapist is going to touch a woman if there was 90% chance he gets his dick shot off.
No one said all women are hesitant to carry guns. No one even said most women are. We said some women are. That is not a controversial statement. Some humans are hesitant to carry guns, and some humans are women, and there is overlap. That is all that statement is saying.
You keep trying to use emotion to support your point, which would be fine if the reason you were feeling those emotions wasn't because you're retarded.
Milo going apeshit crazy over Twitter unverifying is sad, yet, amusing at the same time.
I’d feel sorrier for him if he wasn’t the de facto leader of GG.
Yes sir, everyone is out to get you because you are a conservative and not because you are a huge asshole.
Congress isn't making the closure of Guantonimo Bay any easier. Thanks for the reminder, this is an issue I'll consider important in upcoming elections.
Doesn't sound like the kind of thing gun control would do anything about, media would just start glorifying another weapon. Though I could try to create some media that makes less destructive activities look cooler.
>Doesn't sound like the kind of thing gun control would do anything about, media would just start glorifying another weapon. Though I could try to create some media that makes less destructive activities look cooler.
If the weapon they glorify is a less effective killing tool than a gun, then that's still a net benefit. Despite gun enthusiast's rhetoric, you can't do as much damage with a knife or a sword or something as quickly as you can with a gun. Which is something they know, even when they make that argument, because if they actually believed knives were as effective at killing as guns then they would be fine with people taking their guns because they would still be just as effective as "defending themselves" or hunting with knives.
>If the weapon they glorify is a less effective killing tool than a gun, then that's still a net benefit.
And it can be done without actually making further restrictions on guns in the first place.
What the actual fuck?
>excuse the actions of real live murderers
>rabidly attack people who haven't done anything wrong
>because theres a 0.01% chance they might end up real live murderers
I'm starting to think you're a spree killer who is barely keeping himself in check by staying away from guns.
Maybe that's why you're excusing and identifying with spree killers, while attacking people who can actually control themselves.
Desperately trying to make guns less common so you won't be tempted.
The scenario we were describing was one in which guns had already been banned. You're moving the goalposts.
>>excuse the actions of real live murderers
No one did that.
>>rabidly attack people who haven't done anything wrong
No one did that either.
>>because theres a 0.01% chance they might end up real live murderers
Look, I get that you consider the, on average, 28,000 people a year who die in the United States to gunshots, to be acceptable losses for your right to pretend you're John McClane, but there are many people who think that saving the lives of a few thousand people a year is worth more than you getting to compensate for your tiny penis.
>Maybe that's why you're excusing and identifying with spree killers, while attacking people who can actually control themselves.
>Desperately trying to make guns less common so you won't be tempted.
If indeed that's the case, seems all the more important to roll up our sleeves and start grubbing some guns. Who knows how many other spree killers we'll spare from temptation?
Is anyone going to talk about Islamic rape culture? It's a bajillion times worse than western rape culture.
>You're speaking as though removing the guns will lower the amounts of dead people, which is not correct.
It conclusively will. The argument has always been about whether the number of dead people that it's lowered by is enough to justify it. Like all those babies that killed each other with guns that were cited earlier? Almost all of them would not have been killed if their parents had not had guns. So we know at least 200 some odd lives would be saved. The argument has always been "Saving the lives of 200 children is not good enough to justify me not having my toys."
All due respect, you're a bit far removed from reality, friend.
If they unverified people for being assholes, half of all celebrities would be removed. As for Twitter being biaised that way, San Fran etc.
A little too overreacting there, i suppose. It's the problem with fruits, they are catty.
>The argument has always been
Don't try to frame the argument when you're objectively wrong, or use emotionally manipulative language.
Removing guns might save 200 fetuses from accidentally shooting themselves, but removing guns would also cause thousands of other people to be murdered or worse because they lacked protection.
Number of gun deaths, accidental or otherwise, is about 25 thousand. This number includes your embryos.
Number of homicides with all weapons is just under 15 thousand.
Number of firearms homicides is about 8 thousand.
Number of justifiable homicides with a gun is around 250.
Number of non-lethal cases of firearms use in self defense is around 335 thousand.
Number of non-lethal cases of self defense with any other weapon is around 418 thousand.
These are only reported criminal statistics. Estimates range as high as 4.7 million cases of non-lethal self defense firearms use which doesn't get reported or enter crime statistics because the criminal never goes through with the crime.
Before you try adhoms and poisoning the well, the 4.7 million number is a nonprofit working for the Police Foundation, not the fucking NRA.
So the question isn't if you want the 200 zygotes to survive, but what increase in homicide or worse you're willing to support to satisfy your craving to feel safe.
>referring to children as "fetuses" and "zygotes"
>tips fedora and shakes bottle of red sugar pills
>it's just a commonsense continuation of children > toddlers > babies
No, it's a rhetorical trick designed to undercut someone's argument about pre-schoolaged children, gun violence, and gun control methodology. You sound ridiculous when you do it and everyone sees right through it. If you want to make actual arguments, take the shit you say with an ounce of seriousness—otherwise we’re going to treat you like a troll and tell you that hobos aren’t allowed to take BMs in a library’s computer room.
"Waaaaah you undercut that guys emotional appeal! Argumentum ad passiones is a real human argument. How dare you!!"
- Xir Stone 2016
>Fedoras are the reddit feminist atheists
Yes, fedoras, famed symbol of the feminist movement
And now I don't have to take you seriously ever again. Thanks!
Fedoras are soft wide-brimmed hats with a crease in the crown. The word comes from the title of the 1882 play Fédora written by dramatist Victorien Sardou for the actress Sarah Bernhardt in the role of Princess Fédora Romanoff. The hat worn by Sarah Bernhardt became popular among the women's suffrage movement.
In 1975 the book Dress For Success, soon followed by Women's Dress For Success, claimed that scientific testing proved that women in a specified "power dressing" uniform (skirted business suits, blouses, silk bows, heeled pumps) were treated better in the workplace. Women's Dress For Success specifically recommended that women wear fedoras.
I don't think I've ever taken you seriously though.
This is so disingenuous I doubt even your buddy poke will step in for you.
What is this, the do-si-do? Tag boxing? I don't need him to step in for me.
Man, if he thinks fedoralords are FEMINISTS, he must hate women worse than the Klan hates black people.
>Beamte wurden demnach durch enge Menschenringe daran gehindert, zu Hilferufenden vorzudringen
Police was actively blocked by the crowd from getting to the victims crying for help.
>Ein Mann wird zitiert: "Ich bin Syrer, ihr müsst mich freundlich behandeln! Frau Merkel hat mich eingeladen."
One Man is quoted: "Im syrian, you have to be nice to me! Miss Merkel invited me."
>Zeugen wurden bedroht, wenn sie Täter benannten.
Witnesses were threatened when pointing out attackers to the police.
>Menschen zerrissen dem Bericht zufolge vor den Augen der Polizisten Aufenthaltstitel, grinsten und sagten: "Ihr könnt mir nix, hole mir morgen einen neuen." Ob es sich um echte Dokumente handelte und um welche Art von Dokumenten, geht aus dem Bericht nicht hervor.
People ripped up their documentation papers/asylum papers in front of police, grinned and said: "You cant do anything about me, I'm getting new papers tomorrow.". Whether it was real documents in this case or what kind of documents it was is unknown.
>Erteilte Platzverweise wurden ignoriert; Wiederholungstäter in Gewahrsam zu nehmen, war aufgrund fehlender Kapazitäten nicht möglich.
People who were barred from the area ignored this; it was impossible to arrest them because of not enough capacity.(no cells, not enough police staff)
>Nach Gleissperrungen wegen Überfüllung seien Leute einfach auf das Nebengleis und dann über die Schienen wieder auf den gesperrten Bahnsteig gegangen.
Areas that were barred for public due to too many people were ignored. People simply walked on the tracks to reach the blocked areas.
>Beim Einsteigen in Züge gab es körperliche Auseinandersetzungen, es galt das "Recht des Stärkeren".
Getting into trains involved physical confrontation. It was "survival of the fittest".
>"Die Einsatzkräfte konnten nicht allen Ereignissen, Übergriffen, Straftaten usw. Herr werden, dafür waren es einfach zu viele zur gleichen Zeit." Man habe nicht jedem Opfer helfen können, was die Polizisten frustriert habe. Zeitweise sei es nicht möglich gewesen, Strafanzeigen aufzunehmen.
The police could not intervene in all incidents, attacks and crimes because it was simply too many simultanously. So much so that is was impossible to file official reports on the spot.
>Dem Bericht zufolge trafen die Beamten auf zahlreiche verstörte, weinende, verängstigte Passanten, insbesondere Frauen und Mädchen. Diese hätten "Schlägereien, Diebstähle, sex. Übergriffe an Frauen usw." gemeldet. Als Täter wurden immer wieder männliche Migrantengruppen genannt.
The policemen encountered numerous shocked and crying people, especially women and girls. These were talking about "brawls, theft, sex attacks etc.". They repeatedly named groups of migrant men as their assailants.
I mean this is actually a pretty good opportunity for poke. If he were to repudiate /pol/-kun now he'd be able to reclaim a shred of credibility.
You've got a real issue where you see everything in teams. Black and white.
Dude I don't need to be popular to speak the truth, what kind of a low self esteem nonentity are you that you need support for telling basic facts.
So you're defending his point here too then?
You people sure do have a grand old time making things completely up, like that guy who said i was advocating vigilantism because i pointed out hypocrisy in his moral code.
Buncha weirdos tbh fam, smh
Actually, was that you? Pls be honest, cause it would be really funny to me if it was.
You didn't point out hypocrisy in anyone's moral code. All you pointed out was that you consider calling the cops on someone to be just as bad as killing them and expect other people to not see this as an absurd argument.
Oh my God you ARE the same guy aren't you
I Love It
No. I'm the pacifist who you tried to claim was hypocritical for being willing to call the police when threatened, but I am not >>403979. I don't give a shit about your friendship with /pol/-kun or whatever the hell it is you're on about.
Hate to rain on your parade of smug ego-stroking, but given the fact you don't understand how false equivalencies work, you probably shouldn't be all that proud of yourself to begin with.
I just want to know why you repeatedly defend the lunatic who's out there saying things like fedoralords being feminists.
But he didn't say that. He said the fedora, when used by women along with a matching suit, tended to command respect. That doesn't imply at all that men who wear fedoras tend to be respectful of womem.
>can't decide what a person did or didn't say when it's written down
A lot of people in this thread seem to revise history as it's happening, like they'll literally see me saying things that are not even in the post they're reading. It's really bizarre, I'm pretty interested in the psychology behind it.
>Fedoras are the reddit feminist atheists, that's why m'lady is a thing.
His exact words
>A lot of people in this thread seem to revise history as it's happening
Yeah, like how you always revise history to be more favorable to your ego.
A hobo with a library card.
>Who do you think you're tricking?
A question you could stand to pose to yourself.
Guy who attacked the police station in France was in the gang rape squads in Koln. He was known for rapes, his accomplice was there, his phone was found in Koln, and he was sighted by witnesses.
You're devolving bro, going back to calling people homeless as an insult. I thought we pointed out that was ignorant and bigoted a few threads ago. Guess you literally have nothing else left.
>I thought we pointed out that was ignorant and bigoted a few threads ago.
No, no, see, we pointed out that YOU were ignorant and bigoted. I could see how you got mixed up.
What a hero
A true martyr
If this comment is serious, I don't think you know what either of those words mean.
Milo has a point, you're a homophobic bigot, and your buddy Bowie is a child molester.
I'm pretty sure the comment is mocking Milo’s bitchfit over being de-verified by Twitter and his exploitation of Bowie's death in furtherance of said bitchfit.
Bowie’s Twitter account remains verified because it’s likely going to be a “run by Bowie’s PR firm/estate/etc.” account (if it wasn’t already) that tweets on an irregular basis going forward. It has broken no rules or done anything to deserve de-verification. Milo has no point.
no, /pol/ is where everyone who doesn't share My Political Views is from, also they all hate jews
>also they all hate jews
I'm glad you're confronting your anti-Semitism poke but you also have to move past it to truly improve as a person, not wallow in it like your little buddy.
And the police are claiming that they're BANNED FROM ARRESTING MIGRANTS regardless of what they do.
It's funny because the only time I've ever seen anyone be anti-Semitic in these threads, I'm pretty sure they were also defending tumblr-brand feminism, and I was the only one who called them on it.
Guess it's okay if they're defending the right cause, eh?
Given your inability to understand basic discourse, I would imagine they weren't saying what you think they were, and you just said something to be contrary then convinced yourself you were calling out anti-semitism..
It's actually sad to see. They're like wind up toys, pull the string and watch them say a set of pre-recorded messages.
Says the guy with his collection of pre-made internet-con images.
There is absolutely nobody in this thread more predictable in their responses than you.
And as for the image: yes.
Well, at least Paul Ryan can can control himself better than Boehner.
It's as bad in the UK, it just isn't international news yet.
CHRISTIANITY IS UNDER ATTACK INDY, THE MOHAMMADEN INFIDELS SWARM ACROSS THE QUEEN'S DOMINIONS
>some dude posting sources
>lets attack him because sources happen to not be flattering to a religion badly in need of reformation
You're right we should execute the rape victims by stoning, as Shariah commands.
The western whores have slandered the name of Islam for the last time.
I call dibs on his TF2 items
Was that a reference to Dr. Goblin
That was a pretty vintage friend-meme if so, I gotta say
Have a foreskin puppy.
The liberal feminist mayor of Koln wrote a code of conduct and dress for women in order for them not to be raped, feminists are ok with this because the rapists are muslims.
80% of people have already spotted that their movement is not internally consistent, I wonder when it's going to reach 99%.
>80% of people
Mras aren't actually people
That's over 80% of the general population, only 14-18% of people identify as feminist.
Feminism has long split away from ideas of equality and the people have noticed.
Odd how "80% of the population hates feminism" and yet the only people who ever seem to bring up their hatred for it are angry white men who can't get laid.
>"14-18% of people identify as feminist"
>DID YOU SAY 80% OF PEOPLE HATE FEMINISM????
Welcome to /pol/ thread.
Wow. You actually think this supports your point.
First, if you actually read the first one, the author makes it very clear that the problem there isn't feminism, it's men who claim to be feminists to score points without actually representing anything healthy about feminism--the author even says positive things about feminism itself in the beginning and just says she doesn't like men who try to use feminism to salve their conscience or to prey on women using language that sounds like support.
As for the second one:
>A regular contributor to "A Voice for Men."
You found a literal, explicit MRA to support your point that not all critics of feminism are MRAs.
Weird how when non-feminists say male feminists just do it to get laid, suddenly non-fems are obsessed with having sex.
But feminists can use it as an insult all they want.
It's not an insult. It's just that most MRA communities you see, the predominant subject of discussion is about how women won't give them sex despite the fact that they see themselves as deserving it, and why this makes women villains. There's no way to take that other than "they are angry because they can't get laid."
Like you're taking it as an insult, but it's purely descriptive: the people who get upset about this stuff are almost always angry young white men who don't get as much sex as they think they're supposed to be getting.
That was kind of a lot of words to say what amounted to
That was very few words to say "I am going to dismiss your point without addressing it because it makes my previous post seem like petty contrarianism."
What point? That it's okay when you do it?
You're hopeless and unfun to watch.
>takes up a contrary position
>dismisses others for being petty contrarians
You can't make this up.
Like all MRAs, Poke has little relation with human logic
lol at poster using the term MRA like it's an insult.
Mens rights activism is the illegitimate child of feminism. The only reason MRA exists at all is because feminism refuses to address concerns of men, and in fact has spent the last 30 years attacking the rights of men.
In a nightmarish dystopia where all feminists are Andrea Dworkin, maybe.
We don't live in that world, thankfully.
1.) Not an MRA.
2.) He wasn't even talking to me, lol.
Calling someone contrarian is a complete non-argument and just goes to show they have nothing to stand on. It's like calling someone stubborn. They can either defend themselves and prove you right, or say "you're right" and walk away. It's the weakest gotcha trap imaginable.
Members of the feminist movement have worked to give preference to women in education, business and healthcare grants by the government, the latter to the point where men have a ridiculously shitty life expectancy.
Members of the feminist movement have fought for preferences to women in abortion/reproductive laws, paternity, adoption, domestic conflict, divorce, custody and alimony cases... really all family court concerns.
Preferences in the very definitions and prosecutions of rape, preferences in length of prison terms and severity of punishments, preferences in welfare/benefits, insurance and affirmative action quotas for women.
There are many other cases such as genital mutilation, labor imbalances, conscription, and so on, situations which feminists didn't directly create but fight to stop MRAs from fixing.
These members of the feminist movement would not have succeeded in these major shifts toward institutionalized sexism against men if they did not have the support of an overwhelming majority of feminists. And if any feminists exist which did not support any of these, they have not fought to regain control of the movement. Therefore #notallfeminists is not an excuse.
If feminism was about equality, fighting for preference in anything would be antithetical to it, but as people ITT are saying, everyone is clearly noticing that feminism is not about equality.
Modern feminism is a movement to grant women more rights, more privileges and more power, even if that is ridiculously more than men have.
A good example is the British labor party, where the party undemocratically installed women MPs to the point where the majority of the party are women, but the feminists still aren't satisfied by that.
Oh and before the contrarian starts making light of the issue out of the 1,300 or so executions in the US only 12 of them were women. Even taking into account disparity of sentencing, this doesn't make sense.
Sexism is literally a life or death issue for men, and feminists can't even discuss the possibility that the issue is important because it might affect men.
Yes that's true, and men generally commit more crimes than women. But even taking that into account the 1300:12 disparity doesn't make sense.
Learn to read.
Women favored in family court: Fact or Belief.
Affirmative action quotas for women existing: Fact or Belief.
In your own twister little mind this is no doubt an amazing gotcha
But alas, tis not so
Neither does the systematic disenfranchisement of black people by the courts, but you sure don't give a shit about injustice when it happens to a class of people you don't belong to, huh?
>People in desperate situations taking a little time to distract themselves and try to have fun is a personal affront to me.
> taking a little time to distract themselves and try to have fun
the rapefugees must have fun.
You, I think, are exactly the sort of person the conservative news media dreams about having in their audience.
Jesus Christ you get offended easily.
He didn't even express offense. You, on the other hand, seem to take offense pretty easily.
You tried to be dismissive and make light of the situation. The concerns of men aren't funny or unimportant because they have a different shaped crotch.
That doesn't really make sense as a response to that person's post.
I mean not that any of y'all in this thread make any particular effort to read each other's posts and respond to them but this is among the most incongruous.
The dominant demographic, by nature of being dominant, is never subject to institutionalized sexism, as they are the institution.
The dominant demographic is white women...
>The dominant demographic is white women...
>The dominant demographic is white women...
Not only are you being dismissive again, you are also showing your ignorance.
>total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2010 est.)
>Non-Hispanic White 196,817,552 63.7 %
White women are 32.8% of the country, white men are 30.9%.
White women are the majority demographic.
Majority demographic and dominant demographic aren't the same thing, unless you're going to tell us you think that Apartheid SA was run by Bantu speakers.
Inb4 he explains to us all how the white people in South Africa were the ones who were actually oppressed.
I wonder how many synapses had to fire for that post.
Yes women in America are not allowed to vote, own property, take part in business, and are forced to special areas of cities.
White women are the majority in a democracy, this gives them the most power as well. Do you want me to whip out voter turnout levels? I can prove you're wrong any way you like.
If indeed poll numbers were a practical demonstration of a demographics' power in a society this would be the closest you've ever gotten to having a salient point.
I mean, they aren't, and therefore it it isn't, but good effort at least.
>therefore it it isn't
How's about that, /pol/ hobo? At least that link won’t be blocked at the library.
>"If I hire someone to work for me, that means they're the dominant part of the relationship"
Not how it works, the president is not a king.
He's elected to carry out the wishes of the electorate, the majority of which are women right now.
This is why feminist organizations and womens shelters get government grants, but mens rights groups and mens shelters get bupkiss.
Come on, put two and two together, you're almost there.
