Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You have no constitutional right to have sex with anyone
I never said you did. can you point the part of the constitution that says you have the right to not wear a mask?
es I would be negligent in spreading the virus if it is proved that I have it. You all seem to think no one or the law has to prove anything anymore. Just make some accusation or that you might do something and your guilty as charged.
this isn't about criminal liability. Your argument seems to be that no one should have to take any precautions until they are proven to have the virus. but at that point it is WAY too late and you have already infected a bunch of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
As long as I have to pay for something, I should get a say in it.
you do get a say it in. It is called a vote. That hasn't changed.
But I’m more concerned with the hypocrisy here. Why don’t we shut down every business and force people to wear masks during flu season? You could be killing people with that. At what mortality rate does the government get the right to be so authoritarian?
the fact that covid is like 10x deadlier than the flu. Covid is much more dangerous than the flu, hence it needs a much stronger response. I don't see why this is confusing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It's not reasonable to force people and violate their rights, healthy until proven ill.
Why? why is your right to comfort more important than other people's right to live?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But sex without condoms affects me. I have to either pay for their children if they can’t afford them or I have to pay for them to murder their baby via abortion. So I SHOULD have a say in what they are doing since it adversely affects me.
no, not really. I mean a few pennies of your taxes might be used. You could argue that is an affect, but it is so negligible as to be practically non existent.
Plus the whole STD spreading thing....
true, STDs do spread. But they spread much more slowly and much more predictably than covid. If you don't want to catch an STD, you just don't have sex, or use protection. Problem solved. There is no such method to protect yourself from Covid. Therefore more direct measures to control it's spread are required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you know that with 100% accuracy? Especially when 2 maskless people cross by on a public street.
it seems like the opposite is the better question. How could you possibly know that everyone around you consents to being infected with covid?
Do the constitutional liberties of 99% of the population end where the fears of the 1% begin?
two things
1) it is much, much, much more than the fears of the 1%. This desease affects everyone and could easily kill alot of people.
2) It depends on what those liberties are and what you are beings asked to give up. If you are being asked to sacrifice your life, then that is a serious request. If you are being asked to take the most basic safety precautions imaginable, then that is not an issue at all in my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then what is stopping the government from outlawing sex without condoms?
That is a consensual act by both parties. If you are choosing to have sex without a condom, you are knowingly taking the risk. But if you choose not to wear a mask, you are endangering everyone around you. Those people are not consenting to take that risk.
Additionally, STDs spread slowly. They require sexual contact in order to spread. The risk of a pandemic of STDs is pretty low. Covid on the other hand spreads very easily and quickly. Even if you did have consent from everyone around you to not wear a mask, those people in turn would endanger everyone around them, and so on and so on. It is a threat that can get out of control and cause massive damage in a short amount of time. So the threat to society is much higher than with STDs.
Created:
Posted in:
There is definitely a cultural aspect to it. If you can put rules in place that people will follow, you can have a nuanced response that is effective. However people like trump have turned what should be a very simple and easy preventative measure (wearing a mask) into a political issue. They see being asked to take even the tiniest of preventative measures as an all out attack on their rights. To them, hundreds of thousands of dead people is a small price to pay for "freedom".
Sorry this isn't directed at you as you still have me blocked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if someone isn't infected how could they be arrested? right to privacy, HIPAA laws etc how would anyone know?
but this is exactly the point. The person cannot be certain whether they have covid or not. If we are only allowed to insist on masks for people who have been confirmed to have covid, then containment becomes impossible because lots of people can spread it without knowing they have it.
Wearing a mask is a reasonable requirement to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives. Especially since there is no way we could identify sick people and get a mask onto them before they infect others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Also prove I am endangering anyone's life. Your claims of "I might be" are as worthless as two tits on a hog.
I don't even know what you are asking for. If you got covid, you can spread it without being aware you have it. So if you caught it and spoke to someone without a mask, you could infect them. Therefore by not wearing a mask you are endangering everyone around you. There is no way for you to know you are spreading it until it is too late.
Bottom line is you claim moral superiority and because you do my constitutional rights mean nothing to you. So don't you ever lecture anyone about how you have constitutional rights in the future for any reason.
this is just sad. It is a mask. It is not some horrible, obtrusive thing. you aren't being asked to give up a single thing. You are being asked to do the most basic preventative measures possible and you are whining about how it violates your rights. You think your right to be comfortable is more important than literally millions of lives. It is disturbing.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't care what Joe Biden is against.
clearly you don't. You are pretending like voting for joe biden is a vote for all those other things when it very clearly is not. You don't care what joe biden is for or against because you are trying to lie and fear monger.
Since Joe Biden will not be running the show, the people who are will hold a figurative gun to his head to sign legislation.
ok, but the people the people he has been indicating he would pick to "run the show" are the exact same right leaning assholes as before. There is no indication they have any intention of doing virtually anything progressive.
Who's a Marxist? Sanders. Occasional Cortex, and her Squid Band.
Sanders definitely isn't a marxist. AOC is nowhere near a marxist.
Kammie Harris. Mama Pelostomy., and a few other idiots.
Are you kidding? Harris and Pelosi are actually right leaning. They pander on social issues, but their economic policy is basically your standard republican platform.
Never read the Communist Manifesto, did you? Let alone the Constitution of the United States.
I'm not sure you know what communism or marxism actually are. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a marxist.
explain to me what pelosi or harris have done that is marxist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I am aware of this ruling. No where in the constitution does it say I am responsible for the health and well being of others. If am going to be forced at gun point to do so I want to be compensated for my losses.
Why would you think that? There are lots of laws that do that already. For example, you cannot exceed the maximum posted speed limit. This is done because if people speed it puts other people's lives in danger. But obeying that law could cost you money. However, no one is going to compensate you for it. You must obey that law or suffer the consequences for the good of society.
The idea that you should be allowed to endanger other people's lives and that it is somehow immoral to create laws to protect people is silly.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
. Don't be an idiot. You already want to have free higher education, and medicare for all.
lol you know joe biden has sworn to oppose those things right?
Now add your Green New Deal, which estimates are anywhere from $7T over ten years, to $30T over ten years.
joe biden is against that too.
Who's really your Marxist overlord? You don't know, do you?
there are no marxists in the US government. The furthest left politicians would be centrists in most European countries. And they very much are not marxists. Does this fear mongering and outright lies really work on people?
Created:
Posted in:
I actually agree with the right-wing on this only insofar as to blackmail every citizen when just going for a stroll down a street with noone nearby, to wear a mask is simply ridiculous.
ok, but how many people can truly stay that way? People are going to walk by you on the sidewalk. And how would you be able to tell that people are taking the proper precautions when they are near people? You've seen what people sadolite think. They think that they don't have to take any precautions under any circumstances. They believe their comfort is more important than other peoples lives. If you tell them it's fine to walk around without a mask, they will do it. And they will jeopardize lives and get people killed.
I agree that a nuanced plan would be a good idea if you could trust people to actually follow it. But people like sadolite make that impossible. You need an ironclad rule to get it through their head. If you don't they will ignore it and kill people. This way the rule is simple. If you are in public, wear a mask. It makes enforcement much easier than trusting people to use the mask when they need to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Any mask that does not filter corna virus does not control its spread, absolute scientific fact.
you clearly don't understand the point. If you have corona virus the tiny particles of spit that come out of you when you speak, or cough or even breathe heavily will carry the virus. You are aerosolizing it. The point of the mask is to prevent that from happening. And it will do that.
If I am going to be accused of spreading a virus by not wearing a mask you must prove that I am. You cant make accusations based on maybes and might be. The law is clear.
We can't prove a drunk driver is going to hit anyone. He might make it home safely 100 times in a row. But that doesn't mean we can't enforce laws against drunk driving.
If I am to be forced to wear a mask, I want it proved by science and a court of law that I am in fact a carrier and a threat.
At that point it is already too late. That's like saying you only accept that you shouldn't drive drunk after you fail a police breathalyzer. But that will only happen after you have already put other people in danger. If we need to prove you have the virus before you have to take basic precautions, then those precautions become useless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I have no obligation to care if you live or die.
So we should let people drive around drunk? I mean they don't have to care if you live or die. So should they have the choice to endanger other people's lives just because they feel like it? Or should we as a society have the right to decide that some behavior is required for the good and safety of everyone?
I can not control a virus, I do not have access to anything to control it's spread,
you have access to a mask, then also state you have nothing that can control the spread of the virus. Those 2 things are completely contrary. You have access to tools to help control the virus. You just don't want to use them.
Saying the govt has the authority is like saying I have the authority to take all your shit. You just accept that it does and comply
no, the government has the authority to do that because as a society, we have decided that the government should have that power. If you can get the majority of americans to decide that you should have the power to take people's shit, then you absolutely could.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I didn't create the virus, I cant control a virus,
you didn't create it, but you absolutely can help to control it. By doing things like social distancing and wearing a mask.
I have no obligations what so ever to even care about the virus or if you get it
yes, yes you do. By not wearing a mask you are endangering the lives of everyone around you. You are making a choice to endanger people in the same way that you would be endangering their lives if you decided to drive drunk.
By what authority can you make me give a shit or do anything about an act of god or nature?
by the authority of the US government. It isn't that complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
first, i dont trust the cases numbers, the tests are faulty and there are pletnyl of asympemic people who dont get tested
so you are openly saying that you are choosing what you want to believe completely irrespective of what the available information says? Why would I take you seriously when you admit you are basing your opinions on nothing
eruope got hit harder,period
they have higher population density and had less time prepare. The US has a population that is more spread out (slowing the spread) and had more time to get ready (which trump pretty much didn't do)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the mortality rate going down is good-its not stupid
you aren't getting it. The rate was high because it was spreading among high risk groups but being better contained among the population at large. The death rate is going down because more low risk people are getting it. But way more people are getting sick. That is not a good thing.
these statistics share a much different story, we have lower mortality rates(much lower) than france,uk,spain,,belgium,sweden,etc
Europe got hit harder, earlier. Most of europe now has it under control while the US has cases spiking all across the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, close behind tobacco use (3). An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic
so your point is that because people die from other things, we should allow a deadly disease to run rampant and do nothing to stop it? Even you can't think that makes sense.
This is one of the worst tragedies in US historyum, no, not really.
130,000 people are dead. If you don't think that is a terrible tragedy, then what would it take? I mean 9/11 was nowhere near as deadly or as disruptive as coronavirus. I assume you think 9/11 was also unimportant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you have to have the will and desire to kill someone right? .
that depends on what you are referring to. People are killed by accident with guns all the time.
do you think people who have the will and desire could be a huge problem?
sure, and if you think it is easier to change the fundamental nature of the human species than to restrict access to deadly weapons, I would love to hear your plan for how to do that.
The problem is that if you have that right, then everyone does.nope, minors and criminals don't have that right, certain other exclusions apply as well.
true, but if guns are widely available then criminals will have no problem getting them. They can just get someone to buy one for them, or find a gun dealer willing to do it illegally, or a private sale, or steal etc. There are countless ways for minors and criminals to get guns if they are available to everyone.
we should do away with limits and background checks then since it's completely impossible. if by anyone who wants means, they have to steal or otherwise obtain a gun illegally then I guess so.
why would doing the worst possible thing be a solution? The issue is that restrictions are not working at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Your suggestion is to get rid of all restrictions and just let criminals buy all the guns they want?
those would not be used for self defense generally, not to mention they are probably classified so as you say...Do you see how silly your argument is?
I do, that is my point. Letting people have incredibly dangerous weapons that would be used to kill people is silly. You are making that same argument. IE knives are dangerous, so everyone should be allowed to have literal killing machines. It is a silly argument that you are making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
mortality rate = 3% in usa
lol the mortality rate is going down because the control of covid is so bad. Basically so many young people are being stupid and getting it that they are bringing the mortality rate down. But once the hospitals beds are gone, then the mortality rate spikes as there isn't enough ventilators to go around.
EU on other hand-mortality rate=15-19% and a crashed economywe won
Here is a link of deaths per 100,000 people. The US's rate is lower than 3 EU countries (the ones that ignored Covid and let it get out of control). The US is doing worse than the rest of the world.
And what do you mean "won"? Corona virus is spiking across much of the US. Things are getting much worse, very fast in the US, while most of the rest of the world has a handle on things. The absolutely terrible response is guaranteeing that things aren't getting back to normal any time soon. The economic impact of this is going to go on and on and on because people can't do simple things like wear a mask and social distancing.
Also, 130,000 people are dead from this. That is more than died in WW 1, more than double the number that died in vietnam. This is one of the worst tragedies in US history, but alot of people on the right still seem to think this is "just the flu".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Feel free to think outside of the box to discover what smug Pelosi is actually afraid of.
The left. She is afraid of the left. She doesn't give a shit about the republicans. They trade power back and forth every few years. When the republicans win, she just fund raises saying how terrible republicans are and that people need to give her millions of dollars. She has made a huge amount of money off trump too. The funraising practically writes itself.
What really worries her is the left. If the left starts actually using it's power, she is screwed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm addicted to guns ^_^
no one is addicted to guns. It is physically not possible.
When you buy guns, you need to keep buying ammo.
Only if you are firing them. In the hypothetical scenario where guns are not legal, then no one would be firing them. Because if you did you would get arrested. You can do drugs without people knowing. You can't fire guns without people finding out.
Criminals will always need guns to have an advantage over their victims.Gun-running from foreign countries is a big problem, just like drug-running.
True. it will never be possible to 100% eradicate guns from the hands of criminals. But if you can seriously impede the supply of them, you can force the price of them way up. therefore putting them out of the price range of most criminals. Organized crime will likely still find ways, but your average criminals won't be able to get them.
Therefore, arm people to defend themselves. "When seconds count, the police are minutes away" and all that.Simple as.
civilians are not police. Police require significant training in how to use their firearms responsibly. Expecting random civilians to stop crime is how it was dealt with in the 1800's and crime was rampant.
Body camera footage. Police car video.
and the camera was mysteriously off, or pointed in the wrong direction, or the footage went missing etc. These tools are helpful, but only if the people in charge of those tools intend them to be used correctly. If the people in charge of those tools are ok with cops abusing people, then those tools are useless.
Hm.... cops dislike people because they are attacked and harassed by them. Imagine that.Such vIrTuOuS people striking back at the only people keeping their neighborhood from looking like Zimbabwe.
Ok, so you understand that cops get upset when they are abused and you are fine with that. But when black people are abused by cops you think they should have just submitted to the abuse by the cop? How do you not see the problem with that?
Proof of white guy flipping them off and being fine and black guy flipping them off and getting curb stomped?
there is no footage of "white guy is totally fine because nothing happened". Who films that? I've shown you the footage of a black protester flipping off a cop and they grab him and like 4 of them beat him. You ignored it. So i'm not going to put in the effort to find it again since you completely ignored it last time.
jesus christ, that driver damn near killed people. I'm glad he was arrested. But if you can't see why those people would be pissed after that guy almost ran them down then I don't think we watched the same video.
I'm not sure if you are just not listening to me or if you consider rioting and looting to be a valid form of "fighting for the rights of black people", but that sounds like a whole lot of foolishness to me.
the problem is that you are parroting back fox news bullshit. You see rioters and think that is the same thing as protesters. It isn't. They are largely separate groups. There are people protesting, and then there are people rioting.
That is a 100% lie. Gun shops require you to pass a background check to legally own a gun. It is quite obvious that you have never bought a gun before.
Here you go. Some common and easy ways criminals can get guns from a gun shop.
Most of the murders are committed by the very people that make up these mobs, too. Why should the fact that one small group commits most murder prevent the vast majority of gun owners from protecting themselves?
I don't even understand why you think that is a good question. I mean you are basically saying, "why should I do anything to prevent crime?". People giving up their guns would help prevent gun crime. It is really simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the right to own lots of guns means there are tons of guns available to commit crimes.false
how do you figure? there are more guns in america than there are people. Having the country that saturated in killing machines makes them very easy to get.
it might not be your guns that commit the crimes.so then you shouldn't have a problem of me owning them.
If we were talking about one specific person, then maybe you would have a point. The problem is that if you have that right, then everyone does. And if everyone does then you end up with more guns on the streets than there are people.
lax laws and punishment can/could be addressed and has nothing to do with my rights.
true. but the fact that there are guns everywhere that are readily available to anyone who wants one makes keeping guns out of the hands of criminals completely impossible.
therefore your rights are killing people every single day.is the same true for those that own knives, hammers etc?
This is that same sad, tired arguement. IE people will have access to a less deadly weapons, so we should let people have more deadly weapons. Extend it the other direction. IE, there are already guns everywhere, so why not let people have rocket launchers, or nuclear weapons. I mean there's already guns, so what is the difference?
Do you see how silly your argument is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wrong wrong.At the end of the day, you don't get to remove them because people that could replace them get 1 percent in the primary, or get bought off like Bernie did as he supported the status quo. Does Pelosi look scared? Have you seen her showcase her icecream lately?
so your argument is that it is hard to hold politicians accountable, so the solution is to hand power that we have no power over at all? That will solve our problems? That is dumb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s exactly how it works. You say rich people own a shit ton. So if they go we suffer right.
no, that doesn't really make sense.
What makes you think a rich person will continue to invest in a nation where they have to give 60% of their income in taxes.
lots of things. primarily being that the US is the biggest economy in the world. Those people are relying on that market to make that money. if they want to continue to make money they need do business in america. Not to mention that they are US citizens, so that is certainly leverage.
Without rich people a lot of jobs disappear. Recession happens. Govt runs out of sources to borrow money. And just like that economy dies.
ok. but you are painting a fantasy scenario. Rich people can't just pick up everything and leave. the way they make their money requires them to be in america for the most part. It isn't possible for them to just abandon their country en masse, assuming they were so greedy and cowardly as to do do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The day all the rich people hightail themselves out of the nation is the day we go broke forever. Just the way the economy works 🤷♂️
what? no. that is nothing like how the economy works. What would that even mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The government always serves itself before you get to wet your beak.
The short sightedness of this statement is kind of astounding. You say that as if human nature doesn't make this true about literally any situation. You think your boss isn't serving himself 1st? You think the shareholders or board of directors of that company aren't serving themselves 1st?
The government is flawed. No one would argue otherwise. But at the end of the day the govnerment has to fear us because we have the votes to remove them. So if they aren't helping us we can remove them. No one else has to fear you. Your boss isn't going to give a shit. You're losing your house because your wages are too low? too fucking bad.
Your choices are to trust in the government (people you can hold accountable if they fuck up) or trust in millionaires who are actively trying to screw you over and you have no power over at all. If you want to bet on the millionaires treating you better, than that is sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Is that why they'll argue against all lives matter?
1) what do you think you are showing me? Point #1 is them saying that they are not arguing that only black lives matter. Why are you presenting evidence that disproves your idea?
2) The people who say "all lives matter" in this specific context are usually right wingers or racists (or both). If someone tells you their house is on fire and they want your help putting out the fire and you respond with "well what about my house, isn't it just as important as yours?" when your house is not on fire, then you are probably an idiot.
Considering that the fetus, actually from the moment of conception when two gametes become a zygote, the DNA says human, aznd specifically, the DNA of a black zygote says black skin, and not anything else. "Human," as in people.
cancer has human DNA too, it doesn't make it a person. Being a person is much more than DNA.
Of course you don't see hypocrisy. You're not looking.
no, i don't see hypocrisy because I'm not blinded by whatever prejudice is making you see it where it doesn't exist. You have yet to show me any hypocrisy but insist it is there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Something else I find humorous, I have 15 years till social security kicks in, so I would only have to pay for "free stuffs" for 15 years.These college kids will be paying for "free stuffs" for 45 years, lol.
This kind of thinking might make sense if our economy wasn't so badly designed. The alternative to government services is not more money in your pocket. It is more money in billionaire's pockets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So you can’t vote. Glad to know!
I can't prevent you from drawing pointless conclusions. But I'm not providing you with details about myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As long as BLM's radical progressive ideology continues to maintain that black lives matter, as if other lives do not
It has literally never done that. The point is that black lives matter, full stop. They are not saying that other lives do not matter.
simultaneously support abortion when 36% to 40% of abortions performed in the U.S.* are by black adults and minors, the disconnect is glaring at the BLM attitude.
this doesn't even make sense. Black lives matter. Fetuses are not people. Therefore they are not black lives.
Eventually, BLM will collapse under the weight of its hypocrisy.
I have yet to see any hypocrisy in their position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
How about this, will you be able to vote this November?
I see no value in giving you details about myself. I can see no way that you would use that information in a constructive way. At best you would ignore it. At worst you would try to find a way to use it to slander, demean or cause me harm. So i have no interest in providing you with information about myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
U gonna answer or no?
no, not planning on it. As a rule I don;t give out info about myself online.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
who organized the protests?
no one person organized the protests. They were organized by lots of people and lots of different groups.
who decides who will speak to the media?
no one really. I mean the media talks to random people at these protests all the time.
it is a specific group, obviously
ok, in an extremely narrow sense, sure. They are a group. But it is a massive movement. There is very little control that the leaders of BLM have over what the massive number of people in the movement do. So pretending like there are people who are in charge of BLM is a complete joke. It is a massive movement with millions of supporters, not a book club.
It is organized, their own website shows that, just because there are splinter groups claiming an association doesn't prove it's not organized.
There are people who founded it that are leadership figures. however they have virtually no control over what the movement as a whole does or says.
anyone speaking out against blm are called uncle tom, house nigger etc, who would dare publicly denounce their violence?
Because BLM is a movement. It goes way, way beyond the people who trademarked that name. BLM is made up of millions of supporters, most of whom wouldn't even know who the "leaders" are. So saying you are against BLM is a bit like saying you are against black people. Or at least you are against anyone fighting for black people to have rights.
he 3 black children killed in Chicago this past weekend is nothing new, more black people are killed on a given weekend in Chicago than are unjustified killed by police in a year.
I have no idea why you think that is related to what we are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
My right does not give anyone the right to break the law. My rights do not commit crimes.
no. but the right to own lots of guns means there are tons of guns available to commit crimes. It is irresponsible to allow so many guns to float around.
Think of this this way. Let's say we legalized average citizens owning plutonium. We decide that every citizen has a right to it. But people keep setting off atomic weapons. It might not be your plutonium that is used, but you owning it is a threat to everyone else. Similarly, it might not be your guns that commit the crimes. But the gun laws being lax and allowing everyone to have them means that it is virtually guaranteed that criminals can get them really easily.
therefore your rights are killing people every single day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
my owning something isn't anyone's business, nor does it affect anyone
lol of course it is other people's business. It affects everyone. Your "right" to own it is killing thousands upon thousands of people.
thousands of people died so I have the right to protect myself.
everyone has the right to defend themselves. But we as a society get to set reasonable limits on how to do that. Obviously we can have citizens walking around with machine guns and grenades all the time. there already are limits on what weapons are and are not acceptable for people to own. But those limits are just too high.
The racism is not systemic.
it is.
you mean by criminals, I agree criminals shouldn't commit crimes.
I meant by police. But since they use them in illegal ways, many of them are both.
naw no point just pointing out your silly hyperbole.
well you failed spectacularly then because you ended up saying nothing at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Every Democrat in the 2020 primary willing to stand up to the deepstate got 1 percent support from Democrat supporters.
What does that even mean? What exactly is a "deepstate"? How would you "stand up to" it?
Democrat voters just are not willing or able to change.
What are you talking about? Did you miss the millions of people protesting across the country? The people want change. And I agree that the dem establishment doesn't want to give it to them. But that is why we need people like AOC, Bernie Sanders etc to primary them and get real change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
then how did companies like amazon donate millions to them?
A quick google search would have answered your question.
Amazon announced June 3 that it will donate a total of $10 million USD to several organizations focusing on social justice and the betterment of African American lives.
According to a statement, the recipients of the donation are the ACLU Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, Equal Justice Initiative, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NAACP, National Bar Association, National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Urban League, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, UNCF (United Negro College Fund) and Year Up. The organizations were selected with the help of Amazon’s Black Employee Network (BEN) and combat “systemic racism through the legal system as well as those dedicated to expanding educational and economic opportunity for Black communities.”
According to a statement, the recipients of the donation are the ACLU Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, Equal Justice Initiative, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NAACP, National Bar Association, National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Urban League, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, UNCF (United Negro College Fund) and Year Up. The organizations were selected with the help of Amazon’s Black Employee Network (BEN) and combat “systemic racism through the legal system as well as those dedicated to expanding educational and economic opportunity for Black communities.”
hateful people claiming to represent them give interviews and no one rebutts their claims of who they are, what they represent.....
1) thats like me pointing to 1 KKK member and saying "not every conservative denounces that KKK member, so all conservatives are KKK members". It is obviously bullshit. BLM is a diverse movement made up of tons of completely unrelated groups and people. Expecting them to be able to denounce every jackass that does something stupid is completely unfair and is a sad attempt to smear them.
2) how would you know if they rebutt those claims? As far as I know you only watch far right wing news sources which wouldn't give anyone from BLM a fair interview assuming it let them speak at all. You are pretending that because you didn't hear people say something that they didn't say it.
looks pretty specific with a leadership to me.
lol BLM has literally millions of people out protesting across the country. You think that 3 people who started a group are directly controlling that? BLM does have people who are leaders. But it is a vast and diverse movement. It is not something that can be controlled and organized from a central source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's literally what Democrats have done for 30 years and plan to do for the next 30 years. Defund the police lol...like Democrats haven't been defunding and ordering them to stand down for YEARS.
I know. Because the establishment dems are no different than republicans on this issue. The powerful people running both parties agree and like the systemically racist police system.
Meanwhile, in the elite lofty air of the multi-millionaire Democrat elites living the good life in America's version of the Kremlin...
again, I don't disagree. The democratic establishment are also corrupt. But don't pretend like the republicans aren't also SUPER corrupt. I think the establishment dems need to be primaried hard from the left to get some actual change. There really is no chance of change otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you've decided that the potential to me and my loved ones is miniscule so I can't have a gun? do you wear a seatbelt even though an accident so bad that a seatbelt would save your life is so miniscule?'
your argument is critically flawed. You wearing a seatbelt isn't a risk to anyone else. It has no downside. You owning guns very much does have downsides. thousands upon thousands of people are dying so that you can keep that gun and likely never use it to protect yourself. You are essentially letting huge numbers of people die for your own hypothetical fantasy.
or all the posts and discussion of systemic racism, not one person is able to point to a racist system or give an examplecan you list the non deadly weapons for us?
Any weapons is deadly when wielded by someone who has complete disdain for the people he is supposed to be protecting. It doesn't matter how many new weapons we buy, how much sensitivity training you do. The racism is systemic. Messing around the edges isn't going to cut it.
most anything used as a weapon has a potential to cause death right? but it's only a deadly weapon if it actually does cause a death, otherwise it's just a weapon?
i'm guessing you have a point, but you didn't actually make it. Is it that any weapon is deadly, therefore we should just let people have super deadly weapons? Maybe we should all walk around with flame throwers and grenades. that'll make us all safe right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m referring to police brutality that seems to happen in Democratic cities. Democrats are the mayors and control the city council. Nothing has happened.
fair point. Democrats are certainly also not doing nearly enough to address this issue. But I also argue that most establishment dems need to be forced out too. Many of them are corrupt, right wing hacks who pay lip service to progressive social issues to pretend they are anything other than what they are, republicans.
You won’t know if Republican policies work because you’ve never tried it.
that's like saying I haven't tried dousing myself in gasoline and lighting a match, so I can't know what would happen. making the rich richer is exactly what both democratic and republican policy has been for decades. We know what it does.
Only fools continue to vote for failed Democratic policies at the local level.
I agree. We need actually progressive policies and to get rid of the ridiculous right wing policies both parties have been pushing for decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Wtf can Republicans do lmao. If people vote Republican then they could. But Democrats come every 4 years promising shit and then do nothing.
Republicans do everything they possibly can do block and undermine gun control. You whine that the democrats don't do anything while the republicans actively work to make sure nothing gets done.
here’s a reason why the top 20 cities with the most crime are Democrats. Democrats haven’t done shit and won’t do shit
that would be because most major cities end up voting democrat. because as education levels rise and population density increases, people realize that republican policies are complete shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
To clarify, You think the police system is intentionally systemically racist?
Depends on what you mean by intentionally.
The practices and philosophy of the police is not something that has radically changed in recent years. It has grown over the course of decades and centuries. For much of that history(and arguably to this day), the police have been used as a tool to suppress people.
One of the earliest forms of policing in the US were slave patrols. While these officially ended after the civil war, you saw the rise of Jim Crow laws where the police continued to be used to segregate and subjugate black people.
Today the culture of the police still sort of in this mind set. They see themselves as above the law since they are the enforcers of it. And in alot of ways they really are. Cops look after their own, so few get charged when they break the law and alot of them win on appeal anyway and get their jobs back. They have an insular culture that protects corruption and abusive behavior, thus perpetuating it. They hear all of the dog whistle racism from politicians and know that they can get away with acting on it.
So to loop back to your question. I don't think there is a cabal of men designing the police to be racist. But I think that a lot of racist men over the years designed police procedures and policy. Those men created a culture that protects racists from punishment and ensures that the culture perpetuates itself. And with the militarization of the police since 9/11 (ie giving them tanks, armor etc from military surplus) this has only intensified the problem.
So the design is systemically racist. Those design choices were intentional. But no one person or group of people specifically designed the entire system to be racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which is nowhere near as big as a problem as the 3 generations of monopolistic systemic Democrat rule in urban centers of violence.
lol you say that as if republicans would have done anything any better. I'm not sure how cutting services and funneling cash into the hands of the rich really helps with crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
criminals will always exist and their mindset just doesnt go away when guns arent there
absolutely. Crime will still exist without guns. But alot less people will be dead.
knives are used a lot yet there will always be knives
sure. But alot less people will be dead. It's alot harder to kill people with a knife than it is with a gun. Also, you could extend this argument in the other direction. IE well there are already guns so why should people have belt fed machine guns. Or grenade launchers. Or nuclear weapons. The idea that just because there are less dangerous weapons people could use, we should allow them to have more dangerous ones, is dumb.
they are no legal loopholes as the majority of criminals get their guns through non registered sales, there is no gun show loophole or anything like that
lol you described a massive loop hole (non registered sales) then go on to say there are no loopholes. Do you read the things you write?
banning alcholol didnt stop the production of it, did it
no, for the same reasons i described with the war on drugs in comment 28. The 2 things are not particularly similar or comparable.
the problem is 100% culture.
culture is certainly part of it. But there is also systemic racism, massive proliferation of deadly weapons and a seriously flawed economic structure where the rich get richer and the poor get crushed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
sure, how can you tell they just want your stuff and not kill,rape, beat etc? I'd really love to know how to do that.
in some cases that might happen. And in those cases the person will need to defend themselves. But those are, by far, the minority of cases. Compared to the harm guns cause the potential good is minuscule.
certainly agree with that, which could be/have been done anytime in the last 50+ years? but hasn't?
the problem is that there are guns everywhere. It does no good to have stiff penalties for a product that is literally everywhere. In order for it to be effective you also have to get the massive glut of guns out of the market. Strict punishment on it's own is not an effective solution.
do you favor punishing people, putting them in jail for victimless crimes?
But it isn't victimless crime. People die every single day from guns in america. owning those guns is putting lives in danger. It is killing people. Assuming enough political courage can be found to address the issue properly, then people who undermine or break this law are actively trying to get people killed. They will choose to not look at it that way, but that is what they are doing.
the problem is 100% culture.
Culture is certainly a big part of it. But the guns themselves are a huge problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let me stop you right there. One word. Detroit. Systemically run into the ground for three generations by Democrats and ONLY Democrats.
ok. but there is literally no way for detroit to get guns under control. No matter what they do, there will always be a steady stream of guns flowing in from outside the city. In order for detroit, or any other city, to get guns under control there needs to be national policy.
Democrats have NEVER "taxed the rich" otherwise, every celebrity in Hollywood and every woke Athlete would be living in a community approved housing unit. 50 years of empty promises to poor people is the Democrat party.
I partially agree with you. For the past few decades the democrats have been pushing economically right wing policies that have caused damage. They decided that as long as they were less terrible than the republicans, then the left would have to vote for them. So they just had to try to take right wing voters away from the republicans. It worked electorally but screwed the country with terrible right wing policy. But the solution to bad, right wing policy is not worse right wing policy from the republicans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
nope, they have alienated anyone on the fence with their violence and hardened those not sympathetic even more.
what? no they haven't. Black lives matter had nothing to do with looting or rioting. The only people who believe that are idiots who watch fox news and believe the stream of lies that comes out of them. But those people are mostly a lost cause anyway. Those are the same people who would scream "White Power" at protesters.
the inconsistency and down right contra actions to their supposed objectives has caused them to lose a great deal of support and turned people against them.
what inconsistency?
pretty good example are the blm supporters who had to pull guns to protect their home, or the reporter who supported blm until he was murdered by someone shooting into the crowd. the violence speaks pretty loudly as does the silence denouncing the violence.
I have no idea what you are talking about. But BLM isn't a specific group with a leader. Lots of people in the BLM movement denounce violence all the time. But right wing people will still come out and pretend like the movement is violent and doesn't denounce violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not only that, but New York also attempted a ban on criminal guns with stop and frisk, and it was struck down by the ACLU.
because they were stopping people for no reason and subjecting them to searches without any cause. Additionally, they were targeting minorities with this policy. You don't need to use racist abusive tactics to do gun control.
There's not a single damn gun ban plan targetting criminals HB can propose that ACLU won't similarly strike down with the force of the radical left mob.
Why would they? The reason they fought stop and frisk is because it was really illegal. The police do not have the authority to forcefully search whoever they want without probable cause.
Why do you think there are comparatively so so many more armed criminals in Democrat-run cities?
Cities tend to be democrat run because populations in cities tend to have higher education and/or benefit from lots of government programs. So republican policies of slashing public services to funnel money to the rich directly hurt them.
Since population in cities is so much higher, there is also more money to be made. This attracts criminals. And the more money and the more criminals there are, makes it more likely those criminals will get weapons to protect their criminal enterprises. It is all very straight forward. It has nothing to do with democrat policies.
But again, you are looking at gun control as if who is in charge of a specific city is an important detail. It is not. It doesn't matter what gun control laws a city passes because guns will pour in from the next city or state over. There is no way for a single city or state to make much of a difference. Real change has to be national.
Created: