Trump supporters are boot licking statists. - ITT Massive GOP Triggering

[ultramanhyata]

Here's a republican fat ass almost crying over having been glitter bombed. I didn't realize the violence was so hard core at these women's rallies!

 

[Greoric]

I actually disagree with the last part. The left by definition champions freedom, compassion for the poor and equal rights. The right inherently wants to revert back to fundamentally unfree construct thereby restricting rights. They are always going to want that because it cements classes and rights based on wealth and ethnicity. It's the left that reacts to the identity based philosophy of the right and seeks to prevent regressive, ethnically divisive policy. Leftists or progressives don't actively seek to make everything about race - the right ALREADY has and so the fight and topic is completely unavoidable.

Well that's silly because you definitely don't believe in freedom, compassion for the impovershed, or equal rights.

You've confused those values for the ones libertarians hold. You believe in regulation/control, coercive theft to turn the poor into voting slaves, and equality of outcome.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

so, what are you guys going to do with your tax returns?

 

[Islam Imamate]

And it did not help the cause.

What worked was the thousands in the street marching peacefuly . Even when the protest took the form of civil disobedience it was peaceful and they expected to be arested.

Its almost impossible to move thousands of people onto the streets and maintain complete peace. So my point is that any protest movement is going to have its ugly fringes and nowadays with cellphones those fringes can more easily be captured and presented as representing the movement.

I think its important to remember that many of the complaints against BLM today echo the ones against the Civil Rights movement. Which is not to equate the severity of their grievances or their moral clarity and authority. But rather to keep in mind that even the best of movements can produce collateral damage.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Property was destroyed during the Civil Rights movement as well.

Yes. A lot of nice shirts and dress pants were torn by police dogs.

 

[Der Eisbär]

I actually disagree with the last part. The left by definition champions freedom, compassion for the poor and equal rights. The right inherently wants to revert back to fundamentally unfree construct thereby restricting rights. They are always going to want that because it cements classes and rights based on wealth and ethnicity. It's the left that reacts to the identity based philosophy of the right and seeks to prevent regressive, ethnically divisive policy. Leftists or progressives don't actively seek to make everything about race - the right ALREADY has and so the fight and topic is completely unavoidable.

This is coming to come down to a chicken or the egg argument. I mean ultimately I think you're right, conservative minded people were the first to discriminate based on race but the left/SJWs sure chose a bad fucking time to go off the deep end in identity politics: during the reign of the first black president and during a time of racial peace.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yes. A lot of nice shirts and dress pants were torn by police dogs.

To be clear, I'm not trying to shit on the Civil Rights movement. Just saying that hindsight paints a different picture than current events.

 

[oldshadow]

Its almost impossible to move thousands of people onto the streets and maintain complete peace. So my point is that any protest movement is going to have its ugly fringes and nowadays with cellphones those fringes can more easily be captured and presented as representing the movement.

I think its important to remember that many of the complaints against BLM today echo the ones against the Civil Rights movement. Which is not to equate the severity of their grievances or their moral clarity and authority. But rather to keep in mind that even the best of movements can produce collateral damage.

I support peaceful protest and don't blame them for the shit heads. I just want the shit heads punished and not protected by the others.

 

[Octavian]

Well that's silly because you definitely don't believe in freedom, compassion for the impovershed, or equal rights.

You've confused those values for the ones libertarians hold. You believe in regulation/control, coercive theft to turn the poor into voting slaves, and equality of outcome.

Dude - every time I find you quoting my posts one of the first things you do is redefine the terms of the discussion, recast things in your reality and then explain how I'm wrong under your terms.

My opinion, based on virtually all historical evidence is that people apply unfair, irrational and unpredictable force on each other. I don't champion a massive central state but I do recognize that as a society we're better off if we come together, agree upon rights, and collectively agree to uphold them and enforce them together. We do this because we understand that we're all better off under the collective protection of society writ large. It's called social contact. The core axiom of libertarianism is that people will not unjustly apply force or fraud to each other. We know this to not be the case and we know empirically that the most stable markets and societies are the most free but also the ones that seek to actively uphold equal rights. You can't have those freedoms unless society collectively agrees that we are all due them and seeks to define and protect them.

Now onto my actual statement... the point is that the right, especially in the US but generally in human history, begins from a place of inherently unfree, unequal construct - think class system like a caste and slavery. Women around the world have generally been oppressed since the beginning of recorded history save a few societies.

So what I'm pointing out is that conservativism begins from an unequal place and seeks to cement it. It harkens back in time to an era before current day progress on rights. Thus the starting point is not with the left making everything race politics, the starting point is the right seeking to take equality back in time or freeze it so that we make no progress or have a less free society. The left reacts to this by fighting against caste systems, feudal type economic relationships, slavery, 3/5s reprentstion... etc.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Its almost impossible to move thousands of people onto the streets and maintain complete peace. So my point is that any protest movement is going to have its ugly fringes and nowadays with cellphones those fringes can more easily be captured and presented as representing the movement.

I think its important to remember that many of the complaints against BLM today echo the ones against the Civil Rights movement. Which is not to equate the severity of their grievances or their moral clarity and authority. But rather to keep in mind that even the best of movements can produce collateral damage.

When we see mobs of angry people roaming the streets burning buildings, smashing vehicles, smashing windows, assaulting people with bats and bricks, attacking police, throwing eggs at and spitting on people and their children, pulling people out if their cars, shutting down highways... what do you think the appropriate response should be from society?

 

[Islam Imamate]

When we see mobs of angry people roaming the streets burning buildings, smashing vehicles, smashing windows, assaulting people with bats and bricks, attacking police, throwing eggs at and spitting on people and their children, pulling people out if their cars, shutting down highways... what do you think the appropriate response should be from society?

Obviously maintain law and order and prosecute those responsible

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[HomerThompson]

Dude - every time I find you quoting my posts one of the first things you do is redefine the terms of the discussion, recast things in your reality and then explain how I'm wrong under your terms.

My opinion, based on virtually all historical evidence is that people apply unfair, irrational and unpredictable force on each other. I don't champion a massive central state but I do recognize that as a society we're better off if we come together, agree upon rights, and collectively agree to uphold them and enforce them together. We do this because we understand that we're all better off under the collective protection of society writ large. It's called social contact. The core axiom of libertarianism is that people will not unjustly apply force or fraud to each other. We know this to not be the case and we know empirically that the most stable markets and societies are the most free but also the ones that seek to actively uphold equal rights. You can't have those freedoms unless society collectively agrees that we are all due them and seeks to define and protect them.

Now onto my actual statement... the point is that the right, especially in the US but generally in human history, begins from a place of inherently unfree, unequal construct - think class system like a caste and slavery. Women around the world have generally been oppressed since the beginning of recorded history save a few societies.

So what I'm pointing out is that conservativism begins from an unequal place and seeks to cement it. It harkens back in time to an era before current day progress on rights. Thus the starting point is not with the left making everything race politics, the starting point is the right seeking to take equality back in time or freeze it so that we make no progress or have a less free society. The left reacts to this by fighting against caste systems, feudal type economic relationships, slavery, 3/5s reprentstion... etc.

Fantastic post. But, Tom Brady is a butt face.

 

[Octavian]

This is coming to come down to a chicken or the egg argument. I mean ultimately I think you're right, conservative minded people were the first to discriminate based on race but the left/SJWs sure chose a bad fucking time to go off the deep end in identity politics: during the reign of the first black president and during a time of racial peace.

Yeah it feels chicken or the eggs but the crux of it is this: no one is really truly born free. We in the US (I'm assuming that's where you're from) are born with what we think are inherent freedoms but in reality they're freedoms that we as a society collectively agree on upholding and ensuring for each other. Go to Russia or China and the definitions of freedom - actual tangible rights that you do have and don't have - are defined much differently.

You're not in a vacuum born into this world as some independently free being that's free to move and speak and do what they want. The physical reality is that you are actively limited in those rights. Best case scenario we agree as a society to be as free as possible without so much freedom that were actually sanctioning people to infringe on others well being. There are inevitably sacrifices and no system is perfect.

But again, born into a world with no collective agreements, you may feel free at times but nothing is protecting you. It's inevitable that people's self preservation mechanism or their evilness will lead to one person ruling powerfully over people.. and that's literally what you see at the start of human history. We simply found it necessary to band together and protect one another.

 

[Octavian]

Fantastic post. But, Tom Brady is a butt face.

He is - no doubt

Might go back to my old Jean Claude av but it's a pain to do on a phone.

 

[HomerThompson]

He is - no doubt

Might go back to my old Jean Claude av but it's a pain to do on a phone.

Can't go wrong with the Van Damme.

 

[spamking]

Uh, yeah. 20 million people being forced onto buses and forcibly removed from the country?

You mean removing illegal immigrants from the country?

You'd riot to keep folks who shouldn't be here until they go through the legal steps to become citizens from being removed and deported to their home countries?