>"I'm frustrated so I'm gonna use slurs and perpetuate stigmas about mental illnesses and people in poverty! >:("
You and the tumblr-social-justice anon who insists on calling everyone retards are honestly the type of person you (and he) would be attacking if you had any sort of objectivity, it's a bit sad.
>presidents carrying out the will of the electorate
C'mon, man, really. Presidents are overwhelmingly wealthy themselves, and beholden to wealthy donors, especially in the last century of elections.
>all women support feminist movements and all men support men's rights movements, and they only vote to give their sex more rights
you're an idiot
You said that to someone who posts in this thread. OF COURSE HE IS AN IDIOT.
People who don't support either movement aren't likely to vote to give any sex more rights.
>People who don't support either movement aren't likely to vote to give any sex more rights.
Indeed, nobody is, because the United States is a republic, not a democracy.
>mens rights groups
"Mens rights" groups don't get government grants because they're hate groups.
Do you consider feminism a tool of the "patriarchy"? Because the "patriarch" president is paying for it...
Either prove to me every single one of these things he listed are false:
>preference to women in education, business and healthcare grants by the government
>preferences to women in abortion/reproductive laws, paternity, adoption, domestic conflict, divorce, custody and alimony cases... really all family court concerns
>the very definitions and prosecutions of rape
>preferences in length of prison terms and severity of punishments
>preferences in welfare/benefits
>insurance and affirmative action quotas for women
Not just one or two maybe kinda differently interpreted - all of them completely false.
OR ADMIT THAT THE "PATRIARCHY" IS ACTING FOR WOMEN AND AGAINST MEN
What kind of a shitty fucking patriarchy funds feminism and worships women while subjugating men.
Your feminist conspiracy theories are full of holes.
Dortmund, Germany: Last Sunday three North African Migrants attempted an execution by stoning after finding out that the two women they sexually harassed were actually men.
Their honor was hurt, they grabbed nearby stones and attempted to execute them.
They testified that "people like them" need to be stoned to death in accordance to Islamic law.
Progressives will defend this.
Oh no, the liberals and their logic are too powerful, better make 3 extra crazy posts in a row to protect myself, lest I be in danger of having a single sane thought in my life.
It's a terrible crime.
If white dudes had done it, you'd have never dreamed of mentioning it.
As douchey and insensitive as this post is, I'm inclined to agree with it.
>As douchey and insensitive as this post is
You have difficulty understanding human interactions so let me help clarify what is actually douchey and insensitive for you, it's shitbag up there using the trauma those women went through to advance his anti-Muslim agenda.
>agree with you (or at least, agree with someone you also agree with)
>still have you get all bothered over me
Honestly, it kind of gets me hot to know that I can voice literally any opinion and you guys will still get angry about what I say, it's pretty nice to have that much sway in someone's life.
You have nobody but yourself to blame for firmly establishing yourself as a broken clock.
I'm not blaming anyone, i literally just said that I'm pretty into having this weird sort of control over you guys.
If you want to equate provoking disdain with control then that's your choice I guess.
>I feel so cool about how having ugly opinions is able to make people react badly to me. It's an amazing amount of power to have over people.
That's the thing, is that even when i share your opinions, your hateboner for me is too strong, you still HAVE to say something bad, like some sort of compulsion.
I love it.
Progressives will defend a literal rape culture, while tilting at windmills they believe to be a mysterious western patriarchy.
If you protect extremist islam by painting it as moderate islam, you are anti LGBT and womens rights. Simple as that.
You go out of your way to provoke even the people you agree with. No shit you think people have a "hateboner" for you.
You're very sensitive to being "provoked" if you think Slowpoke is provocative. He's usually the mildest guy in these threads.
Maybe you should grow a thicker skin brodude.
>If you protect extremist islam by painting it as moderate islam
Nobody in this conversation has done so.
It's not about agreeing with people or not agreeing with people. It's about having an ugly world view. It's "douchey and insensitive" to point out someone else using heinous crimes to try to justify their hatred of entire racial groups in your world view. You are begrudging the fact that you are having to admit that obvious hate mongers like /pol/kun are mongering hate. Because, ultimately, you don't want people like him to be wrong or to be called out on their wrongness.
1.) Like when, bruv?
2.) You whiteknight women (arguably the least oppressed "minority" in western culture) so hard that you address Big Name Feminists as "Miss Sarkeesian" and "Miss Quinn" even though they aren't present, but then fling slurs and jokes about the mentally ill and poverty-stricken, who are objectively, if not THE two most oppressed minorities, are at least rock bottom. Who do you think you are, Sage Freehaven? :^)
>Who do you think you are, Sage Freehaven?
A broke white man stuck in a near-permanent adolescent mindset who will probably die in a gutter once he no longer has anyone to support him. How about you?
Another problem with you: you constantly get offended by people lumping you into a group with /pol/kun and his ilk, but consistently insist on defending them, their views, and their lingo (which you also constantly use).
>arguably the least oppressed "minority" in western culture
>who are objectively, if not THE two most oppressed minorities, are at least rock bottom.
This is further evidence of your ugly views, you realize. First of all, speaking as a mentally ill white man, we do not have it as bad as sane women, and we ESPECIALLY don't have it as bad as mentally ill women. Second of all, calling people "crazy" is not really a thing that hurts most mentally ill people's feelings. Probably because mentally ill people who get treatment generally aren't crazy--even when their symptoms flare up, their "craziness" is more likely to result in them hiding out in their homes and not wanting to deal with the world, or sleeping for 12 hours a day, or forgetting to bathe. Not in rambling nonsensical hate speech on internet forums.
What's offensive to the mentally ill is when people are looking for reasons to explain why a shooter went on a rampage and killed a bunch of people and say "Well, he was mentally ill" as though that explains it, and demonizing the mentally ill based on complete ignorance of how mental illness actually works and what actually causes violence in society. And when people try to use us as scapegoats to say why "It's not okay to make fun of someone for having nonsensical politics, because it's harmful to the mentally ill." Because, for starters, it means you (not the people calling them crazy) associate their behavior with actual mental illness rather than just using a shorthand word like "crazy" that everyone who speaks english already knows refers less to mental illness and more to general....well, craziness.
Calling a person whose logic is completely ridiculous "insane" or "crazy" is not actually that big a deal. Comparing /pol/-kun to a crazy hobo does not hurt my feelings as an actual crazy person who takes medicine for his mental illnesses. Interesting how you're so against "white knighting" for groups you don't belong to until it represents a chance for you to score political points though.
Hi, I'm slowpoke. Just gonna list my privileges and Minority Points here.
>cis, white, male
>bisexual, mentally ill, grew up in poverty, currently physically handicapped but not permanently so
Assumptions, man. U and mptions.
Don't speak for all mentally ill ppl tia hashtag notyourshield
I said "most" mentally ill people specifically because I knew you were the kind of person to say that kind of bullshit for the sake of winning more political capitol. Glad to see you're still as predictable as ever.
>instantly retreats when faced with a hard defense
Could you fuckers please talk about politics?
>to try to justify their hatred of entire racial groups
Nobody in this conversation has done so.
Also Islam isn't even a race, it's a religion. It has bad parts which need to be exposed, confronted and fought. You're getting in the way of that.
>It has bad parts which need to be exposed, confronted and fought.
As do all religions, yet you seem rather fixated on Islam for a white dude in a Christian majority country.
INDEED fellow redpill, a religion of the Arab, the Turk, and the Asiatic peoples. They, in their fiendishness, seek to mix with a darken the races of old Europa, but we shall fight their dusky evil every step of the way!
>speaking as a mentally ill white man, we do not have it as bad as sane women
>worse than mentally ill men
>Calling a person whose logic is completely ridiculous "insane" or "crazy" is not actually that big a deal.
>calling people <insert epithet> is not a big deal
Dude the only hate speech in this thread is coming from YOU.
I dare you to find hateful speech from me or Slowpoke and quote it.
"Insane" and "crazy" aren't epithets unless you also consider "irrational" and "weird" to be epithets.
This is sort of basic stuff? Like no one who earnestly pays attention to sociology would find this a controversial statement. Marginalized groups who are capable of passing as non-marginalized groups are in a much better position than people in marginalized groups who can't pass as non-marginalized groups. Most people assume, until given extreme reason to believe otherwise, that other people are neurotypical. Even outwardly displaying fairly unmistakable symptoms doesn't make most people realize non-neurotypicals are mentally ill because understanding of mental illness in this culture is so low that recognizing those symptoms is almost impossible for the majority of people.
Bisexuals in relationships with an alternate gender person don't suffer the same sorts of discrimination as people in same-sex relationships. Asexuals don't face much discrimination at all because most people don't even acknowledge the existence of asexuality. Black people who can pass as white have it better than black people who can't, and Jews who can pass as Christian have it better than Jews who can't. Women generally can't pass as men (I do not consider trans men who pass as cis men to be women passing as men, though I'm sure there are some of you who will say they are--I don't feel like having that argument with you right now), and therefore sexual discrimination is harder to avoid than discrimination against mental illness other than in the most extreme cases of mental illness. We have to suffer erasure, and lack of representation, and there are occasional moments where people who have access to our medical records can discriminate against us for jobs or raises, but by and large those issues are easier to avoid than the discrimination women face.
I mean, if you actually acknowledge that women face discrimination, and aren't like /pol/-kun and Slowpoke who seem convinced that men are oppressed by evil women and things like denying women bodily sovereignty and making them work harder for the same jobs are all make believe.
>As do all religions
Some religions more than others.
Terrorist acts for the year, by motivation:
And non religious:
The reformation of Islam is the pressing concern of our time. Christianity has already gone through a reformation, it's high time the second largest religion does as well.
I'd be interested to see your source, since it was recently confirmed that more Christian terrorists attacked the US in 2015 than Muslim.
Could the US having 0.6% muslims and 78.5% christians have something to do with that?
>Could the US having 0.6% muslims and 78.5% christians have something to do with that?
So why do you, an obvious American, care? Shouldn't threats closer to your home be more concerning to you?
>The reformation of Islam is the pressing concern of our time.
I would actually agree with this. However, as you only ever hyperfocus on the crimes of radical Islam, a common tactic used by racists, especially on the internet, to discriminate a primarily non-white religion, it is extremely difficult to believe you are genuine. If indeed you consider reformation an issue, rather than just caring about the crimes of radicals, I assume you have some extensive commentary on the various sects of Islam, regional differences, and proposed reforms you would care to share with us?
