|
Defenestration posted:
Israel: the only state with weapons of mass destruction pointed at it.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
 Russia: well known for zero hostage crises after 1986.  Also 1986 USSR: a country with a bright future that we should emulate as hard as possible. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
if only we'd bombed even more relatives of terrorist leaders we could have stopped ben ghazi 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Man, when I think of countries that are really good at handling hostage situations, I definitely think of Russia. I mean, if this poo poo actually happened in the first place. That LA Times article is just "Well the Jerusalem Post said this" and I'd imagine killing the "relative of a leader of Hezbollah" would have been high profile enough to warrant an actual loving name. edit: A quick check seems to show that the hostages were taken as leverage for a truce, which they got and then after some confusion they were released two weeks later. But I guess that implies a lot less RAH RAH gently caress THE MUSLIMS CUT THEIR DICKS OFF happened than whoever made that picture wishes. TGLT fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that making a conflict personal by viciously targeting an opponent's loved ones is an excellent tactic for keeping it from escalating out of control. e:vvvv 1986, right? They're literally suggesting that the USA should look at the USSR as a role model. LonsomeSon fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Let's take a lesson about controlling insurgencies from the country that withdrew from the Afghani mujahadeen's insurgency in defeat and can't even pacify the population within its own borders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
I wonder what McCarthy would do if he knows right-wing Americans are going to praise Russia and its (Her?) leader over America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:Where did you go to school that you didn't say the Pledge? It happened all throughout my public school education in the 90's and when I was teaching at public schools (roughly 2008-2012). That said, you weren't technically "forced" to say it. You were usually required to stand up out of "respect," but you didn't have to say anything if you didn't want to. Of course, kids that age usually just go along with whatever everyone else is doing. Yeah, maybe that's the distinction he's making. We had the pledge, but you didn't even have to stand for it. I didn't for at least all of high school because I think the whole everybody talking at once thing was creepy. And I went to a school in western MD that was hardly some urban liberal paradise, though the area has become a bedroom community since then. But what you're suggesting is that the situation hasn't changed since then, which was my point. If it was good enough when we were kids to just broadcast the pledge, why is it dangerously unamerican now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
The whole pledge of allegiance thing is super creepy and you can't get rid of it soon enough, to be honest. But it's not like that's actually happening and this isn't just right wing persecution complex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
The whole pledge of allegiance thing is beyond creepy if you come from a non-American perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:I wonder what McCarthy would do if he knows right-wing Americans are going to praise Russia and its (Her?) leader over America. Probably agree once he found out Russia is now a corrupt oligarchical militaristic plutocracy with no guarantees of political rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
iajanus posted:The whole pledge of allegiance thing is beyond creepy if you come from a non-American perspective. It's creepy from an American respective if you think about it even a little. I think my sophomore year in high school back in the '90s was when they instituted the pledge again for some reason. You didn't have to do it but most people stood up at least. Thinking back the kids that didn't were right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
iajanus posted:The whole pledge of allegiance thing is beyond creepy if you come from a non-American perspective. As always: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
KillerJunglist posted:Oh boy, that old co-worker is becoming a goldmine, apparently. Dunno if it's been said but this meme's a lovely joke against non-citizen residents of Los Angeles. Ninjaedit: Bloodnose posted:I'm assuming it's a joke suggesting that there are very few US citizens in LA. Presumably because of THE ILLEGALS? Welp
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Few things then are like things now - technological innovations have advanced and expanded the scope of many rights, but if the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to advances in arms, then the 1st wouldn't hold for advances in communication like the internet, radio, etc. Shouldn't artillery, mortars, assorted explosive weaponry, armoured vehicles and jets, and missiles up to and including nuclear devices be protected under the right to bear arms if you take this argument to its logical conclusion? I'm seriously curious. He invalidates 'the founding fathers didn't consider' as an argument, implying the second amendment guarantees blanket access to all arms that existed as well as those yet to be invented at the time of its writing. Does LeJackel support citizens' access to tactical nukes? Or should they be banned because uneducated folk think they're scary?  Please respond LeJackel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Shouldn't artillery, mortars, assorted explosive weaponry, armoured vehicles and jets, and missiles up to and including nuclear devices be protected under the right to bear arms if you take this argument to its logical conclusion? I have encountered people who believe that
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I have encountered people who believe that People on this board believe it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
I'm not super familiar with all of the relevant Supreme Court decisions, but it does kinda seem like the trend is toward every man being a militia of one, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that a militia would limit itself to rifles when cannons and other artillery are so important in battle. I suppose you could claim I'm making a slippery slope argument but I think there's a real trend towards that direction. Does that mean I think that individual citizens should be able to open carry nuclear weapons? No, that's a terrible idea, but I think that a court might one day rule that it's Constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
If MAD works it'd decrease the crime rate though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I have encountered people who believe that Sure, everyone gets a nuke. Cool. Now are people worried enough about mental illness to support nationalized mental health?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
This makes me so mad because my husband lived in Moscow, a few blocks away from theater debacle. Also, because even post-Soviet Russia wasn't an idyllic paradise. Guards with Kalashnikovs standing outside a restaurant (because it was owned by Jews), neo-Nazis beating up suspected gays and immigrants, the police--even the ones with some semblance of respect for human rights and the law--were not trustworthy and police brutality was rampant. There are many things he misses about Russia, but the police/military and regular violence aren't among them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:People on this board believe it. Which is weird because the founders didn't even believe it. Not that the originalist majority in Heller actually cares what the founders thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
A guy on facebook shared a picture talking about how all of the Syrian refugees are men and not women and children. A cheerleader for the right wing responded to this website http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/syria.php with this website (although he went through a right wing site to source it). http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php The only thing that I can really note is that the second website is discussing the numbers of people who are fleeing into Europe without the refugee set up of the UNHRC. Is there any other information that points out that this is misleading?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Mortars are fun as hell. If I can't express my rights by throwing explosives a thousand meters onto the heads of nigg...deer, then the terrorists win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:The only thing that I can really note is that the second website is discussing the numbers of people who are fleeing into Europe without the refugee set up of the UNHRC. Is there any other information that points out that this is misleading? no, the person you're speaking to is willfully ignorant. good luck addressing them if they're not willing to engage critically and rationally
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
it's misleading because it's cherry picked. you can't rely on the demographics of boat arrivals into Greece (their link) while ignoring the demographics of the vast majority of fleeing Syrians (your link). They are both technically the same website, incidentally, part of the UNHCR. You can arrive at either portal by backing out to the main portal. It's not clear if boat arrivals into Greece/Italy includes those who previously registered with UNHCR or not. of course, if you are arguing with Americans, it should be noted that the overall statistics of refugees are immaterial to who is accepted to the USA owing to the extremely small numbers we are prepared to accept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Mortars are fun as hell. If I can't express my rights by throwing explosives a thousand meters onto the heads of nigg...deer, then the terrorists win. While discrimination/bigotry/racism plays a role in many gun nuts' handbooks, I'm not sure it's useful in the context of challenging LeJackel's opinion- given from my understanding he is an LBGT person who feels guns give him the need to protect himself. Might not be best to adopt the angle you describe. I'd like to engage our representative gun wanker on intellectually honest grounds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Shouldn't artillery, mortars, assorted explosive weaponry, armoured vehicles and jets, and missiles up to and including nuclear devices be protected under the right to bear arms if you take this argument to its logical conclusion? With enough paperwork (and a lot of money) a private citizen can own all of those things short of nukes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
they dont have any right to them though
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:With enough paperwork (and a lot of money) a private citizen can own all of those things short of nukes. And it's thanks to this monopoly on nuclear weapons that the federal government maintains its tyranny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:it's misleading because it's cherry picked. you can't rely on the demographics of boat arrivals into Greece (their link) while ignoring the demographics of the vast majority of fleeing Syrians (your link). They are both technically the same website, incidentally, part of the UNHCR. You can arrive at either portal by backing out to the main portal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:A guy on facebook shared a picture talking about how all of the Syrian refugees are men and not women and children. A cheerleader for the right wing responded to this website Honestly, it makes sense. The regional data is for people traveling in unsafe conditions across great distances, both land and sea, so the majority of the people making this trip are able bodied and healthy. The Syria data is for people seeking refugee status as they leave the country and enter immediately adjacent countries, and the majority of these people are families and single parents with their children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:With enough paperwork (and a lot of money) a private citizen can own all of those things short of nukes. Exactly, so there's no constitutional reason handguns might not be treated the same way
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Sure, everyone gets a nuke. Cool. Now are people worried enough about mental illness to support nationalized mental health? With personal nukes we could probably have single payer health care and a 5 hour workweek within a couple of days. That or everyone would be dead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
moller posted:With personal nukes we could probably have single payer health care and a 5 hour workweek within a couple of days. That or everyone would be dead. So, win/win?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Shouldn't artillery, mortars, assorted explosive weaponry, armoured vehicles and jets, and missiles up to and including nuclear devices be protected under the right to bear arms if you take this argument to its logical conclusion? At the time private citizens could own warships and cannons under the secon amendment. So tanks and other vehicles doesn't seem that far fetched. It is of course impossible in practice to let private citizens own these things. The second amendment was written at a time when a local militia was a genuine threat to a professional army. These days they are practicallt irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Exactly, so there's no constitutional reason the Quran might not be treated the same way
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Never thought about it that way, but you're right. Only the wealthy and privileged should be permitted to exercise Constitutionally protected human rights. The poor and disfavored minorities should be barred, for their own good of course. Yes, the "human right" to kill all your neighbors living the next block over with a MIRV. What monsters we are for restricting people from exercising it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, the "human right" to kill all your neighbors living the next block over with a MIRV. What monsters we are for restricting people from exercising it. I just lost the betting pool. I put my money on 'nuclear suicide vest' but as usual I can't guess the right intellectually dishonest hyperbolic strawman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 14:56
|
|