Trump giving big oil corporations carte blanche to rape the environment?

Streamlining the permit process or expanding drilling locations is carte blanche for companies to feel free to just go about their day raping the environment?

 

[Greoric]

Dude - every time I find you quoting my posts one of the first things you do is redefine the terms of the discussion, recast things in your reality and then explain how I'm wrong under your terms.

My opinion, based on virtually all historical evidence is that people apply unfair, irrational and unpredictable force on each other. I don't champion a massive central state but I do recognize that as a society we're better off if we come together, agree upon rights, and collectively agree to uphold them and enforce them together. We do this because we understand that we're all better off under the collective protection of society writ large. It's called social contact. The core axiom of libertarianism is that people will not unjustly apply force or fraud to each other. We know this to not be the case and we know empirically that the most stable markets and societies are the most free but also the ones that seek to actively uphold equal rights. You can't have those freedoms unless society collectively agrees that we are all due them and seeks to define and protect them.

Now onto my actual statement... the point is that the right, especially in the US but generally in human history, begins from a place of inherently unfree, unequal construct - think class system like a caste and slavery. Women around the world have generally been oppressed since the beginning of recorded history save a few societies.

So what I'm pointing out is that conservativism begins from an unequal place and seeks to cement it. It harkens back in time to an era before current day progress on rights. Thus the starting point is not with the left making everything race politics, the starting point is the right seeking to take equality back in time or freeze it so that we make no progress or have a less free society. The left reacts to this by fighting against caste systems, feudal type economic relationships, slavery, 3/5s reprentstion... etc.

Wow, well thanks for the elaborate response.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that the right wants to take society backwards with regard to equal civil rights. Is that a legitimately common thing you see? It seems more like that side of the spectrum cares more about fiscal policy than they do anything else.

I disagree with the interpretation of Libertarians though. Its not that any of them should believe that people will not apply force or fraud to each other. That's incredibly naive to actually believe something like. It's just that Ancaps in particular believe that they shouldn't. If that's a largely held belief throughout society, like the dismissal of slavery is today then you damn well better believe we'd have a community of people having their individual rights upheld. Further the protection of those rights don't have to be at the sacrifice of other rights (like your right to keep your income).

Everyone already wants security, fair and impartial arbitration, and HC, etc. Yet none of those industries are any more complicated than ones we already rely on he market to provide, so it doesn't stand to much reason that a coercively funded monopoly should be the only way they can be distributed in society.

 

[Der Eisbär]

You mean removing illegal immigrants from the country?

You'd riot to keep folks who shouldn't be here until they go through the legal steps to become citizens from being removed and deported to their home countries?



Streamlining the permit process or expanding drilling locations is carte blanche for companies to feel free to just go about their day raping the environment?

You're talking about removing people that have lived here longer than many "legal " citizens. What you're talking about is extremely cruel and brutish Mr. Adolf

 

[WiolentOne]

Dude - every time I find you quoting my posts one of the first things you do is redefine the terms of the discussion, recast things in your reality and then explain how I'm wrong under your terms.

My opinion, based on virtually all historical evidence is that people apply unfair, irrational and unpredictable force on each other. I don't champion a massive central state but I do recognize that as a society we're better off if we come together, agree upon rights, and collectively agree to uphold them and enforce them together. We do this because we understand that we're all better off under the collective protection of society writ large. It's called social contact. The core axiom of libertarianism is that people will not unjustly apply force or fraud to each other. We know this to not be the case and we know empirically that the most stable markets and societies are the most free but also the ones that seek to actively uphold equal rights. You can't have those freedoms unless society collectively agrees that we are all due them and seeks to define and protect them.

Now onto my actual statement... the point is that the right, especially in the US but generally in human history, begins from a place of inherently unfree, unequal construct - think class system like a caste and slavery. Women around the world have generally been oppressed since the beginning of recorded history save a few societies.

So what I'm pointing out is that conservativism begins from an unequal place and seeks to cement it. It harkens back in time to an era before current day progress on rights. Thus the starting point is not with the left making everything race politics, the starting point is the right seeking to take equality back in time or freeze it so that we make no progress or have a less free society. The left reacts to this by fighting against caste systems, feudal type economic relationships, slavery, 3/5s reprentstion... etc.

That's a lot of triggered for one post.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Obviously maintain law and order and prosecute those responsible

What does that have to do with what I said?

You seem to be excusing the behavior as something thats going to naturally happen. There is a lot of you guys pretending that cracking down on these riots is somehow an infringement on civil rights. I just wanted to see where you stood on that and where you were coming from.