Jump to content
diazthechamp

Politics thread

Recommended Posts

Six cops shot with some sort of rifle in that incident in Philly, and none of the mainstream networks can find five solid minutes to devote to it. lol

Ooooh, I bet it's because he's a lifelong criminal, and almost certainly wasn't allowed to own that gun, huh?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cashfl0w said:

Six cops shot with some sort of rifle in that incident in Philly, and none of the mainstream networks can find five solid minutes to devote to it. lol

Ooooh, I bet it's because he's a lifelong criminal, and almost certainly wasn't allowed to own that gun, huh?

from what I understand, this raid was over drugs...if that is the case...then the "suspect" used his 2ndA Rights when he needed them...the real criminals are the cops who raided this man

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cashfl0w said:

Six cops shot with some sort of rifle in that incident in Philly, and none of the mainstream networks can find five solid minutes to devote to it. lol

Ooooh, I bet it's because he's a lifelong criminal, and almost certainly wasn't allowed to own that gun, huh?

Also the fact that the cops poured fake blood on themselves:

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, I_Take_Roids_m8 said:

Also the fact that the cops poured fake blood on themselves:

 

Is it iodine? Is there any medical explanation for that scene?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cashfl0w said:

Is it iodine? Is there any medical explanation for that scene?

that's what I figured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SVTContour98 said:

from what I understand, this raid was over drugs...if that is the case...then the "suspect" used his 2ndA Rights when he needed them...the real criminals are the cops who raided this man

@Bubba_Sparks  The 2nd Amendment was created so that we could protect our life/property from anyone (individual or group of individuals) who might try to infringe on our lives.  A group of individuals infringed on this man's life b/c some people want to control what others can put into their own bodies.  As free people and the rightful owners of our own bodies, we have the right to ingest whatever we like (if this is not the case then someone else has a higher claim to our bodies then ourselves).  The man used the 2ndA for what it was purposed...to protect one's life/property from infringement.

As a thought exercise, we can replace "drugs" with another indigestible substance that isn't so taboo today...let's say, Potato Chips.  If a group of individuals storm my house and try to put me in a cage and/or take my life b/c i'm ingesting something politicians don't like (potato chips)...it is my Right to defend my life/property from their attempts to infringe on my life.  I would be in Moral Right Standing, no?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SVTContour98 said:

@Bubba_Sparks  The 2nd Amendment was created so that we could protect our life/property from anyone (individual or group of individuals) who might try to infringe on our lives.  A group of individuals infringed on this man's life b/c some people want to control what others can put into their own bodies.  As free people and the rightful owners of our own bodies, we have the right to ingest whatever we like (if this is not the case then someone else has a higher claim to our bodies then ourselves).  The man used the 2ndA for what it was purposed...to protect one's life/property from infringement.

As a thought exercise, we can replace "drugs" with another indigestible substance that isn't so taboo today...let's say, Potato Chips.  If a group of individuals storm my house and try to put me in a cage and/or take my life b/c i'm ingesting something politicians don't like (potato chips)...it is my Right to defend my life/property from their attempts to infringe on my life.  I would be in Moral Right Standing, no?

Thank you for the clarification; was drafting a question after registering my confusion but you've pretty much answered it in advance.

You and Roids should start a libertarian FAQ thread.  The main input to the fora on libertarianism has been either from watching Parks & Recreation, or a poster called BJNoob who was a bit of a muppet.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bubba_Sparks said:

Thank you for the clarification; was drafting a question after registering my confusion but you've pretty much answered it in advance.

You and Roids should start a libertarian FAQ thread.  The main input to the fora on libertarianism has been either from watching Parks & Recreation, or a poster called BJNoob who was a bit of a muppet.

 

lol @Scripts

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sobercuban said:

lol @Scripts

This was all in my early days...but I remember him ranting about not getting tipped enough as a waiter, and then rage quitting because he couldn't convince the good posters of the benefits of being a libertarian....despite choosing this site because apparently mma fans were highly intelligent.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SVTContour98 said:

@Bubba_Sparks  The 2nd Amendment was created so that we could protect our life/property from anyone (individual or group of individuals) who might try to infringe on our lives.  A group of individuals infringed on this man's life b/c some people want to control what others can put into their own bodies.  As free people and the rightful owners of our own bodies, we have the right to ingest whatever we like (if this is not the case then someone else has a higher claim to our bodies then ourselves).  The man used the 2ndA for what it was purposed...to protect one's life/property from infringement.