Could you provide the source for that? This is the only source I could find, and it doesn't even mention christians.
I'm not an American you douchebag. And may I say how fucking callous it is of you to not give a shit about the rest of the world.
>hey martin luther why do you hyperfocus on the crimes of radical christianity?
>you sound like one of them pagan devil worshippers
How would you reform islam, by ignoring the flaws? By being extra careful to mention a good thing every time you mention a bad thing? Let's be reasonable here.
>I assume you have some extensive commentary on the various sects of Islam, regional differences, and proposed reforms you would care to share with us?
Yes, do what Ataturk did.
>Traditional religious schools closed
>Sheriat (Islamic Law) abolished
^ AKA Sharia.
>Dervish brotherhoods abolished
>Fez outlawed by the Hat Law (November 25)
>Veiling of women discouraged
>Western clothing for men and women encouraged
>Western (Gregorian) calendar adopted instead of Islamic calendar
>New civil code ended Islamic polygamy and divorce by renunciation and introduced civil marriage
>Millet system ended
^ These courts were Sharia and often had summary judgements with horrible punishments.
>New Turkish alphabet (modified Latin form) adopted
>State declared secular (April 10)
>Constitutional provision establishing Islam as official religion deleted
>Islamic call to worship and public readings of the Kuran (Quran) required to be in Turkish rather than Arabic
>Women given the vote and the right to hold office
See a small scale reformation of Islam already happened, but attitudes like some in this thread are what allowed Erdogan and radical islam to come back into Turkey.
Whops didn't upload.
>a small scale reformation of Islam already happened, but attitudes like some in this thread are what allowed Erdogan and radical islam to come back into Turkey.
Sykes-Picot, the Palestinian Mandate, British American support of the Saudis, the British and American coup in Iran, western backing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and Israeli colonialism (and Anglo-American backing thereof), the destruction of both Pan-Arabism and left-wing movements by western powers, and the last 30 plus years of invasions, sanctions, torture and drone strikes produced modern Islamic radicalism and Erdogan.
It's called social pressure, economic pressure, re-education, protecting moderate muslims instead of attacking them, criticizing radical Islam in media, call on Western governments to stop interacting with the ummah until they fix their shit.... you know the same shit West did to help Eastern Europe.
But it can't happen until turds admit the problem exists.
>That's not a source, that's a random image.
I'm the one asking for source because that shitty random image was all I could find.
Invasion of mongols, avars, huns, turks and moors into Christian Europe, the expansion of Arab armies throughout Christian Asia Minor, Christian North Africa and the Christian Levant, and finally the cutting off of trade routes by the caliphates, all produced Christian radicalism during the middle ages.
Who gives a shit?
It doesn't matter how it was created, it was hurting people and it had to reform. Same as radical Islam.
>you know the same shit West did to help Eastern Europe
Yeah, and that worked out so well
I consider making fun of the mentally ill to be epithets regardless of what words you use, same as making light of people for being poor, not having a home, etc.
>earnestly pays attention to sociology
Oh did you do a poll among sociologists to find out if they think your opinion is bigoted? I'd like to see that poll. Until then I'm going to assume sociologists and everyone else (ie 99.99999% of the world) considers your opinion to be bigoted.
In just this post you've claimed mentally ill people can "pretend" to not be mentally ill so they don't have any problems and we should ignore them. You've called transsexuals abnormal and ignored all of their lived experiences prior to transitioning. You've attacked Jewish people and demanded they "pass as christian" or you wont treat them equally. In the previous post you claimed women were inferior to insane men thereby belittling every woman in existence, and that's just the shitty line I read before I stopped.
I don't know why I bothered reading any part of your shitposts. You are a bigot, your opinions are horrible, keep them to yourself.
>events 500 plus years ago vs. a series of events beginning 200 years ago and continuing today
You got me! Totally fair comparison?
>who gives a shit?
Seeing that Western action created and perpetuates this threat, and uses it as justification for an ever larger and more invasive security state, you ought to.
Reform won't happen as long as people are starving and miserable. Reform won't happen as long as we back Egypt and Turkey and the Saudis while hypocritically attacking Iran for human rights abuses. Reform won't happen as long as Egyptian and Bahraini protestors are getting shot in the gut with tear gas canisters labeled "Made in the USA", and the refugees from the chaos our policies have created are let to die in the water and languish beside barbed wire because they might have come to hate us.
If events 500 years ago are inadmissible because they're a few centuries older than events 200 years ago, then events 200 years ago are inadmissible because they're a few centuries older than NOW. It must be hurt being this stupid.
>Reform won't happen as long as people are starving and miserable.
Wrong. That's when reform happens. Reform doesn't happen when people are comfortable, you unlearned jackass.
The problem is that people like you refuse to let the ummah reform. You are the one who doesn't admit the problem exists, who tries to excuse the problem when its pointed out, who refuses to criticize the problem or even see the problem criticized by someone else.
>go to Syria
>it's 80% women and 20% boys because all of the Syrian men are in Germany and Sweden
>get laid like gangbusters
rate my plan /10
>The problem is that people like you refuse to let the ummah reform.
Yeah man, I saw an imam preaching moderation on the street the other day and I kicked that dude's ass.
You're invoking events from 610 to 1566 as explanation for modern events without drawing connection. Its tangential as saying Henry Ford is responsible for someone dying in a car crash in 2016. Meanwhile, Sykes-Picot (1918) is having a direct effect on modern events. Daesh/ISIL's stated goals is reversing the effects of Sykes-Picot and establishing a pan-Arab nation; before that, Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Baath Parties aspired to the same. The lack of a Kurdish homeland? Sykes-Picot. (http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20140702/watch-this-english-speaking-isis-fighter-explain-how-a-98-year-old-colonial-map-created-todays-conflict). Likewise, Israel's continual occupation of the Golan Heights and expansion into the West Bank?
Also, the Protestant Reformation, if we're taking that as precedent, occurred during a time of growing European populations and prosperity, with nascent colonization of the new world, agricultural innovation, and increasingly sophisticated economic and commercial structures that would lead to the birth of modern capitalism.
When people are oppressed and miserable, however, especially by a foreign and hostile power, they double down on their faith, turning to it as a source of assurance and identity. That is why Poland, after its centuries of oppression by Russia, Germany, and then the USSR, and Ireland, long a British colony, were/are some of the more conservative Catholic nations, compared to secular France. Only if the pressure is let off and peace allowed to return to the Muslim world will we see organic reform develop. As long as the Islamic world views itself as under siege, Muslim liberals will be seen as quislings and calls for reform dismissed as capitulation.
And of course all of this is tangential to the fact that you don't actually care about Islamic reformation, you just don't want brown people around. As anon pointed out awhile ago, the same crimes you continue to link and obsess over, committed by Islamic refugees in Germany, you would never mention if committed by white men.
Only gay sex is haram, if I preggers and marry her no one can say a thing.
You attacked a dude in this thread for pointing out crimes of radical islam.
This guy >>404182 is doing it right now.
>you just don't want brown people around
No idea how he's coming to this conclusion. Hey you know how they say every assumption is a few parts of the target and a few parts of the person making the assumption? Well the target in this case has said nothing racist, so ALL OF THE PARTS of this assumption are coming from the anon >>404182
That's fucked up!
In this ITT thread we laugh at feminists.
KC Green fucking hates that edit.
KC has that pesky empathy business going on
KC is a self hating fedora which is trying to get redemption for his days of talking about friendzones and ladder theories. See 50% of SJW webcomic writers.
Unlike fine gentlemen such as yourself, who continue to talk about friendzones and ladder theories while loving your fedoras.
It's the basis of the Alpha/Beta thing that all the fedoralords go on about, and how women only ever "move up on the ladder," never down or laterally.
I didn't see people talking friendzones for a loooooong time. That stereotype is pretty dead, no matter how you wish it still exist.
Now it just politicals slapfights and ideological bullshit. Honestly, I regret atheist wank.
>For months, Republican leaders have worried about how to stop 2016 frontrunner Donald Trump. Now, one of the conservative movement’s most influential publications is taking matters into its own hands.
>National Review is dedicating a special issue of its magazine, one week before the Iowa caucuses, to stopping Trump. “Against Trump,” blares the magazine cover. Inside, a blistering editorial questions Trump's commitment to conservatism, warning voters that backing him is tantamount to allowing the conservative movement to have “fallen in behind a huckster.”
ITT we all laugh at you for saying 'in this in this thread'.
And also for being a sad excuse for a human being.
>its not empathic to think ridiculous people are ridiculous
Come on now. Feminism has surpassed bedsheet wearing racist level of stupid.
>I didn't see people talking friendzones for a loooooong time. That stereotype is pretty dead, no matter how you wish it still exist.
Get out from under that rock lol.
I don't lurk legbeards fantasies hashtag sorry.
Has to be the funniest word for feminists I've ever heard. I'm going to use this.
You might as well, you exist in your own little world anyway.
Quick what's another euphemism for feminist?
People who can't shut up about how silenced they are.
The great crime of our age, asking for better conditions.
So anyway, since you're here, I may as well ask this--first of all, are you a straight or bisexual man? Because I've always wondered how people who hate women to the degree that people like you do can actually be interested them as mates. Like if you were a gay guy, or even a straight woman, I could understand hating women like this--I mean, it would still be pretty awful but at least it would be internally consistent. But how can you actually want to have sex with, much less a relationship with, people you have so much contempt for?
The idea is that they view them as objects or accessories by nature and it's the attempts to deviate from that they view with contempt.
When you're living in the Western, developed world? Kind of yeah.
If feminists devoted half as much time to helping women that actually need help as they do to complaining about manspreading, no one would have a problem with feminism.
Did you tell your parents you were a serial killer yet?
>view them as objects
Actually I'm not a feminist and as a result don't view women as a blob of homogenous props.
I love how whenever you are confronted with actual points you blatantly retreat to either insults or reposting cooked statistics and other such trash from/pol/, breitbart, etc
Claiming I despise women is not an actual point lol.
>you blatantly retreat to either insults or reposting cooked statistics and other such trash from/pol/, breitbart
Yes the woman holding up a sign is actually a patriarchy infiltrator.
MANBORG ORGANISM, FEMININE TISSUE OVER MASCULINE ENDOSKELETON!
>Yes the woman holding up a sign is actually a patriarchy infiltrator.
Sorry buddy but she's #NotYourShield
>Sorry buddy but she's #NotYourShield
No, no, don't you know? It's not using them as a prop or a shield when gamergaters and redpillers do it.
So is a delibarate show of support is the same as the implicit support of being in a demographic?
And yet you're using her to shield you from criticism.
I mean on one hand, /pol/-kun is a reprehensible human being, but on the other, he's so disgusting he actually forced Slowpoke to step back and reconsider his own vile beliefs, so isn't it worth it?
It's kind of like how Lovecraft was so racist he forced Howard to recoil and rethink his own views.
Uh... no I'm not.
I'm showing women aren't homogenous props as feminists would like to think.
I mean on the one hand you're a serial killer that eats babies and keeps rape victims in your moms basement, but on the other hand you're literally hitler reborn and capable of farting lightning.
Silly hobo, your bullshit insults are no good here. Now go take a BM in the dumpster out back.
Feminists have never suggested women are "homogenous props." Misogynists, on the other hand, have been pointing to women who agree with them since the dawn of time to prove that they're justified in standing in the way of equality because "Clearly women don't actually want it." Because getting one woman to say she doesn't need feminism proves that no one needs feminism in your diseased mind.
>Because getting one woman to say she doesn't need feminism proves that no one needs feminism in your diseased mind.
Or just that you can't presume to personally represent everyone just because you took up a label.
And yet you use the fact that there are women among Gamersgaters as proof that it's not anti-women all the time. The handful of women you have in your movement represent the interests of all women to you....when it's convenient to you to use them that way. #notyourshield was created solely as a way of using women as shields for GG. The people who came up with the hashtag were no doubt laughing themselves silly when they came up with it.
The idea that anyone on +4 is capable of showing me the "error of my ways" is laughable, I'm by far the best person still here.
If Larry Tremaine, Moe, or maybe uh, who's that guy who did a readthrough of Homestuck on /mspa/ and was crapping himself nonstop through it, that guy was cool
If one of those guys comes back I'll defer to Second Place though.
You're becoming more and more despicable as a human, Freehaven. Maybe take a step back, avoid the politics thread for a bit, get a bit more grounded. You used to at least have kindness going for you, now you've lost that too.
/pol/-kun gets mocked with that hobo bullshit because he isn't worth whatever fucks I have to give out in a given day. I don't do that shit to anyone else around here. Not even you.
>I only demean and mock marginalized groups when someone really deserves it
I grew up in Mississippi, son, and that is MIGHTY similar to the people who say "I only call people niggers when they act like it."
Either fight for oppressed groups, or have fun mocking them. You don't get both.
>I'm by far the best person still here
Do you actually believe this
>I grew up in Mississippi, son, and that is MIGHTY similar to the people who say "I only call people niggers when they act like it."
It actually isn't similar at all, but you already know that. You're not saying this because you're actually fighting for the rights of library hobos, or because you genuinely don't understand the differences between the things you pretend to think are exactly the same (this is hardly the first time you've used faulty syllogisms and false equivalences--they seem to be your raisson d'etre, in fact)--you're saying it to spite people who are more liberal than you care for. You're trying to hurt Stone's feelings because you assume that because he's in favor of not calling people "faggots," that saying he's just as bad as people who call people faggots for writing off the ramblings of a mad man will make him cry and thereby score you points against the "evil SJWs" who dare to want you to think before you speak.
>Are you gonna actually REFUTE anything I said, or just consistently pop up to say that I don't actually believe it?
>Cause if you can't refute it, I'm right.
He completely refuted it. But that's not really relevant because be could produce a full dissertation on the insincere nature of your arguments and you'd still just respond with what is effectively "no u"
You may now return to your morally superior position of defending hate groups.
No he didn't, and this post is why I'm better than you, my dude.
I hope one day you come close, though. Wishing you the best.
>Are you gonna actually REFUTE anything I said, or just consistently pop up to say that I don't actually believe it?
Maybe I'm giving you more credit than you deserve, I guess. I assume you're capable of basic human logic, but maybe I'm being unfair in assuming you're actually capable of critical thought. If so I apologize for overestimating you.
>im better than you but I won't admit I have no argument
>yeah, im better at debating skills
That is an accurate description of Slowpoke's tactics, yes.
That is an accurate description of Slowpoke's tactics, yes.
>Feminists have never suggested women are "homogenous props."
They do it every time they try to speak for women. They barely represent a sixth of women but feel qualified to speak for all, despite the fact that the majority thinks the feminist methods are at best nonfunctional, at worst ridiculously harmful.
As for hating women... I'm not the one who wants to segregate the sexes and "protect" women from taking part in public life, the feminists are the ones calling for a return to the Victorian sexual dynamics of the 1700s.
Oh shit I think you broke him.
>They do it every time they try to speak for women. They barely represent a sixth of women but feel qualified to speak for all, despite the fact that the majority thinks the feminist methods are at best nonfunctional, at worst ridiculously harmful.
>As for hating women... I'm not the one who wants to segregate the sexes and "protect" women from taking part in public life, the feminists are the ones calling for a return to the Victorian sexual dynamics of the 1700s.
The torrent of bullshit you are always spewing never ceases to amaze.
>The handful of women you have in your movement represent the interests of all women to you.
No, just their own.
>#notyourshield was created solely as a way of using women as shields for GG.
It was created to promote the development of better arguments for the sake of furthering discussion.
The torrent of no counterarguments and blatant evasions you are always spewing never ceases to amaze.
Wait a sec... realtalk, serious question, how does it feel to know deep in your bones that your entire world isn't supported by reality, but only blind faith? Do you feel like blind faith is enough? I've always wondered how religious people justify their existence to themselves.
If I was, you'd probably be making sense. At the least you would be more tolerable.
Crowning achievement of intersectional feminism is convincing rich women that they're poor because they don't have a penis.
He's literally talking to himself in an empty room now. A sad husk of a human being.
Anyway, this is a pretty delicious piece of schadenfreude:
This is god damn hilarious.
>too cowardly to even link to a post
>hoping the guy you're insulting wont notice it
They believe a lack of tools will suddenly make all evil disappear. These hopeful, naive little shits believe that Man is without sin, and that artifacts scattered about the world are what turn our hearts and warp our minds and kill. They can't bear the thought that they are responsible for their actions… Because evil is a entity separate from man. Money, guns, property, all evil! Seriously, liberals are cancer.
>These hopeful, naive little shits believe that Man is without sin
No jackass, they just believe that most humans are pudgy, weak, undisciplined little shits who aren't very good at killing other things so depriving them of weapons makes 90% of humans about as dangerous as an opossum.
You actually agree with this fact, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to arm yourself with guns. You suck at killing so you want to compensate with an artifact that makes useless lumps into "warriors."
And you want to give the 10% of the most vicious individuals the power in society. Good job having the wisdom of an ostrich.
No, actually, most vicious people don't have the discipline to be any good at killing, either. Even people who are "good" at killing aren't as good at it as someone who sucks at killing but has a gun. No matter how vicious, well trained, and disciplined someone might be, no one without a gun is going to be as effective at killing as even someone who sucks at killing but has a gun. Reducing the killing power of humanity by more than 90% would be an incredible feat--I'm not so foolish as to think it would actually happen because there are always going to be people who get ahold of things they're not supposed to.
The thing is, you don't actually give a shit about anyone but yourself, so the fact that humanity might be even 30% safer as a whole doesn't matter to you at all. You don't want guns because you want society to be safer, you want guns because you're still holding on the the hopes that some day you'll get a chance to shoot someone.
>the fact that humanity might be even 30% safer as a whole
>You don't want guns because you want society to be safer, you want guns because you're still holding on the the hopes that some day you'll get a chance to shoot someone.
The fuck are you on? You don't know me.
He's apparently also stupid enough that he thinks not linking to the post when it's incredibly obvious from context what you're responding to constitutes a form of cowardice. What a sad, strange little man.
Be you republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, let us all band together and call Carly Fiorina the biggest shitface.
What a dick move.
Speaking of dicks: Ammon Bundy and a few of his fellow domestic terrorists got their asses arrested last night. One of his cohorts died as a result of being shot; the authorities say he resisted arrest (he had mentioned that he had no intention of going to jail), while Bundy supporters/sympathizers say he was shot despite cooperating with authorities. In this case, I'm tempted to believe the police/FBI than I am the domestic terrorists.
>Even people who are "good" at killing aren't as good at it as someone who sucks at killing but has a gun. No matter how vicious, well trained, and disciplined someone might be, no one without a gun is going to be as effective at killing as even someone who sucks at killing but has a gun.
That's why guns are touted as equalizers. Without guns, the difference between people in killing ability matters and those better at killing thus have more power. With guns, the difference is relatively negligible as most of the power comes from having a gun at all. Or do attackers just kindly check their combat experience priviledge?
The problem with the "guns for everyone!" idea is the enormous amounts of training it takes to shoot the correct person in a high tension situation.
Far more likely than being being dirty harry is that most people will shoot the wrong people, furthermore guns in the hands of heated individuals is not a good thing.
You take a domestic abuse call and when a gun is involved it's a hell of a lot harder to save the persons life when they were shot in a heater than a lamp to the coconut.
If you are gonna let people carry make sure they can pass rigorous and at least bi-yearly examinations in simulations of tough situations.
Spineless bitchy little fuck lol.
Unarmed rapist > unarmed woman.
Rapist with gun = woman with gun. In fact the woman is smaller and harder to hit so...
>enormous amounts of training
Not remotely true. And as I covered before on this same topic, civilians get more exercise with guns than cops do, more than some people in the military in fact.
>Far more likely
What are you basing this on? It seems like you feel like this is what should happen, and are claiming it as proven fact.
>If you are gonna let people carry make sure they can pass rigorous and at least bi-yearly examinations in simulations of tough situations.
How about we do this for police first, because they seem to be failing and shooting bystanders on a ridiculous level.
>Rapist with gun = woman with gun. In fact the woman is smaller and harder to hit so...
This is what morons really believe.
>If I don't counter his argument and just call him a moron without linking, maybe he won't see it and I won't have to confront him directly.
What DudesWithoutSpines believe.
As opposed to what, the modern age equivalent of grannies that dont understand video games?
If you want to live in noguns shitholes, go ahead and move there.
Guns are in the American constitution. If you want to change it, your proposal has to clear two thirds of congress and 38 of the states where 75% of the state legislature agrees. Then you have to take 300 million guns from 50 million gun owners without getting shot.
GOOD LUCK FUCKER.
Tiki there is no point in engaging these things.
>Then you have to take 300 million guns from 50 million gun owners
>Average 6 guns per person
I, personally, utilize my own fighting style that I've taken to calling "sangunyu," where I wield an AR-15 in each hand and a derringer in my mouth.
>Guns are in the American constitution. If you want to change it, your proposal has to clear two thirds of congress and 38 of the states where 75% of the state legislature agrees. Then you have to take 300 million guns from 50 million gun owners without getting shot.
That's a very compelling public policy argument.
Also, this guy actually hasn't yet figured out that the only reason I'm doing this is because for some reason it drives him fucking crazy. Amazing.
*50 million gun owning households. Number of gun owners is thought to be as high as 90 million.
It's still a lot, although you have to factor in dudes that own like 100 guns for collecting purposes.
And dudes who own 100 guns for "overthrow the government" purposes.
You say that like it's a bad thing... I swear only the far left progressives and far right nazis have this love affair with governments.
Besides it's not like it's difficult to make a gun, making a simple one can take ten minutes, making a more complex self-loading one can take an hour or so. All with materials legal in every country, almost no tools except your mind.
If natives can make fully functional machine guns out of iron ore in the fucking jungle, its not like a ban on firearms would work.
Required Watching for People ITT
You think trying to overthrow the government is not a bad thing. So what you're saying is you support terrorism so long as it's white people doing it?
>I swear only the far left progressives and far right nazis have this love affair with governments.
And what, exactly, would you propose we replace government with, hmm?
>far left progressives
Not a thing. The far left is communism, not "progressives," whatever you think that means.
Trying to overthrow a duly elected government is indeed a terrible thing to do.
Also the level of masturbatory fantasy in this post is really incredible.
> its not like a ban on firearms would work
Except in the numerous countries it has of course.
People actively trying to overthrow the current government are considerably outnumbered by those who would only take up arms against the government if one of their doomsday scenarios actually played out like they thought it would. Since pretty much all of those scenarios start with the government rounding up guns, I don't think letting people keep guns will lead to an overthrow of government.
It's not about replacing government, it's about controlling it instead of letting it run free and control us. Having a government unaccountable to an armed populace has never ended well, if you want to revisit the same fucking system which has failed over and over... you're insane. That's a definition of insanity you know, doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
An analogy: You're arguing that we should hug fire, worship fire, kill who the fire tells us to kill, throw ourselves in fire, feed fire with any fuel we can set it to and surrender ourselves to fire. I (and most people since the renaissance) am arguing we should control fire, use it to burn stuff and melt stuff, use it as a tool for our purposes.
If you don't understand the difference... there's nothing more to add, you're an idiot who barely has enough neurons firing to make dumb posts on the internet.
>Trying to overthrow a duly elected government is indeed a terrible thing to do.
Except Trump doesn't even have to add any new powers, he just has to use the powers previous administrations gave him.
He can already fire any disloyal generals or police. Using current anti terrorism laws he can legally do a de-facto ban on Islam by closing down mosques and confiscating "radicalizing materials" like the Koran. Using the current immigration laws he can arrest and deport Latinos south of the border, no changes needed. Using Obamacare he can give minorities free vasectomies thereby genociding them, and Trump is PR oriented enough to do it while appearing to be a saint who is merely "helping" minorities.
This problem won't end if Trump fails to be elected either, there will be other men like him lining up to take the unrestricted powers granted to them by Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, and so on.... Next time the evil candidate might not even run on the honest racist platform Trump is running on, they might run as democrats and there's nothing we could do to stop them until it is too late.
EXCEPT THE GUNS.
So at what point would it be alright to overthrow a duly elected government you jackass? Because the only way a gun ban makes sense is if the answer to the previous question is NEVER. Damn your cursed eyes, fool.
>You're arguing that we should hug fire, worship fire, kill who the fire tells us to kill, throw ourselves in fire, feed fire with any fuel we can set it to and surrender ourselves to fire. I (and most people since the renaissance) am arguing we should control fire, use it to burn stuff and melt stuff, use it as a tool for our purposes.
No, I’m mainly wondering how you think an armed insurrection is even possible in the United States. I’m not overtly thrilled with the size of government, but I’m certainly not arguing that it’s going to solve all our problems and give us blowjobs and make us golden gods.
It's simple. When they start knocking on doors to cart people away, when they start knocking on doors for exuberant taxes, we shoot them and take their guns. We follow the politicians who ordered them and shoot them as well. This is how insurgencies work.
But to do that, we need ready access to firearms. Don't get me wrong, even if guns are banned it's possible to make them or import them from a friendly foreign power. The problem is that millions will be dying while we're busy hammering out firearms or haggling over arms sale prices with cartels. Which is unconscionable.
This is why being against gun ownership is dumb. Removing guns from the general population makes us no safer while making a tyranny all too attractive to the people in power. We used to study how tyrannies came to power in WWII and before, but that shit was removed from the syllabus by the government probably before you guys were born.
>We used to study how tyrannies came to power in WWII and before, but that shit was removed from the syllabus by the government probably before you guys were born.
Lol are you claiming to be 90 or something
>When they start knocking on doors to cart people away, when they start knocking on doors for exuberant taxes, we shoot them and take their guns. We follow the politicians who ordered them and shoot them as well.
“And when the federal government comes to handle us with everything the military has in its arsenal, we shoot all that shit, too. Anti-tank rifles are available on eBay, right?”
Education in late 80s early 90s was perfectly fine.
>30k taliban successfully resist multinational force without ever being able to strike back at them
>50-90 million americans in a position to strike at american infrastructure can't resist american government by itself
The government can't collect taxes and arrest protesters with fighter jets, submarines or aircraft carriers.
Please don't act stupid, you're above this.
>Education in late 80s early 90s was perfectly fine.
Then explain why all those Baby Boomers and Generation X'ers who were in school at that time are, by and large, functionally retarded.
Built the world wide web you're using. You may be confusing it with Generation Y, because you are Generation Y and you are easily confused. Same as thinking people born immediately after WWII went to school in the 80s.
It goes like this:
Greatest generation - great
Baby boomers - shit
Generation X - good
Generation Y/Millenials - meh
Generation Z - remains to be seen, but probably shit.
What does WWII have to do with it?
Are you misreading this:
>how tyrannies came to power in WWII
You useless lump?
>50-90 million americans in a position to strike at american infrastructure can't resist american government by itself
It’s not that they can’t, but that the vast majority of them won’t. Murdering politicians and cops and soldiers while threatening armed insurrection against the entire US government and destruction of public property in furtherance of that goal…yeah, that isn’t something the average American is going to just get up and do. Even people who have good reason to be pissed at politicians—the average resident of Flint, Michigan, for example—aren’t grabbing guns to fix their problems with a “Second Amendment remedy”.
>that isn’t something the average American is going to just get up and do
During the current state of affairs? No.
If we elect a tyrant? Yes.
Most people will resist passively, shooting any government agents who come to hurt them. Only 0.001% need to take up arms in an active fashion.
You’re assuming that a tyrant in charge of America would even need to send “government agents” to do anything other than quell the slightest bit of violent rabblerousing. It might be a fine fantasy for the gun nuts to think of themselves as “the last stand against tyranny”, but for the average person with a family and a mortgage and a life beyond cleaning an entire armory’s worth of handguns and rifles every day, grabbing a gun and taking a stand against government agents with bigger guns, body armor, military gear, et cetera isn’t a feasible reality.
Wait... you're saying a tyrant doesn't need to collect taxes? Or send people to prison camps? That's a pretty shitty tyrant.
>for the average person with a family and a mortgage
You're describing the average gun owner, and as I said before very very few are needed to actually fight.
You seem to be laboring under ignorance of the realities of insurgencies and guerrilla warfare. This seems to be your mount stupid.
>Wait... you're saying a tyrant doesn't need to collect taxes? Or send people to prison camps? That's a pretty shitty tyrant.
I pay taxes all the time and I've never had a government agent ask me to.
>Using Obamacare he can give minorities free vasectomies thereby genociding them
Also you're that same numbnuts who keeps insisting that America is equivalent to fucking Afghanistan. For fuck's sake. The Taliban insurgency works...*in Afghanistan*, a country so geographically and tribally divided that not only is it essentially unconquerable, it's also impossible for any government to have any kind of legitimacy over its territory. That's not America. It is unlikely to ever BE America. Your comparison is beyond idiotic.
But sure, keep masturbating over what a badass revolutionary you'll be. Guns for everyone, woo hoo!
I think what he means is a situation when they tell you to pay 95% of what your income is.
>Same as thinking people born immediately after WWII went to school in the 80s.
Many baby boomers were still in college in the 80's, yes. And the fact that Generation X "built the internet I'm using" doesn't really prove anything given how shitty the parts of the internet they built are. Also, Generation X was mostly still in elementary school when ARPANET, which is the foundation of the internet, was created.
Also, I work as a network engineer, and I have seen first hand how little intelligence a person needs to do that job. Even if the internet WERE well designed (it's not--there's a reason there have been more and more calls recently to try and scrap the whole thing and create a new one), and were created by Generation X (it's not--the foundations of the internet were created in the 60's, and the modern protocols put in place to fix the problems with the internet have been largely the work of millenials), Generation X wouldn't get credit for not being retarded based on it. Especially seeing as one single project, no matter how big, doesn't say anything about the generation involved in its creation. In statistics there's this concept called "outliers," and every large sample is going to have them. That's why generally one removes both the top and bottom 5-10% of any given population before attempting to determine trends. Stephen Hawking existing doesn't make the Baby Boomers as a whole less stupid.
The fact that you don't know this in 2016 is inexcusable. Why don't you leave your gated community and go to a meeting of literally any African American association. This is a huge problem.
>baby boomers went to school in late 80s-early 90s
>last baby boomer born in 1964
Are you counting people who got held back like 10 grades, or people staying to do a doctorate?
>"built the internet I'm using"
He said world wide web, not internet. Wow Gen Y are really easily confused...
>Also, I work as a network engineer
>sweeping floors in a nuclear power plant is the same as inventing nuclear power
brb need to barf.
>Are you counting people who got held back like 10 grades, or people staying to do a doctorate?
Generations last about 20 years. The Baby Boomers are generally accepted to be those born between 1946 and 1964. People born in 1964 would be in their 20's in the 80's, which is the time most people attend college.
For someone who likes to accuse other people of being "easily confused," you sure don't know how to do basic arithmetic very well, do you?
Also, I realize your generation (Generation X) is the generation that elevated slackerdom to a religious experience, but people with real jobs like network engineers rarely do much sweeping.
>maintaining a nuclear power plant is the same as inventing nuclear power
I really don't know what to laugh at the most:
1. That you blindly believe the right-wing canard that Margaret Sanger (who was, yes, a eugenicist, but that was mainstream science across all of America at the time, and she was way more eugenicist towards the mentally ill and delayed than she was regarding black people) was a pro-abortion crusader. Pro tip: she thought abortion was horrific, if sometimes necessary. Birth control was her jam. Planned Parenthood didn't offer abortion services at all until four years after she was dead.
2. That you link an article about how the abortion rate is significantly higher for black women (true) without apparently bothering to read on to its discussions of possible causes. Spoilers, Ben Carson, it doesn't support your 'abortion is black genocide' conclusion.
3. That you're actually parroting Ben Carson, Jesus wept.
4. That you think the PPACA has a mechanism by which the President can make a medical procedure free of charge - not 'covered by insurance plans', which it already almost always is, but free.
5. That you think free vasectomies would mean every black man would run out and get a vasectomy. Vasectomies are already easily accessible; almost every insurance plan will cover 100% of the cost. They are cheap, they are quick, they are safe, almost everyone who wants one can get one. And yet they don't; in fact, in couples who are trying to avoid having children, the preferred option is OVERWHELMINGLY to have the woman get a tubal ligation - a more expensive, more invasive, and riskier option. Why? Because men have dumb hang ups about getting their tubes tied, so they foist the duty onto the woman.
6. That all black people in the United States willingly trust all medical professionals, given the documented history of black-centric eugenics and medical experimentation on black people in the US.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you capitalism.
We won't know the exact numbers tonight most likely because they were so close, but Hillary and Bernie effectively tied in Iowa.
And nobody every really cares who wins Iowa. Which I think Cruz blew his wad on playing hard to evangelicals so no walking that back everywhere else. Besides the whole caucus was a clusterfuck. They ran out of ballots and space and had to use pieces of paper without names on them and hold them outside of buildings.
>And nobody every really cares who wins Iowa.
Huh? Iowa is a key swing state and Iowa and New Hampshire, while not being NECESSARY to winning the nomination, are often very important in figuring out how the election is going to go. Most people don't decide who they're voting for until a week or less before the primaries--which means Iowa pretty much proves that Donald Trump's support has been mostly hype and he's unlikely to live up to it. Ted Cruz may not win--especially if the party establishment move against him, which they're likely to do now that he's the frontrunner and Trump is no longer seen as the threat he's been treated as--but we saw proof of what people who have been paying attention to knew since the beginning: that Donald Trump was never likely to be the nominee.
man it's gonna be great watching the conservative establishment crawl up to Marco Rubio's feet now that Jeb can't possibly recover.
We live in a left-of-center democratic market syndicalism, which is itself a form of corporatism.
Stopped actually being capitalist before world war two, the west just kept the moniker "capitalism" because it needed something to ally behind to opposed USSR, which explains why so many people confuse the west for capitalist.
I don't see how anyone who makes a study of economic systems could look around the modern world and call the west capitalist.
Rubio's been the favorite for a while among the establishment, though a few people still held out hopes for Jeb. But Jeb's campaign has been dying for months now, really. Rubio is currently the favorite in Vegas to get the nomination (and has been for a while, actually), and they tend to be pretty good at judging these things.
Sometimes I worry when the democrats as a whole look at two such completely different people as Hillary and Bernie, and they can't decide between the two
I hope he gets blown out. Tired of party puppets and pretty faces. Though I do think he'll play spoilers if he gets about 30-40 delegates getting the Veep spot from whomever offers it for those delegates.
Iowa is clueless and Ted just played the weepy televangelist with his chimp cohort Beck. Won't play in other parts of the nation.
They're not really as different as all that. Their voting records are 95% identical. That said, the demographics that voted for Hillary and the demos that voted for Bernie are entirely different--young people and white liberals mostly voted Bernie, older people, moderates, and minorities mostly voted for Hillary. It's less a case of people not being able to decide and more a case of the Democratic party being made up of many different groups of people united less by ideology and more by the fact that they agree Republicans are out to make their lives worse.
For the Republicans' sake, I hope you're right. Because if Cruz or Trump get the nomination the Republicans won't have even a tiny chance of winning the presidency this year. Rubio's their only real hope of winning the presidential election, and even he's going to have an uphill battle.
These motherfuckers make me physically ill, what a tone deaf fucking photo, you hired two fucking PR firms on taxpayer money and they both okay'ed this? Fire them you dumb bastards.
FUCK YOU SMILING CUNTS.
You are all gonna rot in Federal prison, may you be mercilessly raped for your crimes against the human race, especially you Snyder.
>For the Republicans' sake, I hope you're right. Because if Cruz or Trump get the nomination the Republicans won't have even a tiny chance of winning the presidency this year.
Yeah, it's awesome to see everything that they've been accumulating for years come back and smash them in the face as spectacularly as ot has been. Maybe if they lose this one they'll collapse completely and our political system will stop being "well I don't really like X, but Y is Actually Satan so..."
Results from Iowa:
Pathetic. Clintons establishment support, money, media support meant very little vs a 74 year old spineless hippie.
Rubio got shafted, stick a fork in him. Same for Cruz, he "won" yet with such a slim margin despite all the work he was putting in, there's no way he could challenge Trump in reality.
Judging by past elections... my view is that the federal is probably going to be Hillary vs Cruz. Bernie is virtually bulletproof and would be the smart candidate, but the Democratic party hasn't played smart in a long while. Cruz has more dirt and ammunition but Hillary is capable of playing dirtier.
It should be a fun election.
You're counting present votes instead of looking at trends, Hillarys trend is downwards. From 60% she managed to go to 49%.
Also you're forgetting that Hillary has a skeleton army in her closet, and her opponent WILL use it.
Yeah, and you're forgetting that Cruz and Trump are both deeply, deeply unpopular with the majority of the country, including the majority of Republicans. Neither of them has a chance against Hillary, whose favorability ratings are actually higher than her unfavorability ratings, unlike Cruz and Trump. Not as big a difference as Sanders's, certainly, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think Cruz or Trump will ever be President.
Rubio gives Republicans a chance. Cruz and Trump don't. You can choose to not believe that if you want, but not if you actually want to base your beliefs on reality.
Clinton's 'skeleton army' has already been deployed, ad nauseum, for more than twenty years now. The only people who care are people who are already not voting for her.
Source? Last I checked Trump is a few percentage points behind Clinton. Assume that once the dirty laundry starts airing, Hillary will outright lose 20% of the Democrat vote which will cross over to Trump.
And 25.9% of independents.
Hillary has nowhere the support needed to challenge Trump, only Bernie has a chance.
>Rubio gives Republicans a chance.
Now whos living in a fantasy world...
>has already been deployed
According to polls most of the Clinton voters don't know about a lot of her background. For example they think she's experienced, which could only be due to them being uninformed. She's bungled every job she ever had, including First Lady.
>According to polls most of the Clinton voters don't know about a lot of her background. For example they think she's experienced, which could only be due to them being uninformed.
Not ignorance, just not blindly accepting every tired attack line from the past two decades. Pretty much nothing in that post is credible.
>Source? Last I checked Trump is a few percentage points behind Clinton
If so then you've only been reading the first few lines in those polls until you got to the part that confirmed what you wanted to hear and stopped reading on to the parts about favorability rather than just popularity--popularity just measures the number of people who like him, which is going to be disproportionately large (was was demonstrated in Iowa when he barely managed to come in second when he was projected to come in first by a wide margin).
Trump is consistently the most unpopular person running among all demographics. Look at any poll that measures favorability versus unfavorability, and Trump is doing terribly. He isn't going to pick up any new votes as new people drop out, and moderates and democrats absolutely loathe him. If he runs, he gets a handful of votes from a fraction of the Republican party, and makes the Republicans look like even bigger jackasses than they already do.
>(was was demonstrated in Iowa when he barely managed to come in second when he was projected to come in first by a wide margin).
Hillary went from like 60+% to under 50% in Iowa.
Look at the bigger picture man.
Iowa's polls kept jumping back and forth between Bernie and Hillary. It was surprising just HOW close it was, but the results in general weren't shocking for the democrats.
Daily reminder that BATF, the organization responsible for regulating firearms, classified a piece of string as a machine gun.
A. String. Is. A. Machine gun.
These are the people you want being in charge of deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't, or what kind of guns should be allowed, or who should be sent to prison for what infraction.
>These are the people you want being in charge of deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't, or what kind of guns should be allowed, or who should be sent to prison for what infraction.
Yeah, that's correct.
It's gonna be Bernie and Trump 2016.
Which will be the most clear cut good versus evil presidential election in history. Win or lose, this will show full front and fucking center America's true colors.
Oh please dear God, no.
I'm interested both have declared war on their parties current method of operation and while I think if Sanders gets in he'll cut some of the corruption out most will just run into the shadows to hide till he leaves and then come back out.
Trump. He's going to burn the whole thing to the fucking ground. They've all crossed him and he's going to make them pay. Especially if he tags Palin as a cabinet position if not Veep.
Either way this has been a long time coming for both parties. Europe is also following close behind. Its going to be an interesting Era coming up.
There's also the fact that neither of them are beholden to special interests.
It's abundantly clear that Democrats AND Republicans don't want special interests anymore, this is one thing that everyone agrees on so far.
Its a very intriguing match. Regardless who wins the perpetual cycle of King Makers and Pollsters that get paid and are special interest and who bank on Elections to get money. This will take a good many of them out of the game permanently.
>I'm interested both have declared war on their parties
I mean Sanders isn't really a Democrat to start with, that's the most tenuous alliance ever. Trump's a Republican through and through, he's just louder than the RNC want.
And Trump has no time or patience for the kind of dogwhistle politics common to the GOP’s Southern Strategy. He’ll just say openly bigoted shit without giving a damn. And that kind of ballsy bullshit combined with his bombastic personality might win him the GOP nomination, sure—but it ain’t gonna win him a national election.
Sanders is a communist. Far right think the Democrats are communists, and that Sanders is accepted by DP.
Trump is a fascist. Far left think the Republicans are fascists, and that Trump is accepted by GOP.
Meanwhile over here in reality, neither party actually accepts either candidate.
Meaning the only thing you've done with that comment is identify yourself as far left, the comment provides zero information beyond that.
>Sanders is a communist.
Dunno if he's swinging against Sanders it could come down to presence. One of the recent bits the Democrats were using to mock Sanders was him in a chair slumped head down bark mumbling out his age.
And Cruz is already dipping into the dirty tricks bag they're likely to level against Trump. Might be out of ammo by the time general election rolls around.
But if Sanders picks some doe eyed Apple Cheeked sopping wet nobody. It could help the idea that he looks like he could keel over at any moment. Last heard they were grooming some Castro fella for that.
And as long as we don't get any of that rape gang stuff people hear happening in Europe. Large scale attacks by refugees start happening and I don't think anything could get a Democrat elected.
>Might be out of ammo by the time general election rolls around.
You don't really need ammo against Trump. More than 50% of Republicans want him to *not* be President, and more than 75% of the country's general population wants him to not be president. Trump will never be President even if he manages to win the Republican nomination--which he'll only do if the party completely mismanages the nomination cycle, which is admittedly becoming more and more likely.
But yeah, he has no chance against either of the democratic candidates, as people don't have to choose among 14 identical candidates to oppose him, there. Once November comes around, it would just be a referendum on "Do you want Trump to be president or not," and the overwhelming majority of the country does not want Trump to be president.
Also, if we *do* get that "rape gang" stuff happening, people could always point out that Trump is, himself, a rapist, and could therefore be expected to be soft on criminals who commit rape.
Dunno about those supposed numbers. Trumps thing is connecting with those that left the parties and that feel betrayed by the political class. That anger can drive a lot home for those looking for something that will actually represent them.
>Trumps thing is connecting with those that left the parties and that feel betrayed by the political class.
No, Trump's thing is connecting with white people who regret the fact that they can't say "nigger" in public anymore.
>Sanders is a communist. Far right think the Democrats are communists, and that Sanders is accepted by DP.
>Trump is a fascist. Far left think the Republicans are fascists, and that Trump is accepted by GOP.
>Meanwhile over here in reality, neither party actually accepts either candidate.
>Meaning the only thing you've done with that comment is identify yourself as far left, the comment provides zero information beyond that.
Sanders is a Social Democrat, not a Communist, and was until extremely recently an Independent, beyond that I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
You both seem to be missing the part where both descriptions were meant as exgaggerations, hence the "Meanwhile over here in reality" and " Far right think the Democrats are communists". Though it's hard to exaggerate Trump when his whole deal is being as over-the-top and stubborn as he can get away with.
It's like you're trying really hard NOT to understand the situation.
It's a pretty easy situation to understand: you are defending Trump, Trump is indefensible.
It's like you're trying really hard to pretend it's about something more noble than a handful of assholes celebrating nationalistic jingoism, narcissism and xenophobia.
>There's nothing noble about the two mainstream political parties alienating their constituents in favor of special interests.
On the other hand there's plenty noble about not supporting xenophobic rapists just because you equate being an asshole with leadership skills.
>If you insist on being ignorant, kindly fuck off to the kids table.
There are few things more ignorant than defending Naked racism, I find.
The FBI reportedly have the last four idiots…er, militants…I mean, brave freedom fighters in Oregon surrounded. Yes, that shit is still going on. But it appears that this might finally be the end of it.
I've never heard of this, what's going on? All I've been able to gather is that some armed people have occupied a government building in Oregon. Why are they there??
Two dudes got in trouble for setting fire to public property. They were sentenced below mandatory minimum sentences despite the fact that their fire caused a fuckton of economic damage, so when they were released on a clerical error, they were brought back in. Those two dudes accepted this fairly gracefully.
However a bunch of dicks lead by the sons of the guy who tried to get into a standoff with the government last year (Cliven Bundy) decided they were unhappy with the idea that people couldn't set fire to government property and had to pay taxes and shit so they took over a wildlife sanctuary or some shit and said they would shoot anyone who tried to kick them out. So the government mostly just cut off their snack lines and let them sit in the freezing cold for a month or two, and now they're rounding up the handful of idiots still clinging to morale.
Three of the four militants left in Oregon surrendered earlier this morning. The last holdout, David Fry, spent two hours negotiating with the FBI and a couple of idiot right-wing radio hosts. (Most everyone believed those radio hosts would end up driving Fry to suicide, considering how shit of a job they did as "negotiators"/"crisis interventionists".) In the end, the FBI appeared to have actual professionals doing their jobs correctly, and Fry surrendered peacefully just minutes prior (as of the time of this post).
Of the militants who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for 41 days, only one—LaVoy Finnicum—died, and he died as a result of his stupid ass reaching for a gun while armed federal officials tried to arrest him. All the other militants were arrested peacefully. Oh, and as for Cliven Bundy, whose sons appeared to have masterminded the occupation? He flew into Portland and was promptly arrested for charges related to his 2014 standoff with federal officials.
I listened to about the last hour of Fry’s negotiations. Dude was all kinds of fucked up, and those radio hosts didn’t help him one damn bit. If anything, he stands as proof that the US needs to do better in regards to the treatment of mental health (and in letting actual goddamned professionals handle interventions with people like Fry when they’re threatening suicide).
It's the part where you support Donald Trump.
You're voting for a racist, nationalistic rapist, dude.
It is on you to defend Trump, since he has no intention of changing anything about his image.
Oh my god, Bush is still using "Cutting and Running" even after all the shit storms his brother caused with it, no wonder no amount of money can save the man's campaign.
Saying that three or so posts earlier instead of expecting people to just leave a public dsicussion board every time they make a simple but understandable mistake would be really great for letting this thread actually move along.
Maybe you should stop being a horrible person that goes around accusing people of shit for NO REASON WHATSOEVER. I think that would help the thread move a long a lot better.
It's not even funny anymore, it's just sad.
>Maybe you should stop being a horrible person that goes around accusing people of shit for NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
Yeah, good thing I wan't either of the people doing that. Just saying you did a piss poor job of correcting them.
It reflects so poorly that your incredibly failing campaign is spending more than enough money to fix Flint Michigan's water supply problems. On that fact alone he's as disgusting as he is boring and uninspiring.
>Anon expects people to keep track of his real opinions and know which posts are his but doesn't want to come off anon.
>Anon bitches at people for confusing him with another anon.
>Anon is a retard.
On a scale of 10 to 10, 10 being the happiest, how happy are you?
I won’t celebrate Scalia’s death. All the same, I don’t have to mourn his passing, either.
His politics were awful, but he wasn't like a serial killer or something. Celebrating his death is just ugly. But I'll be glad to see his seat filled by someone else.
I'll see who fills his seat before I get too happy, I won't either celebrate but I won't pretend I'm not glad he's dead.
Man fuck Mitch McConnell, the man isn't even cold yet and you are saying Obama shouldn't get a vote on his replacement? Fuck off.
Obama's getting to make the choice, though I admit it's pretty likely the Republicans in Congress will stall whoever Obama picks until November on the off-chance they can get a Republican elected President. So we probably won't see the seat filled till they lose in November at the earliest, and even after that they're likely to continue to drag their feet just because they're petulant children.
God I am so sad they got control of the senate, like I dislike republican sentiment but I understood the necessity and function they served and at least they used to play ball, this doomsday christian cult tea party shit was wearing thin in 2010.
>I'll see who fills his seat before I get too happy
You'll be waiting years. There is ZERO chance Congress is letting any of Obama's suggestions through and even after the election, unless it's a landslide for one party, it'll be a god damn dog fight, the court is now split down the middle by this.
No. They'll keep it up for a year probably, but even this congress (assuming the Dems don't retake the Senate, which is entirely doable) the Supreme Court is too important to leave with seats unfilled. Even the Republicans aren't willing to go *that* far to sabotage the government. A year, maybe two, is about the most they're going to be able to manage. And that's assuming they're willing to keep up shenanigans to keep themselves from being considered to be in recess, since otherwise we'll just get a recess appointment.
>Even the Republicans aren't willing to go *that* far to sabotage the government.
The Republican party has demonstrated the willingness to do absolutely anything it can to sabotage the government actually. Recall, if you will, that time they fucking shut it down.
Even they aren't insane enough to stonewall a SCOTUS nomination for years. They’ll do what they can to stonewall Obama’s nomination until the election results roll in, though.
Probably even longer. I wouldn't be surprised if, even if they know the next president will be a democrat, they still prevent Obama from getting another nomination through just out of spite.
Scalia was found with a pillow over his head with unwrinkled bed clothes, according to the lodge owner.
Judge was the one who declared it to be a heart attack, and she did it without seeing the body.
She also barred the ME from doing an autopsy or even taking a cursory look at the body.
Then she sent the body to the funeral facility to be embalmed.
What the fuck is going on?
>What the fuck is going on?
Well you see, it's like this: you're trying to create a fake liberal conspiracy so you can act like Scalia was some honorable victim murdered by an imaginary democratic cabal instead of just a shitty old man.
>What the fuck is going on?
You're listening to Alex Jones way too much.
This was on CNN evening news last night.
Yes we know that's what /pol/ told you, we just don't care.
Face of feminism.
Well this is getting insane. At some point you have to fucking protect your own fucking people.