Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"The people" in this passage has been interpreted by the supreme court to essentially mean "each individual". Therefore it logically follows that any infringement on any individual's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. This has been the basis by which nearly every effort by the left to enact gun safety laws and measures has been defeated.
Yes
So let's take this a step further; if each individual is granted this inalienable right and the purpose of that right is to ensure the security of a free state, then it is up to each individual to determine for themselves whether that security is in danger and if so, nullify the threat.
You would be happy if they decided in groups of 60 or more?
The constitution tells us who gets to decide
and also what they get to decide. A constitution cannot provision for its own misinterpretation except by parable (which should be included in further constitutions), but against an unlimited degree of dishonesty no words matter.
I would make it explicit, but it is already implicit in the nature of consent itself; every contract has an implicit exit clause: If the other guy doesn't care what is written here, you don't have to either.
So while you may disagree with the assassin's judgement, if you accept the SC's interpretation of "the people" (which is the basis of our national position on guns that all the 2A advocates continue to celebrate) you can't claim their use of it is constitutionally out of bounds
Did someone say assassinations are unconstitutional?
in fact if you are being consistent you would defend their right to make that choice regardless of whether you agree with it.
Consistent with what?
2nd amendment says each individual has the right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the sentence gives the most important reason, presumably so no future government would be tempted to try and limit the definition of 'arms' to 'things that you can do defend yourself from a thug but harmless to government forces' (oh wait that's exactly what happened).
So we have an individual right, we have a social scale reason for that individual right, and you are saying there is somehow also implied a right to kill anybody with the weapons you have a right to because there are definitely circumstances where you are justified in killing someone?
It doesn't follow. The clause that is missing and is not implied would be "and use arms based on your personal whim right or wrong". The reasons which justify the use of force are complicated (in the details of application, not the principle). I wouldn't mind a constitution which lays this all out in great detail, but you can't fill in a lack of detail with an absurd implication that is not there.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Keep in mind it's usually extra effort to make something explode and even more to make it possible via remote command.you overestimate engineers, particularly ones servicing shitholes like Lebanon
Like a car for example, it has a bunch of gasoline; should easy to explode right? Well there is nothing you can control electronically to make that happen. Not unless you start adding components like a machine to inject liquid oxidzer into the gasoline tank.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
The order could have been fished by Israel posing as the Taiwanese company. No idea.
I have some experience with the full import process. There are so many middlemen and each would be an opportunity for a shell company of Mossad to tamper with the products. These companies prefer to work with known quantities and often make strong recommendations to use a particular customs agent, warehouse, port unloading company (longshoremen), etc...
You corrupt the initial point of contact for a freight forwarding and you can probably control everything until delivery. It does indicate that Mossad has moles in the terrorist logistics personal though.
One point of potential interest is that this strategy is very much "element of surprise", it won't work again. They will be more careful and do spot checks from now on.
When a belligerent plays a single use card that means they had a good reason. Therefore it would be safe to assume that they had reason to believe hezbollah was about to make a substantially dangerous attack.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a good article. I have no idea who the writer is but in this moment he is thinking like a philosopher.
But to push the point means you just don’t “get” it (you haven’t opened your heart to Jesus, perhaps?).
This is exactly what happens.
"Some thing you just know"
"If I have to explain it, you will never get it"
"Good people know this without having to be told"
I would add Wylted's appeal to "transcendental truth" to this.
The people saying these things aren't trying to trick you, but their thought process exits the conscious and rational and enters the subconscious and emotional. The transition is natural for them but they can't explain what they don't know. It is for the other mind just a dark tunnel their mind has disappeared into.
Those who can dig a bit deeper into the subconscious and explicitly state some more of those connections are the preachers and wisemen, an excellent example would be Jordon Peterson's exploration of various religious texts especially the bible.
The problem is people's subconscious are not reliable. They confuse what is with what they want to be true. They confuse lessons learned as a toddler with immovable truths. They make mistakes and then people who let their subconscious dictate their philosophy disagree with each other and have no way to resolve the difference.
It is the common delusion that everyone is disappearing down the same dark tunnel that creates religious ritual and attitudes.
When it is all conscious, when it isn't something "you just know" but can explain then the logic can be checked. Religions don't form on bodies of purely rational thought because there is no desperate need for communal validation of the mystical experience of drawing from the subconscious. Many people value this sense of magic like a drug and by comparison pure reason is flat, uninteresting, unprofound. To them, a man who needs only an argument to be convicted is isolated, arrogant, shallow.
Sadly I think this author is burning his time at a left-wing publication quickly and this does not represent the left-tribe at all. The point is that if praising people at a riot is guilt by association despite clarification there are quite a few guilty parties among the famous and elite.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I've heard plenty of left-tribers praise people at a black supremacist riot (BLM riots).
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Yea I can believe that about John Deer and some other companies who seem to think "buying" means "rent with the promise to pay us unlimited currency for maintenance and repair".For example stole a bunch of John Deer tractors from Ukraine and they stopped working after they got them over the border, which means that engineers because I don't think it was hackers in this case, most likely made it so a kill switch could be activated on their tractors, which makes sense because John deer is attempting some pretty unethical subscription services not too different than copy machine companies trying to turn their businesses into subscription services.
The fad of "software as a service" is also toxic in many cases where it is not a service at all, they just want constant revenue.
Regardless a kill switch (while very unethical for a company to secretly place) is a far cry from a self-destruct. The batteries in phones, walkietalkies, and pagers don't explode. The worst short would cause them to light on fire and that is not what happened.
Even the worst company would not create such a terrible liability for themselves. Your car fails to turn on that could turn into a lawsuit if you don't turn it back on when a judge says so. You make a pager that burns people's hands and possibly their house, now you're out millions. If they find out you made this possible intentionally decades in prison.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I already posted the video in full. Anyone who is still acting ignorant at this point choose ignorance. HistoryBuff is a horse that will not drink.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Debate is the only solution.And yet debate in many if not most cases solves nothing (as our conversations have proven).
You're assuming both parties are doing it correctly.
So in those cases there is no solution other than to leave the decision up to a final arbitrator.
If debate is a failure because it does not cause all parties to agree then so is an arbiter. If it seems that arbitration (and I'm glossing over the shades of meaning between judge and arbiter) solves problems more often that is certainly due only to the fact that arbitration is either: mutually consented to beforehand, OR the only option that doesn't make you an enemy of the state.
More fundamentally what is "a solution" supposed to mean in this sentence? A misguided parent might think anything which causes the kids to stop yelling and pointing fingers is a "solution", but children raised that way have a high chance of becoming sociopaths because they learn that they need only do something outrageous (and lie about it) to force a compromise out of their victim. This is equally if not more true in the shallow and corrupt world of rotted government or between the Karen and the world she wishes to control.
I assert that the yelling and the finger pointing is a secondary problem where the real problem is the proposition of falsehood and injustice. The only solution to falsehood is truth. The only solution to injustice is justice. In that case arbitration isn't a "solution" it's a strategy that hopefully leads to the only real solution.
Just as government is a means to an end so is arbitration and the attempt to debate. As tools they can fail (through a diversity of fault points) and when they do we (I) say they have failed which is a far cry from defining success as obedience to their outcome.
Created:
When asked to condemn the nazi's, he would only say there was very fine people on both sides.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I assume this is a case of Israel intercepting supply lines or having some control over part of hezbolla supply lines but there is a possibility this is a more traditional hack.
No, your first assumption is right. In the real world engineers don't design in self-destructs and in the rare cases that they do they definitely do not make an API to remotely trigger them.
Created:
-->
@Barney
I have seen no mechanism by which "racist dog whistle" could be objectively evaluated.Well, we could see if racist dogs answer to it? 🐕🐕🐕
Yes, put the racists (white supremacists and neo nazis) in charge of who you call racist. Nothing could go wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Using the decree, Hitler began eliminating his political opponents.
Via lawfare.
"morality trials"
These were started and stopped as the nazis tried to negotiate submission. "You were always a criminal, it just so happened that we decided to prosecute at this time it has nothing to do with your recent defiance" Sound like some recent history? It does to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
The presumption of innocence is my wackadoodle belief now? Wow you give me much credit thank you.Dead kids are a small price to pay for his wackadoodle beliefs.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You said "pretend", so you are claiming that I am pretending to not know the secret racist dog whistle language that apparently you know and the racists know?Good point, you would have to admit that you were, at the very least, a former racist to be able to identify "dog whistles" that only racists can hear. Normal people just listen to the actual words.
Yep, this is confirmed by their 'academics' like Clara L. Wilkins saying explicitly "If you are white, you are racist.".
By the way this vile creature, Clara, 'serves on several editorial boards including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.'
This is why psychology is quackery. These people dare appoint themselves 'experts' on the human mind.
In another part of this forum I discussed with you why armbands are needed. Here again we can see that appearance alone is not enough. Trump may look white (or orange) to some, but his and his supporters inability to speak racist indicates that he and they are not white given that if you are white, you are racist.
Thank you Clara L Wilkins for reaffirming this obvious truth through the stunning (and totally empirically reproducible) work of "just saying so".
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You don't see much, and neither does the propaganda media when its useless for propaganda.Maybe I don't see them because they don't exist. Would explain why you can't provide them either.
Another explanation might be that it happened over six years ago and the only media that is left on the internet are from left-tribe hit-pieces. It is also rather hopeless when people like you would demand proof that someone is not a nazi. It wouldn't be good enough they they have a "don't treat on me flag" or something.
It's not about whether he was ultimately right or wrong, it's about why he would have said such a thing.
He saw that the deep state was going into full gear and was going to defame, frame, and the like in an attempt to fuel their propaganda?
That is exactly what happened so...
Trump even told us at the time that he saw the same images as everyone else, so what else could he have been looking at?
Yea who would talk about any images besides the ones being used for propaganda? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP7oO8a2Nmc
Let's remember the context here, we just watched a bunch of white supremacists march down Charlottesville in broad daylight
Well you did. Just like I watched video of people setting innocent people's businesses on fire because 'black lives matter' (e.g. motivated by the belief that a race is under attack, sound familiar?) or something.
What would have been so difficult about condemning white supremecy and leaving it there?
lol so the only allowed message is to state the obvious and leave it at that. The obvious implication of constantly asking obvious questions would be to imply that there was doubt or contextual relevance. That would be ceding total control of the narrative to the propagandist.
Let's see if it works on you. Double_R do you condemn white supremacy and neo-nazis?
How about I ask that question every time you post. What would be so difficult about condemning white supremacy and leaving it there?
Anyone with an ounce of common sense realized that this was not the time for that, but not Trump, because he clearly didn't feel the same way about what we just saw as everyone else. That's the point here.
Or he was more rational than what you call "everyone else". For example I mock the headline "fiery but mostly peaceful" because of the hypocrisy, not because I find it impossible that a small minority of the protestors started all the fires.
Also it was an hour long conference. He started with building highways, it was the propagandists you tied to manufacture the narrative by asking complex (the fallacy) questions https://www.c-span.org/video/?432633-1/president-trump-news-conference.
"Why did you wait so long last week?" (This is August 15th BTW. + 3 days)
Trump says the first statement (the one he made on Saturday) was "fine" August 15th is a Tuesday. Thus "Saturday" was the 12th, the day it happened.
What did he say the day it happened? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msY25ynGTuo
Crap I guess you're right. He saw a car slam into someone and apparently thought "Was that car made in the USA?" because he can't seem to just leave it at "stop the bigotry". Has to talk about car manufacturers and employment as well. I guess it is that difficult.
Is... talking about the economy also a racist dog whistle? Are the racist dogs in the room with us now?
I have seen no mechanism by which "racist dog whistle" could be objectively evaluated.That's why he uses them. It's not rocket science.
It must be harder than rocket science because I understand rocket science. Is this what they teach you in those absurdly named four credit but 1/4 lecture time courses like "decolonizing the mental architecture of the subliminal patriarchy using the science of anti-racism"?
If his point is just vague enough the people who oppose it will be outraged, the people who love it will rejoice, and the people who don't agree with it but are predisposed to support him will pretend there's nothing there.
You said "pretend", so you are claiming that I am pretending to not know the secret racist dog whistle language that apparently you know and the racists know?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Such a mechanism would itself need to be logically derived from the definition of "racist" and not simply an arbitrary assertion of algorithm.I suppose I will have to see the movie "Am I A Racist" to know for sure.
