Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On the other hand, do you just shoot someone who looks suspicious because you, "fear for your life"?
i'm not arguing that this defense is always used properly. There are lots of times when it isn't. I agree that judges should look at the circumstances when someone claims they were defending themselves to see if that claim is legitimate. I'm pointing out that making everyone who defends themselves a murderer if their attacker dies is not a feasible solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ninety-five percent of officers go through their entire careers without discharging their weapons.
people are fragile things. You don't have to fire your weapon to kill someone. A basic police takedown can cause someone to die. so this stat means nothing in this debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Try re-reading my post #29; a direct response to your justification of censorship
ok
By having an attitude that there are acceptable reasons to ban books [your example: calling for violence] disregards a very important principle: You thereby attempt to censor ideas.
We already do that. As we have discussed, conspiracy is a crime. If you talk to someone about committing a crime, that can be a crime. There are also libel laws etc. So pretending like you are always free to say what you want is a lie.
You may not like those ideas, therefore, let's eliminate them? No.
Any real political or personal philosophy can be discussed without calls to violence. If you cannot discuss your ideas without calling for violence, then it probably isn't the ideas that are the problem, it is the author.
You create civil legislation that violence that results in the loss of life or property of another is illegal. Does this legislation work in 100% of cases? No. What if it only deters 10% of people? Do you decide that's not good enough, so ban the provocation of ideas? NO!
If I understand correctly, your point is that we should do nothing to prevent crime and only try to punish people after it occurs? Your point appears to be that doing anything to try to stop people calling for crimes and violence is immoral, and we should only punish people after the violence has already happened. That doesn't help the victims. And it certainly doesn't help society to allow violent extremism to flourish.
What do you think democracy is? That everyone agrees with one another? That forcing everyone to think the same way is democratic?
no one is forcing anyone to think the same way. We as a society have the power to decide what is and is not acceptable. I would hope that in a democratic country we agree that using violence to get your way is not an acceptable solution. That is why we have democracy, so that you can vote for the change you want. Therefore, why would we allow people to advocate for using violence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
When you get behind the wheel of an automobile, the possibility that another person could die is always there.
absolutely. And if you intentionally killed a person while driving your car, then that is a crime. If you didn't intend to kill a person, then it isn't. It is an accident.
If you are being attacked, then you didn't go into a situation intending to kill anyone. You are reacting to the situation that other person put you in. And sometimes that might result in the death of the person that attacked you. If that happens, why should the victim of the attack be considered a murderer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your point that I am automatically committing a crime by publishing a book describing something, is NOT CORRECT. Get it?
if you are writing a book calling for people to commit a crime, then yes that should be a crime. Get it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But making it a crime for a police officer to kill someone under any circumstance would guarantee no one would be a police officer.I disagree.I do not believe that police cadets EXPECT to kill people (like Judge Dredd).
most wouldn't expect it. but they all know it is a relatively likely possibility during their career. Would you go into a career where the odds are good you will die or go to prison just for doing your job?
There is no shortage of brutally efficient NON-LETHAL options.
true, but humans are frail. A single punch, hell a single push can make someone fall over and hit their head and kill them. When your job requires physical confrontation with others the possibility of that person dying is impossible to avoid. If you make that possibility a crime, then you are criminalizing that job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
SELF-DEFENSE =/= KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN
ok. but when defending yourself, the possibility that the other person could die is always there. One punch could kill someone. so if killing someone is always a crime regardless of circumstance, then defending yourself is a crap shoot. do you significantly hold back in defending yourself (ie no punching or any other vigorous defense that could potentially kill) and make it easy for the other person to kill you, or do you do everything you can to stay alive and risk going to prison for decades?
and that is assuming you have the conscious decision power to make that decision. If someone is trying to kill you, adrenaline and instinct will take over and most people won't fully know what they are doing. They won't be able to make a choice about whether the other person is killed or not, instinct will take over.
so criminalizing killing someone under any circumstances would not be feasible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
DEFENDING YOURSELF IS NOT A CRIME.Killing another human being is the very definition of MANSLAUGHTER.
those 2 statements contradict each other. Defending yourself is fine, but if that defense ends up killing the other person, you go to prison. Which means that can't really defend yourself.
It seems like it would perhaps maybe sort of kinda be nice to live in a world where police could NEVER kill another human with IMPUNITY.
I agree there needs to be serious review if a police officer kills someone and that review is not done properly. But making it a crime for a police officer to kill someone under any circumstance would guarantee no one would be a police officer. because if you do your job, there is a high chance that you will die or go to prison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Killing another human, even in "self-defense" should carry a mandatory manslaughter charge.This seems manifestly logical to me.
So in your world, police don't exist. because no cop is ever going to go on a call if they can go to prison for doing their job. No one has the right to defend themselves because doing so is a crime. This is a society that cannot function.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
EX we should never allow anyone to kill anyone. So self defense, police doing their jobs etc are all criminals because if you allow someone to kill someone that is a slippery slope.This actually sounds like an amazing proposal.Classical "self-defense" is supposed to "mitigate the threat" and NOT simply, "fill-'em-fulla-led" cuz dem bad.
So if someone tries to kill you and you end up killing them, you think you should go to prison for 25 years? if a cop tries to arrest someone and they pull a gun and shoot at the cop, in ensuing gunfight the guy is killed, the cop should go to prison for 25 years?
That seems logical to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, that is not my point. If I write about committing a crime, pursuant to my comments in post #33, with whom have I conspired
It was an example of speech that is already criminal. Obviously this would be different. I am not saying that writing a book is conspiracy. But writing a book telling people to commit crimes is comparable.
You need to review what the law says, not what you think.
jesus man, how many times do i need to repeat that this is an example of speech that is already criminal. I am not saying writing a book is conspiracy.
You cannot parse those three points regarding criminal conspiracy, and indict on their separate commission. In most States, all three must be in play before a crime is declared to have occurred
I'm using it as an example of speech that is already criminal to show that that are already rules controlling speech. This would obviously be a bit different. So the specific rules around conspiracy are not directly relevant.
Does my book tell people to go commit a crime? Do I look like I'm wearing a clown suit? DO NOT assume my motive. I'm merely describing a scenario. I'm not telling anyone to go do it.
what book are you talking about? My point is that if a book calls on people to commit a crime, like exterminating the jews, that should be grounds to ban it. why do you keep going off on tangents instead of addressing my point directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
1. For criminal conspiracy to be an indictable offense, two or more people must be involved in the conspiracy. A lone person thinking to commit a crime is not guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. One does not conspire with one's self.
I was using this as an example of how speech is already limited. If two people have a discussion about committing a crime, then that is itself a crime. The speech itself is the crime. Therefore extending this to cover a single person telling large numbers of people to commit a crime would be reasonable.
2. All conspirators must have specific intent to commit the crime. If two people conspire to rob a bank, and convince a third to be their driver, but do not tell the driver the intent of their visit to the bank, the driver is not part of the conspiracy and cannot be so charged.
ok. but in my example the person writing that other people should go out and commit a crime has the intent to get others to commit a crime. so not an issue.
3. In most States, there must be some definitive, purposeful action toward the commission of the crime by at least one of the conspirators, such as buying masks to rob the back in point #2. Until that overt act, there is no indictable criminal conspiracy.
writing a book telling people to commit a crime is a purposeful act towards getting others to commit a crime. So also not really an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The limit is not on speech. The limit is your acceptance that there are consequences for which one is responsible. Don't you get it? YOU decide whether to be civil, or not. If not, you are obligated to accept consequences.
ok. so your point is that it is fine to imprison an author for things they write, but not to ban the book? what an odd line to draw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You thereby attempt to censor ideas. You may not like those ideas, therefore, let's eliminate them? No. You create civil legislation that violence that results in the loss of life or property of another is illegal.
so your argument is that calling for people to commit crimes should be fine, but only the person who commits the crime should be liable? But we already don't so that. Conspiracy to commit a crime, is itself a crime. So why would we let people put that kind of call to criminality in a book when we wouldn't let them say it on the street?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Nope. Freedom of speech is necessary in a decent society.
we already have limits on freedom of speech. If you tell someone you want to murder someone or commit an act of terrorism, that is conspiracy. That is a crime. We also have laws against libel and slander.
So we already have limits on speech. So pretending like any limits on free speech is somehow "indecent" is kind of silly when we have always had limits on speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nonthey didn’t
no they didn't what? relentlessly cheerlead for trump? 99% of coverage about trump on fox is overwhelmingly positive about him. Newsmax is probably 100%. On the rare occasions they have anything negative to say it is usually framed as "he must have been given bad info" or something like that. There are like 1 or 2 hosts on fox who have dared to say anything negative about trump since he was nominated.
so please tell me how they are against him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
No, nothing should be banned. That's a real slippery slope, when you start with ANYTHING
this is a pretty weak argument that you could make about literally anything. EX we should never allow anyone to kill anyone. So self defense, police doing their jobs etc are all criminals because if you allow someone to kill someone that is a slippery slope.
the idea that you can't create reasonable rules because people might some day do something unreasonable is ludicrous. If you use that thinking, then we wouldn't really be able to make any rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
why bother starting this thread?That's my biz, yeah? You don't have to play along. Bye bye.
you started a thread asking a question, then refuse to actually engage when i gave my answer. You just intentionally misrepresent what I say and derail any potential debate. I can only assume you were either just trolling or just wanted to not actually discuss it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Now that is slow. You like content calling for violence? You're trying so hard to make your point, you argue against it.
you aren't making any sense. I'm saying calling for violence is an order of magnitude greater of an issue. It has nothing to do with whether someone likes it or not.
The definition includes just violence against property, but, legally, violence is "the unlawful exercise..."
now you are just willfully misrepresenting what I said. I said things like calling for the extermination of the jews should be grounds for banning, you responded with some bullshit about property damage.
If you have no intention of actually discussing something, why bother starting this thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Would you like to take another look at these two comments you entered in the same post #2
are you a little slow? i was quite explicit that the line is calling for violence. That isn't "content we don't like". That is content calling for crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the system that worked against trump
both fox news and news max relentlessly cheered for trump. They constantly denied reality and lied for him. How are they part of a system that worked against him? They couldn't possibly have worked harder for him (which is not what a news outlet is supposed to do fyi)
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I'm skeptical. The most successful populist movement in US history currently holds 2.5 of the 3 branches of govt- meaning that populism is the establishment position.
but the people who control those branches of government don't give a shit what the people think. They only care what their political donors think, ie the opposite of populism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The Bible calls for violence against unbelievers. Shall we ban the Bible?
I would say religious books are in their own category separate from regular books.
The Declaration of Independence calls for violence against the British. Shall we ban the Declaration of Independence?
that's not a book. Also, it primarily calls for an independent government. It does not call for wantonly killing british people. The example I used was books calling for the extermination of jewish people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
in other words, you cannot handle being offended. That is a weak position.
that is, in no way, a response to what i said. I said we shouldn't ban books because we disagree with them. We should ban them if they cross a serious line, like calling for violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You are all missing the point. I'm calling out Biden words. So y'all throw back Trump words. My topic is Biden.
your topic is a human being mis-spoke slightly. That is so mundane and ridiculous it isn't even worth discussing.
Trump is off topic. Using Trump to excuse Biden is disingenuous.
no one is trying to use trump to excuse biden. you haven't mentioned anything biden has done that would require excusing. They are pointing out that you are attempting to discuss a minor slip up by biden at the same time trump is handing out pardons to his co-conspirators. The idea that biden's minor error is worthy of debate by contrast is laughable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I can accept that there are certain books that should be banned. For example if it calls for violence against a specific group (like exterminating the jews for example). That kind of thing crosses a line that I don't think we need to allow.
but short of that, i would pretty much agree with what I assume your point is, that we shouldn't ban books just because we don't like their content.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
doesnt matter, there part of the system
what? the far right wing lunatics are "part of the system"? what system are they a part of? News max is only a hair more legitimate than random bloggers on the internet. They don't get much less "part of the system" than that.
They were screaming about fraud a matter of days ago. They only ran this because they have absolutely no evidence of fraud and were going to get sued for a huge amount of money because they were slandering 2 companies with no evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Natural news Is a reliable source
I think this quote sums up that website pretty well.
David Gorski of ScienceBlogs, called Natural News "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet"
it isn't a news source. Its a conspiracy theory blog post.
Created:
-->
@crossed
it is always possible to have some adverse affects from a vaccine. I got a flu shot a few weeks ago and the nurse made us stay there for 10 minutes afterwards to make sure we were fine. This is a normal process of vaccines.
Why do you think this is news worthy? OMG vaccine does what everyone already knows they do!?!?!?!?
Created:
-->
@crossed
There is just so much stupid here.
We go to war with muslims after 911.
no one "went to war with muslims".
Then Our next leader is This muslim guy named obama.
he very clearly was not a muslim.
The first thing he does is go to all these third world country's and bows to there kings.
Bowing is a sign of respect in their culture. If you didn't, you would be a jerk. Its a bit like shaking hands. World leaders show respect when visiting other world leaders.
then gives money and weapons so they can kill our troops. Millions of dollars
unless he gave money to al qaeda or the taliban, no he didn't.
Pretty much every single thing you said is a lie or just dumb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Spoken like a true apologist. ... As for presidential pardons, I suggest you look at the record of the placeholder, Oba'a
so you accuse him of being an apologist, but then when you respond to his point you just deflect and say look at someone else. AKA being an apologist.
do you not see your hypocrisy, or do you just enjoy it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i don’t care, there was fraud
again, please stay focused to the topic.
Fox and news max admit that there was no fraud where these 2 companies are involved. Are you saying that despite the fact that all sources now agree there is no evidence of fraud where these 2 companies are concerned, that you are choosing to believe they engaged in fraud, when everyone agrees there is no evidence that they did?
And if so, why would you choose to believe a conspiracy theory, when the people responsible for spreading it have now publicly admitted they have never had any evidence to support it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Absolutely lol
yeah I know. I guess a naïve part of me holds out hope that the overwhelming obviousness that there wasn't any significant fraud would eventually break down people's nonsense. I mean both fox and news max, which are as right wing propaganda as you can get, both had to acknowledge they don't have evidence of fraud.
At some point, you would hope they would see reality. when even fox and news max have to acknowledge it. But sadly, i know his cultists are immune to reality. But I can dream....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What nonsense? The proof is there
please refer to the topic directly. Both fox news and News Max have had to run segments saying they have absolutely no evidence that either of these companies are, in any way, involved in or connected to fraud.
Watch the video please. (the 1st 1:50 specifically).
So both fox and news max now publicly acknowledge they were spreading conspiracy theories with absolutely no evidence.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
lol they finally managed to prove a case of a dead person voting, and it was a trump voter. Not the smoking gun of widespread fraud they were looking for.
Created:
Posted in:
Over the weekend both fox news and news max ran segments admitting that there is no evidence that dominion voting systems or smartmatic were used in or involved in any type of fraud. They had to do this because those companies are going to sue them for slander if they don't since there is no evidence any of this is true.
I had trouble finding a clip that was just the segment so here is one where there is also a bunch of analysis stuff after it which i didn't watch and don't know what's in it. I only intend for people to be able to see the 1st 1:50 of the video.
So, now that the people pushing the conspiracy theories are openly admitting that they are all conspiracy theories that there is no evidence for, do people still believe this nonsense?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I've been trained for people like you.
lol i wasn't aware that just lying and refusing to provide evidence for things required "training"
You dodged every question I asked you hypocrite.
more lies. I responded to the relevant ones.
Your silly liberal belief that you decide what's relevant and what questions should be asked will suffer with me.
lol, your silly completely lacking beliefs have no idea what is relevant.
no, your are the guy who spreads misinformation and baseless rumors on the internet.And you're the SJW that's gonna correct that?
I can't prevent you spreading misinformation. I can however point out that is what you are doing.
You didn't ask me to back up anything moron. You told me not to ask questions. That is fascist.
I asked if you had any evidence to back up the conspiracy theory you were spreading. You said you don't. see, I asked you if you could back it up. You couldn't. Now you are screaming and crying that you need to be allowed to spread lies without having it called out.
I was the one attempting to validate information. You just wanted me to hush.
you validate information with research, not on a forum. Go do research and find out if you are right. If you are, come back and share it and we can talk about it. Until then you are just shamelessly spreading information which is very likely false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You really didn't respond to what I said. I said the US tax rates are not high compared to other 1st world countries. I said the tax rates in the US have been falling for decades.
You responded by talking about tax rates from over 100 years ago. This isn't a response to anything I said. in 1913 the government wasn't enforcing safety standards. There were barely any roads to maintain. There was little to no safety net preventing people from starving to death. There are countless things that the government does that we rely on today that they (and no one else) was doing back then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The regressive tax system punishes people who do well so that they can buy votes from the people who are in the lower half of the income strata.
you don't seem to know what a regressive tax system means. It means charging a uniform amount to everyone so that it hits poor people harder. IE, charging a flat tax of $20 to everyone is regressive because that $20 is a larger percentage of the income of a poor person than of a rich person.
An income tax is, by definition, not regressive.
They target the upper 5% and middle 30% so that they can brag on not charging the lower 49% anything.
no, taxes are higher on the people who earn the most money, ie the people who can afford to pay more. Everyone who lives into a society needs to pay into maintaining and improving that society. if you are a billionaire you can afford to pay in alot more than people making minimum wage. Billionaires also get alot more out of government programs. for example they earn their profits subsidized by government services (an educated workforce, publicly funded roads etc).
Politicians like to power grab - it would probably only take 10–15% of the current tax revenue to completely balance the budget and do EVERYTHING that the government SHOULD be doing for the American citizens.
i'm guessing that when you say everything the government should be doing, what you mean is doing absolutely nothing to help anyone but the rich.
However, politicians have created many times as many services as the government should be doing all in the interest of buying votes.
if you want to see how that works out, look at how people lived in the 1800's. Government didn't offer any of those services you hate. And people starved to death, were maimed and killed because corporations could treat people how they want etc. It was a horrific period to be a worker. And that is what you are advocating for returning to.
This is how it has been going for the last 40+ years. This is exactly why we pay drastically higher taxes than normal and why we have little to show for our taxes.\
higher than normal? The US has fairly low effective tax rates for a 1st world country. What exactly is a "normal" tax rate? Because the tax rate on both the wealthy and corporations in the US has been falling for decades.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You're one of those dweebs who make long goodbyes aren't you?
no, you just keep replying and lying so I respond to point out your lies. Stop responding with lies and we can end this.
You dodged every question I asked you hypocrite.
nope, just the ones that were unrelated since it is counter productive letting you side track a conversation.
Your silly liberal belief that you decide what's relevant and what questions should be asked will suffer with me.
we were discussing a specific topic. you brought up stuff that wasn't related to that topic. That has nothing to do with "liberal beliefs", just basic logic.
Lol! I told you several times to take your fascism and go jump off a bridge. You mistook me for some Dweeb terrified of PC violations. I'm not that guy.
no, your are the guy who spreads misinformation and baseless rumors on the internet. When you get called out on it you cry about fascism and how anyone who asks you to back up your bullshit with actual facts is a fascist.
You assumed I was spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories on the internet.
you have admitted that you were spreading shit that you have absolutely no supporting evidence for. I'm not assuming anything. you have admitted to it.
I was the one attempting to validate information. You just wanted me to hush.
validating information is done with research. not by spreading rumors on a forum. I understand that you are unfamiliar with the concept of actually researching things before you spread them, but it is something you should work on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because it's your way of justifying a sin tax on a person that produces too much and doesn't spend enough.
what? when did I advocate a sin tax? we are talking about corporate and income taxes. That has nothing to do with "sin". I have no idea why you are responding to things i did not say.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You dodged every question I asked you hypocrite.
your questions were mostly off topic and dumb. I answered the ones that were in any way relevant to this conversation.
Lol! I told you several times to take your fascism and go jump off a bridge. You mistook me for some Dweeb terrified of PC violations. I'm not that guy.
I asked you why you were spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories on the internet. You responded by calling any attempt to validate information as fascism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Degentrification is a regressive policy.
i have no idea why you think gentrification is related to cooperate and income tax rates. This conversation had nothing to do with gentrification so i have no idea why you brought it up.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you say racist stuff on a street corner, people can walk away. If you say racist stuff online, people can walk away ie go somewhere else.
the better analogy would be that saying on a website is like saying it in someone else's home or business. they are well within their rights to tell you to get the hell out if you start spewing racist bullshit.
If it is true, then people with those names should change their name to something western.
lol what? your argument is that if people are racist, then the target of the racism just needs to change everything about themselves to avoid being different...
Besides the fact that most minorities have at least 1 European name(out of first name, last name), anyone who feels victimized because of their name is free to legally change their name to something that they think will give them a better job.
wow.... so basically you're saying that the real reason people are the targets of racism is because they don't change themselves to conform to the expectations of the racists? and this doesn't seem really racist and stupid to you?
The solution, if this problem exists, is certainly not racial reparations as this costs an insane amount of money, it keeps minorities dependent on government handouts, which keeps them poor, and it worsens race relations.
I didn't mention reparations. I was just pointing out an indisputable fact that racism exists and that people of other cultures or ethnicities suffer from it even if they do everything right. So trying to paint it as the problem is just "single mothers" is incredibly silly.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
you are just going to continue to spew nonsense fueled by your emotions. There is no point in continuing this with you.
Bottom line, you are spreading conspiracy theories on the internet for which no evidence exists. you then cry about it when i point out that is what you are doing and then try to change the subject.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Please stop being stupid. I did not say I believed it. I said I did not know if it was true, and I had no reason as yet to believe or deny it. How is it not true? I tell you I don't believe it and you use your magic 8-ball to find the truth?
I already explained this. It is an internet rumor with no evidence. This is a very good reason to not believe it. If it is a rumor on the internet and doesn't have any evidence, as rule, don't believe it.
it is an internet rumor with no evidence. That is a very good reason not to believe it.Which is why I said I didn't believe it genius.
Then why are you continuing to spread something that is very likely not true?
What happens on Jan 12th?
not totally sure what you are referring to. Biden has already been legally confirmed as the winner.
The Mueller report found no collusion with Russia.
no. it found they colluded with lots of russians. Just nothing criminal.
You just listed them shemp. The Mueller report found no collusion with Russia.
that is a lie.
The Senate quashed the bogus impeachment
they blocked it based on partisan grounds. How does that matter?
Biden is now listed in a criminal indictment in
lol no. but trump is. You remember when michael cohen went to jail and trump was listed as a co-conspirator they couldn't charge? That protection ends in january.
I notice you stay away from Kavenaugh. Are you ashamed of your hypocrisy in that case?
I didn't spread conspiracies' about kavenaugh. I didn't answer it because it didn't make sense.
Facts do not care about your feelings Karen.
true. and you have no facts whatsoever. your point is all feeling, no fact.... karen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
In other words, you have no evidence that anything you're saying is accurate and that I should just blindly follow what some random dude says on the internet? Suuuure, how about I look at the other people who actually provided evidence to back their claims up.
he also wants you to spend a bunch of time researching his point to try to disprove the crap he made up. then when you do, he will move the goalpost on you and say you are wrong and try to make you do it again. I've been down this rabbit whole with sadolite before.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Please stop being stupid. I did not say I believed it. I said I did not know if it was true, and I had no reason as yet to believe or deny it.
you keep saying that, but that isn't true. it is an internet rumor with no evidence. That is a very good reason not to believe it.
You call it a conspiracy theory. But you aren't anyone's standard. I remember you said no one had said Hunter Biden had committed any crime, yet he was under federal investigation.
ok. and that investigation has yet to say that he has committed a crime. So i am correct. No one has said hunter has committed a crime.
You heard a thing that has no basis in reality as far as you know and you are proceeding to spread it.Sorry Adolph, I live in a country that honors free speech.
lol you are spreading baseless rumors, not fighting for rights. Calm yourself.
Shit like that is why so many people think there was fraud in the election, even though no one can find any evidence.Like no one could find any crime Hunter Biden had done? Being obtuse to the evidence doesn't make it disappear.
there has been over 50 lawsuits now as well as investigations by multiple law enforcement agencies and virtually all cases were thrown out or withdrawn because there was no evidence. I am not making it disappear, it doesn't exist. Or if it does, no one has found it.
It's the 20th of December and Biden is still not confirmed, maybe the issue is your eyesight and not the visibility of the evidence.
what? yes he has. The states have all certified their results and the electoral college has confirmed Joe Biden. what fantasy world do you live in that those things didn't happen?
You are pathetic. You spent the last 2 years spreading baseless conspiracy theories online about Trump, but all of a sudden, you have integrity?
what conspiracies did i spread exactly? I'm pretty sure most of the stuff I have said about trump has been confirmed. I said he had contacts to russia he lied about, confirmed. I said he was corrupt and trying to use his office to personally profit, confirmed. I said he tried to get a foreign leader to spread misinformation about joe biden, confirmed. So what are these "conspiracy theories" I spread?
And even if I had (which I did not), you think that excuses you spreading bullshit on the internet?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
lol can I be brainwashed when all institutions and even the conservaticenstablihsment are against my ideas
so basically, you are saying that everyone thinks your ideas are crazy and stupid except for con men and crazy conspiracy theorists... Yes, that absolutely means you're brainwashed. Or just nuts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I am trying to convey just how bad the financial future is going to be. Everyone should be hanging politicians from ropes in DC for doing this to our country.
for cutting taxes on the wealthy, absolutely. For far too long both parties have been shills for the rich.
So yes govt spending needs to be drastically cut. PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THERE IS NO MONEY FOR ANYTHING.
this might be the worst possible idea. That is how you trigger a massive recession and potentially a revolution. Basically the problem is that the rich get a pass on taxes and you want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
You wake up piss poor broke with nothing if we continue with 2 trillion dollar deficits every year
Couldn't agree more. taxes on corporations and the wealthy need to be significantly higher and military spending needs to be massively cut.
Created: