Multiculturalism

[Conager]

Rob keeps accusing you of being me and his own stupid attack alt Darbhinder , and you keep mentioning him every 4 posts.

You two should realize what the tension between you is all about, and start fvcking each other.

Also, a parroted thought. Do you ever have an original one?

 

[hashtag45]

The funny, yo.

You're now gazing at Que's penis, Luk?

 

[Conager]

You're now gazing at Que's penis, Luk?

Squawk. Hashy wanna cracker?

 

[Emerson40]

It has never occurred to me that quite a few of you are sick'n tired of reading the same irrelevant bullshit that I keep recycling over and over again, like Groundhog day?

We know, you tedious, mimicking attention whore.

We've known since Spring 2015.

 

[Disgustipated]

We know, you tedious, mimicking attention whore.

We've known since Spring 2015.

The lack of self-awareness between the two of them is staggering. You would figure out of all their personalities, they would have given one that gene.

 

[Darbhinder]

I think this is just a great idea I think the two of you should start a thread and that you should engage each other in wildly interesting informative topics with all of the depth that this guy is capable of.

He's obviously very very knowledgeable about everything that he weighs in on. He's giving you some excellent pointers on how to Google for confirmation bias.

I very much look forward to reading these scintillating exchanges.

And you're absolutely right. Your histrionics and his tromping into a room full of strangers stamping his feet and calling everyone else idiots is a clear sign that other people are not recognizing his genius or yours. If only they would.

Are you talking about AJ?

 

[underguy1]

Nice carrying of water for RacistDownSouth. Is there a phrase that you won't repeat eventually? It just seems like you're nothing but a parrot. You pick up these little idioms clips and phrases and repeat them in ways that make no sense. How does engaging a guy who clearly likes to argue amount to running him off the board?

The actual origin of that phrase was Rob saying, "You aren't the first newb I have had to run off teh board." He has since turned it around in what he calls board Jiu-Jitsu where he now claims that I said I would run him off the board when he failed to dissuade me from posting.

He is good at getting the easily impressionable like you to repeat things that he says.

You're a libertarian. Parroting stuff is all you do.

And you haven't engaged in any arguments.

You won't. Because you can't. You don't have the intellect to reason these things out.

See point a.

 

[underguy1]

Because I noticed that you started by being quite polite, and now you're throwing the word "idiot" around quite a bit, which for me is a sign that some of the GB political shenanigans (attack the source instead of engaging in a debate etc.) got on your nerves.

Well, that's because they are idiots. You have to be pretty stupid to be a libertarian in the first place and you can only engage people in a dishonest way to get your talking points across and pretend you actually have an argument.

Their beliefs are stupid, unscientific, anti-mathematical and dangerous. And they can't learn except by rote from their chosen authority figures.

They're the useful idiots of the plutocrats.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They're the useful idiots of the plutocrats.

Libertarians are in control and voting for the plutocratic puppets?

LOL there are all of like 6 of them nation wide.

The DNC/RNC are the clear plutocratic parties, they are the ones in charge selling their power of office to the rich. Not the libertarians, or the greenies or any of the other irrelevant parties.

You're an idiot.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We ridicule and hate that which we fear most...

Rational fears of things like Libertarians, fracking and sound money.

:nods:

 

[Disgustipated]

We ridicule and hate that which we fear most...

Rational fears of things like Libertarians, fracking and sound money.

:nods:

How small does your world have to be to actually believe this horseshit?

 

[Darbhinder]

At least everyone can agree that dishrag is as smart as a samosa fart and smells like one too. It's a start.

 

[underguy1]

We ridicule and hate that which we fear most...

Rational fears of things like Libertarians, fracking and sound money.

:nods:

LOLz.

 

[Bookishleigh]

Your statement contradicts itself, counselor. We have voluminous writings of founding fathers in order to be able to discern intent. Typically though those writings are ignored if they don't fit whatever narrative is desired. By either side.

In very behind on my posts - my meaning was that cannot point blank say, hey, that whole freedom of religion thing or right to bare arms, how far did you intend for that to go? Yes, there are several writings by the founding fathers (such as Jefferson) to guide us; however, the founding fathers likely had no idea we would end up like this. So it is all up for interpretation as to how we apply their original intentions.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Actually they, being students of history and human behavior knew how it would end up which is why Franklin's answer was a Republic, if you can keep it.

 

[Ishmael]

In very behind on my posts - my meaning was that cannot point blank say, hey, that whole freedom of religion thing or right to bare arms, how far did you intend for that to go? Yes, there are several writings by the founding fathers (such as Jefferson) to guide us; however, the founding fathers likely had no idea we would end up like this. So it is all up for interpretation as to how we apply their original intentions.

Actually they, being students of history and human behavior knew how it would end up which is why Franklin's answer was a Republic, if you can keep it.

Further they, universally, would scoff at the notion that it is the governments 'duty' to protect each and every citizen. To the point that should the proclaimer be serious their sanity would be suspect. (The SCOTUS has also ruled that the government has NO such obligation every time the issue has come before the court.) Considering the uniform agreement of the Founders and the SCOTUS I find it difficult to understand how any relatively knowledgeable citizen would even countenance getting rid of the second amendment. It guarantees that you will have at your disposal the only practical means to counter an assailant. Unless of course one feels that waving an injunction in the face of a violent stalker is sufficient to cause them to run screaming in terror.

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

if I had a rocket launcher

I would retaliate

 

[Jennifer]

Orgasms are nice.

 

[Bookishleigh]

Further they, universally, would scoff at the notion that it is the governments 'duty' to protect each and every citizen. To the point that should the proclaimer be serious their sanity would be suspect. (The SCOTUS has also ruled that the government has NO such obligation every time the issue has come before the court.) Considering the uniform agreement of the Founders and the SCOTUS I find it difficult to understand how any relatively knowledgeable citizen would even countenance getting rid of the second amendment. It guarantees that you will have at your disposal the only practical means to counter an assailant. Unless of course one feels that waving an injunction in the face of a violent stalker is sufficient to cause them to run screaming in terror.

Ishmael

I wasn't talking about getting rid of the second amendment. When I joined this conversation, it was about where exactly in the constitution it says there is a requirement for separation between church and state. I am not opposed to the second amendment whatsoever. But you have to agree that those were very different times than what we are facing now and therefore the law is up for interpretation. Whether the interpretation is right, well, that's not my call....

 

[BotanyBoy]

I wasn't talking about getting rid of the second amendment. When I joined this conversation, it was about where exactly in the constitution it says there is a requirement for separation between church and state. I am not opposed to the second amendment whatsoever. But you have to agree that those were very different times than what we are facing now and therefore the law is up for interpretation. Whether the interpretation is right, well, that's not my call....

How is it different with regard to the law?

Do people no longer need to be armed?

 

[Bookishleigh]

How is it different with regard to the law?

Do people no longer need to be armed?

Some argue that the available weapons during that time did not have the same capacity that today's weapons have and that the true intention of the founding fathers therefore does not apply to these newer, higher-powered weapons. During the time of the 2nd Amendment was ratified, individuals were armed with muskets which fired roughly three shots a minute. Today's weapons are more advanced, firing at least that within seconds.

Again, I am not arguing for or against. I see both sides of the argument. I know how to use a couple different types of guns, was trained on them, but I do not have one in my house - my personal decision.

 

[phrodeau]

How is it different with regard to the law?

Do people no longer need to be armed?

People no longer have the tiniest ability to overthrow the US government by strength of arms.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Some argue that the available weapons during that time did not have the same capacity that today's weapons have and that the true intention of the founding fathers therefore does not apply to these newer, higher-powered weapons.

During the time of the 2nd Amendment was ratified, individuals were armed with muskets which fired roughly three shots a minute. Today's weapons are more advanced, firing at least that within seconds.

Ahhh yes, that RIDICULOUS argument.

Again, I am not arguing for or against. I see both sides of the argument. I know how to use a couple different types of guns, was trained on them, but I do not have one in my house - my personal decision.

Oh I know and I'm not holding it to you either because it's fucking retarded and you're smarter than that.

People no longer have the tiniest ability to overthrow the US government by strength of arms.

Maybe not through sheer firepower. But arms are essential.

The John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Department of Homeland Sekurity and the FBI disagree with you about the ability of a citizenry to subvert and shit can a government.

 

[Bookishleigh]

Ahhh yes, that RIDICULOUS argument.

Oh I know and I'm not holding it to you either because it's fucking retarded and you're smarter than that.

I see both sides of the argument though. Do I think the average person needs a gun that can mow down a room full of people in under a minute? No. But until the law changes, it's a person's right to have such a weapon. It's the same thing I say to my anti-abortion friends: Roe v. Wade is the current law governing abortion and until it is overturned, it's a person's right to have one whether you agree with it or not.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I see both sides of the argument though.

I have a hard time with that unless they can accept that they only get 1A rights if it's written by a quill or spoken in the vernacular of the 1700's.

Do I think the average person needs a gun that can mow down a room full of people in under a minute? No.

Problem with that is nobody with that stance can actually articulate exactly what that means.

What size room, how many people are you talking about?

What weapons does that include?

What actual standards do they want in gun control?

Any time I ask them any of that they give you a blank stare like "What chew talkin bout Willis??" and repeat themselves

"well if it can mow down a whole room of people in seconds then it should go"

"So everyting but 1700's muskets?"

"I didn't say that!!"

"Yea you did, you just don't realize it."

"FUCK YOU BUDDY!! YOU NRA TOOL!!!"

And it all goes downhill from there. Just like the 'assault weapons' ban....the people who support it don't even know what the fuck an 'assault weapon' is, but it sounds SCARY!! so they want it banned.

Ask them why an AR-15 should be banned but not all semi auto rifles and they just repeat their MSN talking points, if you don't accept their irrational fears then you're a horrible person and they start treating you as such.

But until the law changes, it's a person's right to have such a weapon. It's the same thing I say to my anti-abortion friends: Roe v. Wade is the current law governing abortion and until it is overturned, it's a person's right to have one whether you agree with it or not.

You're right the law is the law and the law can change. Hell with enough folks on board we can scrap the whole Constitution and write a new one.