As a thought exercise, we can replace "drugs" with another indigestible substance that isn't so taboo today...let's say, Potato Chips.  If a group of individuals storm my house and try to put me in a cage and/or take my life b/c i'm ingesting something politicians don't like (potato chips)...it is my Right to defend my life/property from their attempts to infringe on my life.  I would be in Moral Right Standing, no?

So you are pro-choice, right?

Edited by 12еr
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 12еr said:

So you are pro-choice, right?

Yes, but I give the choice to the unborn...I'd also give the unborn a gun so they could defend themselves from the savages that want to murder them 😎

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SVTContour98 said:

Yes, but I give the choice to the unborn...I'd also give the unborn a gun so they could defend themselves from the savages that want to murder them 😎

Just so we're clear, you adamantly believe you can do whatever you want with your body, as long as you approve of it. 

Can I assume you also don't believe you can do whatever you want with your body if you're brown and that involves crossing a border?

Edited by 12еr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bubba, don't get the wrong idea about libertarianism based on this thread. Libertarians believe in zero government regulation. That means they are pro-choice and support open borders.

Most of the people who claim to be libertarian are actually just closeted republicans.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 12еr said:

Hey Bubba, don't get the wrong idea about libertarianism based on this thread. Libertarians believe in zero government regulation. That means they are pro-choice and support open borders.

Most of the people who claim to be libertarian are actually just closeted republicans.

Thanks but I mainly get my ideas on libertarianism from Ron Swanson. 

Wasn't noob always on about 'non aggression principles' though? That would seem to be aligned with not killing unborn babies.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bubba_Sparks said:

Thanks but I mainly get my ideas on libertarianism from Ron Swanson. 

Wasn't noob always on about 'non aggression principles' though? That would seem to be aligned with not killing unborn babies.

 

The non-aggression principle is literally nonsense. He thinks he can get rid of the police and military and no one will take his chit because he told them to play nicely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 12еr said:

Just so we're clear, you adamantly believe you can do whatever you want with your body, as long as you approve of it. 

Can I assume you also don't believe you can do whatever you want with your body if you're brown and that involves crossing a border?

 

39 minutes ago, 12еr said:

Hey Bubba, don't get the wrong idea about libertarianism based on this thread. Libertarians believe in zero government regulation. That means they are pro-choice and support open borders.

Most of the people who claim to be libertarian are actually just closeted republicans.

 

19 minutes ago, 12еr said:

The non-aggression principle is literally nonsense. He thinks he can get rid of the police and military and no one will take his chit because he told them to play nicely.


These statement above are so wrong that it is akin to you saying, and I paraphrase: You don't need an AR to defend your home, a pistol is perfectly fine.

M8, with all sincerity, I beg you to actually study libertarianism...read Rothbard, Freidman, Hayek, Mises, Block.

It looks like you need to study the difference between coercive and voluntary, private property vs public property, and aggression vs non-aggression, just to start with.

This is like really bad bro...if you posted this in a real libertarian circle or say even a libertarian class conducted by Walter BLock, you'd be looked at as an idiot of the highest degree who had completed exactly zero research on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SVTContour98 said:

 

 


These statement above are so wrong that it is akin to you saying, and I paraphrase: You don't need an AR to defend your home, a pistol is perfectly fine.

M8, with all sincerity, I beg you to actually study libertarianism...read Rothbard, Freidman, Hayek, Mises, Block.

It looks like you need to study the difference between coercive and voluntary, private property vs public property, and aggression vs non-aggression, just to start with.

This is like really bad bro...if you posted this in a real libertarian circle or say even a libertarian class conducted by Walter BLock, you'd be looked at as an idiot of the highest degree who had completed exactly zero research on the subject.

 

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

 

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like claiming to be a Christian, but then choosing which commandments to ignore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 12еr said:

 

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

 

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

 

3 minutes ago, 12еr said:

It's like claiming to be a Christian, but then choosing which commandments to ignore.

 

quoting the national LP org, (who had Bill Weld on their ticket last go round mind you), is pretty funny...and again points to your naivete on the subject

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SVTContour98 said:

 

quoting the national LP org, (who had Bill Weld on their ticket last go round mind you), is pretty funny...and again points to your naivete on the subject

 

It seems pretty black and white to me. You are either for government regulation or not.

You are for government regulation, but only when it's convenient for your own personal tastes.

I don't need to read doctoral dissertations by obscure political scientists to smell bull****.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By all means, go ahead and post a link to your alternative libertarian parties official platform. I will wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a woman has the right to take drugs because she has ownership over her body. You said that.

I agree, and the drug she decided to put into her own property is plan B. 

There should be no issues there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 12еr said:

It seems pretty black and white to me. You are either for government regulation or not.

You are for government regulation, but only when it's convenient for your own personal tastes.

I don't need to read doctoral dissertations by obscure political scientists to smell bull****.

 

 

5 minutes ago, 12еr said:

By all means, go ahead and post a link to your alternative libertarian parties official platform. I will wait.

2 minutes ago, 12еr said:

So a woman has the right to take drugs because she has ownership over her body. You said that.

I agree, and the drug she decided to put into her own property is plan B. 

There should be no issues there.

 

nah m8, honestly it would be unfruitful...I'd rather have meaningful discussions with open-minded people vs some guy on a forum who literally has no idea what he is talking about regarding libertarianism but is so confident in his short-sighted analysis.  i've answered you as much as I'd like...I pointed you in the right direction...your own bias will play out from here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SVTContour98 said:

 

 

nah m8, honestly it would be unfruitful...I'd rather have meaningful discussions with open-minded people vs some guy on a forum who literally has no idea what he is talking about regarding libertarianism but is so confident in his short-sighted analysis.  i've answered you as much as I'd like...I pointed you in the right direction...your own bias will play out from here.

 

Your belief system is inconsistent and illogical. You're not looking for a meaningful discussion, you're looking for an echo chamber where no one will question the consistency of your ideology. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 12еr said:

Your belief system is inconsistent and illogical. You're not looking for a meaningful discussion, you're looking for an echo chamber where no one will question the consistency of your ideology. 

 

roger that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bubba_Sparks said:

Thanks but I mainly get my ideas on libertarianism from Ron Swanson. 

Wasn't noob always on about 'non aggression principles' though? That would seem to be aligned with not killing unborn babies.

 

Ron is worthy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cashfl0w said:

Six cops shot with some sort of rifle in that incident in Philly, and none of the mainstream networks can find five solid minutes to devote to it. lol

Ooooh, I bet it's because he's a lifelong criminal, and almost certainly wasn't allowed to own that gun, huh?

 

CNN had Harris comment on the Philly situation > she said <  "As long as Trump is prez., this type of incident will continue to happen ",

and btw, she can fix HK in one day - .... @ 7%

 

* Beto 3.0 today - 3rd reset of campaign

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cashfl0w said:

Epstein's autopsy shows he had broken bones in his neck more consistent with a strangulation, not a suicide.

Boy, who could have seen that coming?!

132176.jpg

Breath Esptein, breath

Pick him up he's not responding...

danmillerbrutalguillotine.gif

Still not responding?... Ok we need to transport him immediately

tenor.gif

Edited by StompGrind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 12еr said:

Hey Bubba, don't get the wrong idea about libertarianism based on this thread. Libertarians believe in zero government regulation. That means they are pro-choice and support open borders.

Most of the people who claim to be libertarian are actually just closeted republicans.

The second point about being pro-choice is wrong. Libertarians believe that it is a touchy issue and agree that both sides are correct. It comes down to the person. 

 

I am pro-life. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as far as the open borders discussion. I am for a more simplified legalization process. We welcome anyone and everyone. 

 

However, this would be dependent on ending social programs such as welfare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, I_Take_Roids_m8 said:

The second point about being pro-choice is wrong. Libertarians believe that it is a touchy issue and agree that both sides are correct. It comes down to the person. 

 

I am pro-life. 

I personally lean towards pro-life but i'm on the fence about others having the choice. I wouldn't do it but I'm fairly ok-ish with it for others to make that decision just depends on circumstances but i definitely wouldn't wanna tell any one they can't or shame them as a murderer which i find ridiculous. L8 term i'm 100% against though unless it's a circumstance that threatens the mother or some health complications equivalent like that for the child or the mother. 

I consider myself pretty libertarian minded but i don't want zero regulation either. I just think it should be within reasonable moderation & at a minimum as for how much of a big bureaucracy there needs to be. I don't want a gloves off free for all for the wolves but i strongly don't want gov breathing down everyone's throat to "protect" everyone regulating business into the ground with wide sweeping rules meant to fit all but in reality doesn't apply or work that well for many meanwhile politicians/lobbyist are in bed with them. If there were somehow full transparency then i'd be for little to no regulation and just let the market decide.  I think the public is too oblivious, pre-occupied, ignorant about ramifications, simply doesn't care or all of the above for there to be no regulation so IMO there needs to be some other balancing force besides let's just let the market decide. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, I_Take_Roids_m8 said:

The second point about being pro-choice is wrong. Libertarians believe that it is a touchy issue and agree that both sides are correct. It comes down to the person. 

 

I am pro-life. 

You can be against something personally, but still not advocate for the government denying that right to people who aren't, though.

All I'm saying is, if you think the government should ban abortions then you aren't a Libertarian, IMO.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 12еr said:

You can be against something personally, but still not advocate for the government denying that right to people who aren't, though.

All I'm saying is, if you think the government should ban abortions then you aren't a Libertarian, IMO.

 

 

It's a tough one for Libertarians because on one hand you have the Libertarians who think no one should be able to tell someone what to do with their body and on the other side of the fence you have them saying it's impeding the fetus from having "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 

 

I try not to think about it, because it's one thing in healthcare that really messes with me, is children ya know? 

 

Especially after having Carter (and another on the way lol) it's a hard concept. 

 

Probably my weakness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StompGrind said:

I personally lean towards pro-life but i'm on the fence about others having the choice. I wouldn't do it but I'm fairly ok-ish with it for others to make that decision just depends on circumstances but i definitely wouldn't wanna tell any one they can't or shame them as a murderer which i find ridiculous. L8 term i'm 100% against though unless it's a circumstance that threatens the mother or some health complications equivalent like that for the child or the mother. 

I consider myself pretty libertarian minded but i don't want zero regulation either. I just think it should be within reasonable moderation & at a minimum as for how much of a big bureaucracy there needs to be. I don't want a gloves off free for all for the wolves but i strongly don't want gov breathing down everyone's throat to "protect" everyone regulating business into the ground with wide sweeping rules meant to fit all but in reality doesn't apply or work that well for many meanwhile politicians/lobbyist are in bed with them. If there were somehow full transparency then i'd be for little to no regulation and just let the market decide.  I think the public is too oblivious, pre-occupied, ignorant about ramifications, simply doesn't care or all of the above for there to be no regulation so IMO there needs to be some other balancing force besides let's just let the market decide. 

 

 

 

I think we need more education at a younger age to be honest. Health classes really need to step their game up (if they aren't already). Education and better resources would prevent some of these situations. 

 

But unfortunately both sides of the fence don't really care as long as it pushes their agenda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like what gets me is when I was a freshman in high school they had this two day long seminar in the auditorium with just the guys regarding rape and whatnot. It was pretty brutal and a few dudes got kicked out because of laughing and whatnot. They had the police chief there and everything. 

 

Why not have something similar for the girls but about keeping their legs closed and whatnot?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, I_Take_Roids_m8 said:

Like what gets me is when I was a freshman in high school they had this two day long seminar in the auditorium with just the guys regarding rape and whatnot. It was pretty brutal and a few dudes got kicked out because of laughing and whatnot. They had the police chief there and everything. 

 

Why not have something similar for the girls but about keeping their legs closed and whatnot?

 

 

Didn't you just have a kid out of wedlock and you're saying girls should keep their legs closed?

Seriously dude?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 12еr said:

Didn't you just have a kid out of wedlock and you're saying girls should keep their legs closed?

Seriously dude?

 

 

Out of wedlock? Lmfaooooooo. We are engaged and living together before we even thought about having the first baby. What the **** are you talking about m8?

 

So people can't have babies if they're not married? Lmfaaoooo.

 

Your definition if keeping legs closed and mine are waaaaay different. 

Edited by I_Take_Roids_m8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, I_Take_Roids_m8 said:

P.s. the marriage is October 5th if any of the forum homies want to come. 

Is this my official invite?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, I_Take_Roids_m8 said:

You're God damn right. 

Damn, I've been looking for a reason to go back and hang out in Oakmont too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, I_Take_Roids_m8 said:

 

Out of wedlock? Lmfaooooooo. We are engaged and living together before we even thought about having the first baby. What the **** are you talking about m8?

 

So people can't have babies if they're not married? Lmfaaoooo.

 

Your definition if keeping legs closed and mine are waaaaay different. 

I don't give a **** about who has kids or when, but you just said they should have a school auditorium to tell the girls to keep their legs closed.

Based on the information you've provided yourself, that is an absurd statement. 

I don't know possible definition you could have for "keep your legs closed", but it means to be abstinent. That's not really open for interpretation, that is common usage bro.

I've never had to make that choice, but I do know that **** happens and it's none of our business what anyone else does, and it's certainly not the business of some hack in Washington. As far as I'm concerned, it's a medical issue and it's between a woman, the man, and her doctor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×