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

Octavian with the AV switch -- full disengagement from the right is now in effect lol.
 
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 though, 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.
Long story short, many of those things/services you're referring to are not profitable nor do they fall neatly into a supply/demand curve business model. The other long story short is that I don't trust private companies to function in my best interests nor do I have the ability to enter into a mutually beneficial relationship with them. We're back to square one with private companies because they also tend to act like people and exert unfair and unnatural pressures on one another and on individuals. It is my belief that if you allow companies to run everything there is simply a lack of altruistic and ethical fabric in people to avoid abuses.

One of the central purposes of a state is to police this (just as it polices this phenomenon in people) and we see clearly that companies seek to snuff out competition and in doing so halt their own innovation and progress.

The other issue is simply money... money can be used by those who have a lot of it to exert pressure on others. Companies with a lot of money can do the same and frankly they do - look at the amount of money big oil pours into dissent research and misinformation campaigns designed at sowing doubt. The result is a bloated industry that is pumping out a commodity that we actually need significantly less of than is produced but this of course, being a trapped asset, is a massive problem for the investors. Renewables are obviously the future so we delay in the present?

That's a digression but an illustrative example. Fact of the matter is that as an individual I have no trust whatsoever for a private profit seeking company to mitigate or preside over a murder trial. We know how that would go because we already are bribery in politics.
 
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.
I'm not excusing it. If it turns to a full blown riot then of course action needs to be taken.

But I also suspect that there are those who were never open to hearing the grievances of black people and from the beginning sought to paint them as rioters without a cause. As I said, I believe this is far easier nowadays with the echo chambers on the internet and the ubiquity of cell phone footage.

I remember someone here once posted a video of a labor riot in France with the headline "Muslim riot" and of course all posters predisposed to buying that accepted it uncritically. The same happened around the time of the election with an old video of the KO game that was labeled as a black person being attack by another black person for supporting Trump. Everyone accepted it despite the fact that I saw it posted on this very forum by conservative posters two years before Trump announced his campaign.

Of course, I'm not the biggest fan of BLM. They can organize quicker because of social media but quicker/= better. They don't seem to have the same discipline and restraint that the Civil Rights movement had. Back then they knew the media would be against them and that they had to mind their Ps and Qs or they'd only hurt their cause. BLM seems more focused on getting onto the street and channeling their rage which undermines their causes and alienates those who might otherwise be sympathetic to their cause.
 
So... it's harmful when the other side does it, but not when your side does it? Seriously dude, rise above your monkey brain and step outside of the tribalism. When the alt right does it its harmful for race relations althought they're obviously doing it as a reaction to the racial identity politics of the left.
You think the alt-right has more influence than our universities?

The alt-right is a very small group. Universities are an integral part of our culture.

You said it yourself, the only reason we even talk about the alt-right is because of universities.

Who do you think of when you think of the alt-right?
 
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

I don't give a rip how long they've lived here . . . if they weren't born here or if they didn't become legal citizens they need to be given a deadline to become a citizen or deal with the fallout.

Cruel and brutish . . . pfft. Whatever.
 
I don't give a rip how long they've lived here . . . if they weren't born here or if they didn't become legal citizens they need to be given a deadline to become a citizen or deal with the fallout.

Cruel and brutish . . . pfft. Whatever.
Do you even understand that if 20 million workers disappeared in a short period of time that the economy would suffer greatly? There would be a massive shortage of labor and the economy would contract. You are literally wishing economic detriment on America
 
Do you even understand that if 20 million workers disappeared in a short period of time that the economy would suffer greatly? There would be a massive shortage of labor and the economy would contract. You are literally wishing economic detriment on America

Way to just completely ignore my caveat that they need to be given a deadline to become legal . . . of course I'm not stupid. I don't want a huge population of workers to be removed at once. Good grief . . . but when is enough enough? Streamline the path to citizenship and then remove those who CHOOSE to not take it.
 
Having control over your reproductive system = reproductive rights. A woman doesn't get to decide what you do with your semen. Do you want women in power signing executive orders deciding what you can or cant do with your semen? No one is saying you should pay for abortions wtf are you talking about?
Your reading comprehension is awful, dude. If we're entertaining the idea of free birth control, I'm asking, why should I have to help pay for it? Birth Control does not mean abortion. An abortion comes after the birth control fails.

I'm pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I think women should get to have access to legal, safe abortions, but at the same time pro-choicer's hero Margaret Sanger wanted to use legal abortion to exterminate the black population. That's completely fucked and it's disgusting people celebrate her. Now we are starting to see people do gender-specific abortions, which is also fucked. Next we'll see gay abortions when we can lock down understanding the gay gene. Abortion going away is not the worst thing that could happen. It simply means people would need to take more responsibility for their actions.
 
Almost seems like it would be easier to just do what Reagan did, and automatically give 10-20 million (or more) illegals amnesty and force them to all become legal. This way, at least they will be able to pay taxes and put more into the system, and have to deal with the regulations involved like everyone else.

Or we can attempt to round up and deport all of them, which will be extremely expensive and practically impossible.
 
Your reading comprehension is awful, dude. If we're entertaining the idea of free birth control, I'm asking, why should I have to help pay for it? Birth Control does not mean abortion. An abortion comes after the birth control fails.

I'm pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I think women should get to have access to legal, safe abortions, but at the same time pro-choicer's hero Margaret Sanger wanted to use legal abortion to exterminate the black population. That's completely fucked and it's disgusting people celebrate her. Now we are starting to see people do gender-specific abortions, which is also fucked. Next we'll see gay abortions when we can lock down understanding the gay gene. Abortion going away is not the worst thing that could happen. It simply means people would need to take more responsibility for their actions.

LOL. I mentioned reproductive rights, you said 'nobody is trying to stop women from having children', AND MY READING COMPREHENSION IS BAD???

1. Birth control does entail abortion. You are literally controlling a birth by aborting it. Again, you are making these statements and at the same time stating my reading comprehension is bad. I think there's a bit of projection going on here.

2. Yes, Margaret Sanger wanted to exterminate black people. How that relates to 2017 is beyond me but there it is.

3. Nobody is saying you should be forced to pay for abortion services

4. No, abortion going away is not the worst thing that could happen. In a perfect world men and women are fully educated and make responsible decisions and don't procreate outside of marriage and their children don't get aborted and grow up in crime free areas without worry of being shot by gangs or the police and butterflies dance through the sky and everyone owns a home and war with Russia/China isn't imminent and ISIS has been exterminated and SJW's go away once and for all and everyone has equal opportunity in life and...
you get the point, the world isn't perfect. Yeah, abortions are bad and them going away wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. At the end of the day though they're a last resort for bad decision making and/or rape that provides economic benefit to the world. We saw a dramatic drop in crime rates in inner cities after Roe V Wade and that is a good thing.
 
Almost seems like it would be easier to just do what Reagan did, and automatically give 10-20 million (or more) illegals amnesty and force them to all become legal. This way, at least they will be able to pay taxes and put more into the system, and have to deal with the regulations involved like everyone else.

Or we can attempt to round up and deport all of them, which will be extremely expensive and practically impossible.

and most likely cause a civil war.
 
and most likely cause a civil war.
Either way, it seems like a logistical nightmare. Just giving 20 million people citizenship doesn't send a great message to anyone else trying to get in, and it's going to piss off a lot of people - not to mention the act of physically finding them and getting information and going through the process.

The whole situation is fucked.
 
LOL. I mentioned reproductive rights, you said 'nobody is trying to stop women from having children', AND MY READING COMPREHENSION IS BAD???

1. Birth control does entail abortion. You are literally controlling a birth by aborting it. Again, you are making these statements and at the same time stating my reading comprehension is bad. I think there's a bit of projection going on here.

2. Yes, Margaret Sanger wanted to exterminate black people. How that relates to 2017 is beyond me but there it is.

3. Nobody is saying you should be forced to pay for abortion services

4. No, abortion going away is not the worst thing that could happen. In a perfect world men and women are fully educated and make responsible decisions and don't procreate outside of marriage and their children don't get aborted and grow up in crime free areas without worry of being shot by gangs or the police and butterflies dance through the sky and everyone owns a home and war with Russia/China isn't imminent and ISIS has been exterminated and SJW's go away once and for all and everyone has equal opportunity in life and...
you get the point, the world isn't perfect. Yeah, abortions are bad and them going away wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. At the end of the day though they're a last resort for bad decision making and/or rape that provides economic benefit to the world. We saw a dramatic drop in crime rates in inner cities after Roe V Wade and that is a good thing.
I said that about reproduction because abortion is not reproduction, its a deduction. Calling it a part of reproduction is just admitting that there's a human being killed not just a cluster of cells.

1. Difference in interpretation is a knock on my reading comprehension? Birth Control is the pill, condoms...etc. things you use to prevent pregnancy, not terminate them.

2. Because black fetuses are being aborted in ridiculously high numbers still today. According to the left Trump is racist because he was supported by the KKK, but Margaret Sanger isn't a disgusting racist, because she wanted to exterminate black people and is succeeding still today. #LiberalLogic

3. You don't think Planned Parenthood gets any government funding? Tax payer dollars?

4. I'm aware of the crime drop connection, that's part of why I'm pro-choice despite my hesitation to be.
 
I said that about reproduction because abortion is not reproduction, its a deduction. Calling it a part of reproduction is just admitting that there's a human being killed not just a cluster of cells.
You're leaving out part of the phrase; it's reproductive RIGHTS. As in the RIGHT to CHOOSE when you want to REPRODUCE. Does that clear things up for you? Reproductive rights are about choosing when and where you want to reproduce and with whom. This is not rocket science.

1. Difference in interpretation is a knock on my reading comprehension? Birth Control is the pill, condoms...etc. things you use to prevent pregnancy, not terminate them.
See the above. It has nothing whatsoever to do with with interpretation. If you are you terminating a pregnancy, you are controlling a birth. Are you not? Stay with me here, reply line by line. Stopping a birth = controlling a birth. Fucking simple right?

2. Because black fetuses are being aborted in ridiculously high numbers still today. According to the left Trump is racist because he was supported by the KKK, but Margaret Sanger isn't a disgusting racist, because she wanted to exterminate black people and is succeeding still today. #LiberalLogic
Black fetuses are being aborted in high numbers because of a number of economic and social factors and not because of a conspiracy by Margaret Sanger from beyond the grave using PP as her vehicle to exterminate black people from her coffin. Lack of education, poverty, lack of access to birth control, these are the reasons black fetuses are aborted in such high numbers. Yet you and your ilk would seek to make the problem even worse by getting rid of planned parenthood and restricting birth control

3. You don't think Planned Parenthood gets any government funding? Tax payer dollars?
See the above underlined. Thanks for helping my argument.
4. I'm aware of the crime drop connection, that's part of why I'm pro-choice despite my hesitation to be.

Then what is ultimately your issue here? What would you like to see done? Eliminating funding for PP or killing it altogether will make the abortion problem worse. So what would you like to have done? The only thing I want to see happen is reducing the federal abortion limit from 6 months to 3-4 months. Aborting a fetus at 6 months is absolutely monstrous.
 
You think the alt-right has more influence than our universities?

The alt-right is a very small group. Universities are an integral part of our culture.

You said it yourself, the only reason we even talk about the alt-right is because of universities.

Who do you think of when you think of the alt-right?
The alt-right exists among corporations and their higher ups. They have power over large segments of the economy. Fascism always exists among the executives of corporations and they hold a great deal of power and influence.
 
Long story short, many of those things/services you're referring to are not profitable nor do they fall neatly into a supply/demand curve business model. The other long story short is that I don't trust private companies to function in my best interests nor do I have the ability to enter into a mutually beneficial relationship with them. We're back to square one with private companies because they also tend to act like people and exert unfair and unnatural pressures on one another and on individuals. It is my belief that if you allow companies to run everything there is simply a lack of altruistic and ethical fabric in people to avoid abuses.

One of the central purposes of a state is to police this (just as it polices this phenomenon in people) and we see clearly that companies seek to snuff out competition and in doing so halt their own innovation and progress.

The other issue is simply money... money can be used by those who have a lot of it to exert pressure on others. Companies with a lot of money can do the same and frankly they do - look at the amount of money big oil pours into dissent research and misinformation campaigns designed at sowing doubt. The result is a bloated industry that is pumping out a commodity that we actually need significantly less of than is produced but this of course, being a trapped asset, is a massive problem for the investors. Renewables are obviously the future so we delay in the present?

That's a digression but an illustrative example. Fact of the matter is that as an individual I have no trust whatsoever for a private profit seeking company to mitigate or preside over a murder trial. We know how that would go because we already are bribery in politics.
this is the most logically sound argument I've ever read on sherdog and there is no arguing with any of this
 
Either way, it seems like a logistical nightmare. Just giving 20 million people citizenship doesn't send a great message to anyone else trying to get in, and it's going to piss off a lot of people - not to mention the act of physically finding them and getting information and going through the process.

The whole situation is fucked.
Give them a path to citizenship and draw it out. Put a firm line in the sand on the date as to when they get in and who qualifies. After, get super tough on illegal immigration. Deporting several million people is utterly nuts to even picture from a logistical or cost standpoint and it's also heartless in so many cases.
 
Long story short, many of those things/services you're referring to are not profitable nor do they fall neatly into a supply/demand curve business model. The other long story short is that I don't trust private companies to function in my best interests nor do I have the ability to enter into a mutually beneficial relationship with them. We're back to square one with private companies because they also tend to act like people and exert unfair and unnatural pressures on one another and on individuals. It is my belief that if you allow companies to run everything there is simply a lack of altruistic and ethical fabric in people to avoid abuses.

One of the central purposes of a state is to police this (just as it polices this phenomenon in people) and we see clearly that companies seek to snuff out competition and in doing so halt their own innovation and progress.

The other issue is simply money... money can be used by those who have a lot of it to exert pressure on others. Companies with a lot of money can do the same and frankly they do - look at the amount of money big oil pours into dissent research and misinformation campaigns designed at sowing doubt. The result is a bloated industry that is pumping out a commodity that we actually need significantly less of than is produced but this of course, being a trapped asset, is a massive problem for the investors. Renewables are obviously the future so we delay in the present?

That's a digression but an illustrative example. Fact of the matter is that as an individual I have no trust whatsoever for a private profit seeking company to mitigate or preside over a murder trial. We know how that would go because we already are bribery in politics.

So, did it bother you that your preferred candidate by far and away got the most funding from private corporations? If you truly believe that you can not trust these corporations with the interest of the individuals, why would you pay heed to the candidate that got backed the most -- surely, these mega corps would prefer the mantra of the conservative party that apparently paves the way for their interest. Yet, it was clinton with an astronomical amount of "evil" money supporting her.

Thus, there must be correlation with interest of the industries and that of the party who seeks egalitarianism.
 
Back
Top