Careful citizen, that film has been deemed to be a danger to the collective interest. An information hazard as Wylted would say.
Seriously though, I can't stand Matt Walsh. He's a living incarnation of the religious dogmatist that features in LGBT mythos. Doesn't mean he can't make a funny movie or a good point.
Created:
-->
@Barney
He routinely does racist dog whistling, so it's hard to verify if a statement is or is not racist.
Yea, having a secret language hidden in a real language that follows no rules would make it hard to tell what someone is saying.
If he praised white supremacists that day
Well he appeared to condemn white supremacist that day, but who knows what he really means; these English words could be secretly racist and there is just no way to know until the southern poverty law center tells us.
If you prefer more direct rhetoric:
I have seen no mechanism by which "racist dog whistle" could be objectively evaluated. Such a mechanism would itself need to be logically derived from the definition of "racist" and not simply an arbitrary assertion of algorithm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well he was to some at the time, but that is besides the point.And Lincoln's assassin is no hero to anyone.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to threaten rebellion which by itself changes the behavior of government and of course to make it plausible to overthrow the government if needed.
That in no way is an endorsement of any particular act of rebellion. It's the denial of the false presumption that governments have a right to exist no matter what.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are proud of holocaust deniers just because the right is being exercised by them. The right to rebel when justified does not mean it is always justified but it does mean that sometimes it is just as the right to free speech implies that sometimes there is something that needs to be heard even if others are willing to use violence to prevent it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Reason is the only source of truth. Debate is social reasoning. Debate is the only solution.So how does this get resolved?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
In one sentence: The assassins are wrong.Says who?
Me, just now.
If the people don't consent to being governed they can take matters into their own hands. That's the idea right?
Yep
Sounds to me like there's no such thing as being wrong.
Think harder.
Also they're attacking someone with no military power.He's very close to having that power again. So is it only a problem now but ok in January?
No, because killing him won't free anybody.
Killing people without a just cause and intent is still murder even if there are are causes and intents that would justify killing the same man. If I killed Hitler to stop the holocaust that is justified. If I kill Hitler because I think I could do a better job as fuhrer it's just murder.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Obviously there were hundreds of randos and grandmasObviously? I haven't seen that.
You don't see much, and neither does the propaganda media when its useless for propaganda. In the extremely unlikely event that everyone who protested against the removal of the statute on august 11th and 12th was a "neo nazi" or a "white supremacist" (I already pointed out Enrique and by extension most of any proud boys who were there) then Trump is simply wrong about there being "very fine people" because we know he was not talking about "the neo-nazis and the white supremacists".
Created:
Posted in:
Intentional homicide rate (murder rate):
Chile * 6.744
United States * 6.383
Canada * 2.273
France * 1.560
Greece * 1.127
Sweden * 1.100
Netherlands 0.80
and boy look at these "low income" areas:
British Virgin Islands 8.223
Liechtenstein 5.123
Where are those migrants coming from?
Haiti *40.845
Honduras * 35.072
Ecuador * 26.993
Mexico * 26.107
Colombia * 25.269
Guatemala * 19.990
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Now you do.
No he still hasn't. He has a condition called "evidence blindness". It's caused by too much MSNBC and NPR (or similar contaminants).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why are you not proud?
In one sentence: The assassins are wrong.
Also they're attacking someone with no military power.
This is a lot like the 'confusion' caused by the deep state defining a terrorists as "somebody who opposes us" (in practice). They call people who attack armed governments terrorists but people who attack innocent shopkeepers mostly peaceful protestors.
Also they're in essence agents of the state since every reason they have to consider Trump a potential tyrant were propaganda campaigns carried about by media which have been proven to present 'facts' given by federal agencies and to take direction on what narratives to publish from people tied to the "intelligence community".
Therefore it's more appropriate to view these assassinations as the government trying to kill a private citizen who has a chance of expressing the will of the people in contrast to their current tyranny.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Does anyone, ANYONE AT ALL, remember the Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory that all the mainstream press, including Fox News, trumpeted for 4 long years?What about the "Trump cheated" and won the election against Clinton illegitimately bullshit they ran with before that?
Oh I remember. I am cursed with the opposite of the gold fish memory that allow people like HistoryBuff, Underdog, and Double_R to 'forget' what happened 20 minutes earlier.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Can you please provide us with images or identities of the very fine people who were not the Neo Nazis he was referring to?
Here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio
That choice is quite intentional BTW. Obviously there were hundreds of randos and grandmas but the pretender government has abducted this man and keep him as a political prisoner, an example of the very real cost of their slanderous lies and why people like me are so angry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Or do you believe objective meanings have magical powers that enforce themselves?No more than I believe the equals sign has a magical ability that prevents anyone from writing unequal expressions on each side.Person 1 writes "A = B"Person 2 writes "A =/= B"How does a society of human beings resolve this?
Red herring. Correction:
Person 1 writes "A = B"
Person 2 writes "Person 1 wrote A =/=B because if A = B then bad thing would happen"
Resolution: Person 2 made a compound statement:
Person 1 wrote A =/= B <- false
If A = B then bad thing would happen <- separate proposition, use logic and evidence to see if it's true. Then see see if A = B is true or false.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Speaking of which it's about to happen again, watch.HistoryBuff is one of those who refuses to admit when he's wrong, no matter how strong the proof.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
When asked to condemn the nazi's, he would only say there was very fine people on both sides.
Come on, put in a third braincell coach. You can do it if you try.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You shouldnt make personal attacks.
HistoryBuff is one of those who refuses to admit when he's wrong, no matter how strong the proof. (Along with Underdog and Double_R).
Unlike Double-R HistoryBuff appears to just be stupid and uninterested in evidence. It's not like I'm corrupting a rational dialogue with personal attacks, just idiotic parroting.
Similarly since you (and most members of the site) don't even try to debate there is no standard to uphold but to be slightly less cringe in my banter than you lot.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
which he did not, something you would know if you weren't a 2-braincell sheep.she is making fun of trump for praising nazis.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
"registered democrat", only those with 2 brain cells are surprised.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Diagnostic question: If the founders or those contemporary to them had claimed that "arms" included strawberry shortcakes and actively infectious small pox samples does that mean that must be true?Yes, if that was clearly the legislative intent then that's what it would mean. Why they would include something so ridiculous is another question.
The only way that would be clear is if they explicitly stated that they were no longer using the English language. Whether they did this before, during, or after ratification that would render the so called law null and void. It's a social contract and nobody is bound to obey nor can they consent to a contract whose meaning is not found in the words but in the supposed intent of the insane or deceptive.
In other words, write what you mean because what you write is what binds; not what you meant.
It's not up to you either. Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning. That doesn't imply that the objective meaning is defined as the whims of a judge, nor could it be implied given the definition of "objective".Do you believe there is such thing as a reasonable disagreement?
Of course. Incomplete evidence, incomplete inference, and inductive inference are all sources of uncertainty. Within the bulk of the bell curve of uncertainty disagreement can be called 'reasonable'.
Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning.That by definition means it's up to them.
That is equivocation. "up to them" in this context means "the fact is decided by their whim" not "they've been tasked with giving an answer".
Or do you believe objective meanings have magical powers that enforce themselves?
No more than I believe the equals sign has a magical ability that prevents anyone from writing unequal expressions on each side.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
When someone explains why you're wrong and full of shit
Unlike double-R you've said enough stupid shit that I think you might actually believe that happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are things more useless than trying to debate science with people who don't know science and won't make scientific arguments....
...but not many.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
No I meant the two lonely braincells you're using.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Still just the two huh?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
@Best.Korea
[Best.Korea] Maybe the assassin thought he was saving Republican party and the world.
Why would he think such a thing?
[IlDiavolo] If you have an orchestrated campaign that comes from democrats to demonize Trump as the anti democratic vilain, you'll have a lot of wackos trying to do "social justice" by killing Trump.
Who said (without evidence) that Trump is an agent of Russia? Who fabricated Russian collusion hoax? Who lied about the Hunter laptop being "Russian disinformation"? Who lied about the quid pro quo? Who tried to justify Biden extorting the 'democratically' elected government of Ukraine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If the framers of the constitution couldn't have possibly considered X at the time of it's drafting (because X didn't yet exist) then it can't possibly be up to them to determine whether the constitution applies to it.
The classic collectivist propensity to engage in "will over reason" thinking.
"It doesn't matter what is real, it matters who decides"
Diagnostic question: If the founders or those contemporary to them had claimed that "arms" included strawberry shortcakes and actively infectious small pox samples does that mean that must be true? If the answer is "no" then it seems that it's not up to them to determine whether the constitution applies even when they did consider X at the time of drafting.
i.e. it's never up to them.
It's not up to you either. Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning. That doesn't imply that the objective meaning is defined as the whims of a judge, nor could it be implied given the definition of "objective".
It is determined by the meaning of those words when they were written. That is related to intent by virtue of both being determined by the context of the debates during drafting but disconnected in that the meaning persists despite the hypothetical confessions of differing intent. e.g. if Benjamin Franklin was preserved in stasis and when he woke up started to insist that the 5th amendment guaranteed the right to steal everyone's left shoe, that would not matter.
Therefore, it is up to those of us living people to figure out to the best of our abilities, using logic and reason, whether it applies.
Agreed
Note that this is very different from "the words on that piece of paper say so if you interpret every word literally and without that context, therefore we're stuck with whatever the framers didn't think about".
The context relevant to meaning is found in the debates and the meaning of the words at the time.
You not liking the consequences in the modern setting does not change the meaning.
Also notice that this is very different from "if X didn't exist at the time the constitution was drafted then X is automatically, without any thought or reason, excluded".
You still have not provided an explanation as to the relevance of:
"Still didn't exist and therefore could not have possibly been considered at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment."
Your attempted explanation that it is relevant because "that means it's up to us to use reason to understand" has failed (see above).
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok you need to boot up the third and forth braincell for this one.I'm a registered democrat who has donated to republicans. If I killed Kamala what would you say?that you're a registered democrat. What other answer is there? if you register with a specific party and support that party, then you are a member of that party.
Do I really support the democrat party? Which are stronger indications of loyalty (speaks louder)?:
1.) Free and easy party registration change that takes 45 seconds
2.) Donating money
3.) Attempting to assassinate the opposing party's presidential candidate
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Hard? It's very easy.except the assassin the 1st time was a republican. Hard to say the democrats did it when it was a republican.
I'm a registered democrat who has donated to republicans. If I killed Kamala what would you say?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well needless to say it would be better if they kill him after he apparently wins the election. They wouldn't have done the lawfare if they could reliably cheat enough so it is a possibility.
That way the right-tribe gets the legitimacy of saying they betrayed the peaceful transfer of power (as if such a thing is a goal if there was no real election).
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you have to come up with conspiracy theories to confirm your own bias.
Terrible conspiracy theories too.
"I want you to shoot at me, but not hit me."
"Like your ear right?"
"Yea perfect."
"What about your secret service detail?"
"Don't worry, they'll wait for you to shoot, I'm paying them too."
That's on the level with "yea run me over with the tractor, but avoid my vital organs, just the legs I'll be fine"
People generally don't take 50/50 odds of being domed for publicity but I guess orange hitler is capable of anything.
So in clownworld kneel on the back of the neck = murder everybody knows this, but shooting at someone's head = totally safe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Russia is a land and a people. The land and people would remain whether or not the USSR was defeated or collapsed on its own later.It was unnecessary and harmful to save USSR, because now from USSR we have Russia as a result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Still didn't exist and therefore could not have possibly been considered at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment.
=
No one knows what the founding fathers would have thought about free speech in the context of the twitterverse, but we can make reasonable presumptions as to what the intent was and how it applies, in fact that's all we can do.
Explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
[badger] Don't you ever think "Wow, I really am a piece of shit"?
I've certainly thought "wow, badger is really a piece of shit" recently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Then imagine a bunch of gold, but don't think about barrels or floating towns.You can do this meditation anywhere tho, just say VOVIN every 30 to 60 seconds, and imagine yourself transforming into a Dragon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Again: There were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them.I never argued the first amendment doesn't or wouldn't apply to them.
Then explain the relevance of this statement: Still didn't exist and therefore could not have possibly been considered at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment.
Created: