|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Sept 21, 2020 12:06:52 GMT -5
About what? That we get to die in the streets without healthcare? That we have to be in debt for most of our lives to go to college? That our standard of living and length of life is lower than almost any other first world country? That Americans work harder, and longer, for less money? That the US has more deaths by guns per capita than the EU? That they have the coronavirus under better control than the US? That their police aren't nearly as militant and brutal as the US's? That the EU is ranked higher in press freedom than the US? That on average, the EU has better internet access than the US? That public transport is better in the EU? Seriously, get out of your "American exceptionalism" bubble and actually have an original thought for once. Its become apparent to me as I've gotten older that for conservatives freedom is defined by how many guns they can own and how much of American history they can choose to disregard. Nothing like the freedom to bear arms in complete and total ignorance. Its the best freedom. All the freedom. So free. I think my favorite irony of that is that their claim as to the purpose of owning so many guns is to fight the gubbmint to prevent it from becoming a tyranny, and then cheer it on when it actually starts to happens.
|
|
|
Post by futurewarcultist on Sept 21, 2020 12:16:00 GMT -5
Nothing gets Europeans on the same page like looking across the ocean and rolling our eyes in exasperation. Nothing like Americans looking across the ocean and realizing how lucky we are. Oh go fuck yourself you fucking cunt.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Sept 21, 2020 12:19:12 GMT -5
We discussed this even back on Dakka. Guns don't just stop tyranny, 1920's Germany had tons of guns, but mostly in the hands of right wing, ex military, militias.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Sept 21, 2020 12:26:29 GMT -5
We discussed this even back on Dakka. Guns don't just stop tyranny, 1920's Germany had tons of guns, but mostly in the hands of right wing, ex military, militias. Oh, of course it doesn't. It's just their excuse that they love to cling to. In reality more guns in the hands of the people has been a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Sept 21, 2020 12:32:33 GMT -5
We discussed this even back on Dakka. Guns don't just stop tyranny, 1920's Germany had tons of guns, but mostly in the hands of right wing, ex military, militias. Oh, of course it doesn't. It's just their excuse that they love to cling to. In reality more guns in the hands of the people has been a bad thing. We all know the myth and talking point about Jews and gun control. It would be funny if it wasn't such horribly perverted reasoning.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Sept 21, 2020 12:51:10 GMT -5
When I saw that the Notorious RBG had passed, I knew Whembles would be back with some bullshit about how it's totally ok for Moscow Mitch to 180 and try to fill the SCotUS seat in an election year, but I didn't think it would be such a weak, wussy excuse. "... ACTUALLY if you look at it TECHNICALLY it's about control of the..." Just drop it, buds. Look yourself in the mirror and embrace the fact that you are a beta cuck. You need a big strong daddy to be your leader and fuck the kind of people you don't like. If the big strong daddy who has been chosen for you is devoid of things like 'consistency', 'decency' and 'integrity', well that's too bad, because the thought of not having a daddy to hurt the bad people is fucking terrifying to you.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 21, 2020 12:51:54 GMT -5
Nothing like Americans looking across the ocean and realizing how lucky we are. Oh go fuck yourself you fucking cunt. Dishing out snark but can't take it? Weak.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 21, 2020 12:53:19 GMT -5
When I saw that the Notorious RBG had passed, I knew Whembles would be back with some bullshit about how it's totally ok for Moscow Mitch to 180 and try to fill the SCotUS seat in an election year, but I didn't think it would be such a weak, wussy excuse. "... ACTUALLY if you look at it TECHNICALLY it's about control of the..." Just drop it, buds. Look yourself in the mirror and embrace the fact that you are a beta cuck. You need a big strong daddy to be your leader and fuck the kind of people you don't like. If the big strong daddy who has been chosen for you is devoid of things like 'consistency', 'decency' and 'integrity', well that's too bad, because the thought of not having a daddy to hurt the bad people is fucking terrifying to you. I look in the mirror everyday buddy, and all I see is how AWESOME I am.
|
|
dusa
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 555
|
Post by dusa on Sept 21, 2020 13:04:08 GMT -5
The GOP and their base have no values to speak of, and they stand for nothing other than power. Any policy arguments or values they put forth only exist to solidify the support of idiots who believe them so that they will continue to hand them power. They don’t care about God, County, the Constitution, the Soldiers, the people, or anything. It’s only power.
It’s the party of greed and selfishness, and their only concern is “what can I gain”. That’s the position of most of their supporters: “fuck you, what’s in it for me.”
That, in the end, is the ultimate reason why K should have never been confirmed: he felt that he was entitled to it, it was hit right to sit on that bench, it was hit fucking turn. Sitting on the court should be an awesome responsibility with a level of power and responsibility that every justice should fear, not a level they should seek and throw a fit over when their demand for that power isn’t met.
|
|
|
Post by futurewarcultist on Sept 21, 2020 13:17:53 GMT -5
Oh go fuck yourself you fucking cunt. Dishing out snark but can't take it? Weak. I don’t see much point in arguing with cunts like you. You don’t argue with the dog shite lying on the ground; you just step around it and be on your way.
|
|
|
Post by mikosann on Sept 21, 2020 13:33:20 GMT -5
Its become apparent to me as I've gotten older that for conservatives freedom is defined by how many guns they can own and how much of American history they can choose to disregard. Nothing like the freedom to bear arms in complete and total ignorance. Its the best freedom. All the freedom. So free. I think my favorite irony of that is that their claim as to the purpose of owning so many guns is to fight the gubbmint to prevent it from becoming a tyranny, and then cheer it on when it actually starts to happens. For some added irony they choose to be ignorant of the fact that the gubbmint actually has tyrannized a group of americans for much of its existence, and they don't even acknowledge that it A) happened way longer than actual slavery and B) that it matters today in a real tangible form, let alone try and understand the anger. So as long as the US isn't exercising tyranny on white christians they are all about it. Its why Obama drove them nuts, I had a guy at my work tell me the day O got elected that I should just give my wallet to the first black person I see. He was worried that the tyranny african americans have faced for 200 years was going to be visited upon him in however minor a way. He believed that, because Obama was black, and he knew the history he chose to disregard everyday. Nevermind that it never came to pass, any attempt at even acknowledging this countrys actual fucking history felt like a tyranny to him. So that whole 2A scene is bullshit and deep down they know it. *See the Bundy vs Feds debacle. Armed white men were just fighting the good fight against evil government. Imagine how different the reaction if that was BLM vs Feds in American cities....oh wait, no need to imagine.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 21, 2020 14:24:41 GMT -5
Dishing out snark but can't take it? Weak. I don’t see much point in arguing with cunts like you. You don’t argue with the dog shite lying on the ground; you just step around it and be on your way. Feeling's mutual brah.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Sept 21, 2020 15:10:31 GMT -5
Nope. Not ludicrous at all. It's the Democratic party that is losing their shit. It's the various groups like BLM, antifa and others are perpetuating violence. There are actual "rage mobs" on the streets, protesting politician's own home at night. No sir. It's not ludicrous at all man.
Differing opinions aside, that isn't fascism. There's also the fact that the FBI themselves have listed right-wing groups as the biggest threat to the US. It's the police shooting rubber bullets at the press, not Antifa. It's largely Republicans disenfranchising voters, making it harder to vote and making people's votes count for less. Your country was shaped by this kind of unrest to the point that your own party named their crazy wing after the Boston Tea Party. Calling civil unrest "fascism" can only be done from a complete ignorance of what constitutes fascism or from malice. Take your pick. There's also the part that fascism is a right-wing ideology. The US is by far the most right-wing of all industrialized democracies in the world: it is ludicrous to accuse the less right-wing party of being fascists, unless you're some kind of weird absolute monarchist or something.
I'll stand corrected on McConnell arguing about precedence. I still think the argument is bullshit though, because he defined it in such a way as to exclude Kennedy, who had his vacancy appear in 1987 with less than a year to the election but was approved during the election year of 1988 by a Democratic-majority Senate by 97-0. The current precedent, looking at the last time this situation arose, would thus be to look at Kennedy. McConnell's so-called "precedence" is thus only a precedence if you choose to only count A) vacancies that B) happen during a Presidential election year where C) the Senate was hostile to the President. If you instead choose to look at "confirmations" as A) then precedence would be to let the vote happen, as Kennedy would be the last time this happened. Similarly, if you choose to look at "year prior to election" instead of "election year" as B) then the precedent would, surprise surprise, be Kennedy again. I will not contest C) because it makes sense to limit the scope because it doesn't matter if the President and the Senate are the same party.
Thus, what is the justification for limiting both A) and B) in such a manner that it conveniently overlooks the last time a situation like this happened?
Also, if we're going down the rabbithole of respecting precedence, do you then agree that the "right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment is not an individual right?
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Sept 21, 2020 15:23:46 GMT -5
If BLM, Antifa, etc. = Democratic Party, then KKK, Proud Boys, etc. = Republican Party.
We all know how projection works, right? It's fascinating that, in his mind, those various grassroots movements are inextricably linked to the official Democrat party. Now why would he think that?
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Sept 21, 2020 15:40:21 GMT -5
Goddamnit. I was going to make a new little picture tutorial on how to block a poster, but I can’t find the option anymore. Incidentally, I also can’t unblock him even if I wanted to.
|
|