Page 38 of 46 FirstFirst ...
28
36
37
38
39
40
... LastLast
  1. #741
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    That might placate a bunch of scared boomer conservatives.

    I’m not so sure it’ll convince a judge and jury.
    Conservatives are like infants you dangle keys, i.e. whatever they hate or are scared of, in front of their face and they immediately forget everything else in the world.

  2. #742
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonKing View Post
    Matt Gaetz decides he's not content with just being mired in one scandal and decides it would be a good idea to Suggests Shooting People In Silicon Valley For ‘Cancel’ Culture and even Tells Fans to Carry Out ‘Armed Rebellion’ Against Government if Neccessary
    Man, once upon a time this kinda talk would cause someone to be visited by the FBI and likely thrown in jail for inciting rebellion. We need some law and order!

  3. #743
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    22,908
    Quote Originally Posted by pathora44 View Post
    Conservatives are like infants you dangle keys, i.e. whatever they hate or are scared of, in front of their face and they immediately forget everything else in the world.
    If he goes to trial and is thrown in prison it won’t matter if conservatives think he’s innocent or that it’s more important that he “take down socialism” than face justice.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  4. #744
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,804
    This was literally the very next thing he said:

    The Second Amendment—this is a little history for all the fake news media—the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about recreation, it's not about sports.

    The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.

    I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation, and to make sure that they are fully understood.
    Obviously, Gaetz will hide behind "I hope it never does". But I feel compelled to point out, in the same breath as he said "a little history for the fake news media", he said the Second Amendment was for rebelling against the government.

    Okay. Fine. Which branch of the government are "the internet's hall monitors out in Silicon Valley" in? Because, a little history for fake news Gaetz, Silicon Valley isn't part of the government. The point of the Second Amendment, by his own admission, was not about private, non-goverment entities.

    So he's either advocating violence, a complete idiot, or both.

  5. #745
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    20,730
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Given the parties he attended where girls got passed around to everyone, I'm sure he is focused on socialism.

  6. #746
    Quote Originally Posted by pathora44 View Post
    God damn can Republicans stop out doing themselves in how fucking batshit insane they are.
    Actually I don't mind this. The 2022 election will be decided by those in the middle, so the crazier these repubs get, the more we can paint the whole Republican Party with their stench. We need to get to the point where if you ask an independent if they were going to vote republican, they make a gross face and say "oh god, NO"

  7. #747
    Pit Lord
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    Actually I don't mind this. The 2022 election will be decided by those in the middle, so the crazier these repubs get, the more we can paint the whole Republican Party with their stench. We need to get to the point where if you ask an independent if they were going to vote republican, they make a gross face and say "oh god, NO"
    On the flip side, this strategy only really works if those crazy republicans are held to task for how crazy their shit is. Soft-handed Media and/or Dems being unwilling to challenge them out on their bullshit just lets it fester and reach out to more people. Because lord knows Moderate Republicans aren't going to actually do anything.

  8. #748
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonKing View Post
    Matt Gaetz decides he's not content with just being mired in one scandal and decides it would be a good idea to Suggests Shooting People In Silicon Valley For ‘Cancel’ Culture and even Tells Fans to Carry Out ‘Armed Rebellion’ Against Government if Neccessary
    Dogs in my neighborhood started barking when I saw that video, it's like some sort of whistle.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  9. #749
    The thing that has become clear to me is that Gaetz has now somehow become more popular with the Republican base than he ever was.

    Republicans will happily vote for kiddy diddlers as long as it pisses off the libs.

  10. #750
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This was literally the very next thing he said:



    Obviously, Gaetz will hide behind "I hope it never does". But I feel compelled to point out, in the same breath as he said "a little history for the fake news media", he said the Second Amendment was for rebelling against the government.

    Okay. Fine. Which branch of the government are "the internet's hall monitors out in Silicon Valley" in? Because, a little history for fake news Gaetz, Silicon Valley isn't part of the government. The point of the Second Amendment, by his own admission, was not about private, non-goverment entities.

    So he's either advocating violence, a complete idiot, or both.
    That's part of what it's for. The well regulated militia isn't just to protect the borders, but also to safeguard against tyranny. "...security of a free state..." Militias aren't necessarily governmental, and regulations don't have to come from the government (unless you're saying that all entities that employ security or pass regulations are government, which would mean corporations are governments). Nothing in the 2nd says that the militias are gov't entities.

    Whether or not it's plausible for a modern civilian militia to disrupt the gov't enough to allow an existential threat from an outside force to manifest is debatable, but it was clearly possible during revolutionary times and is exactly how the US came into being. It's the same as de-arming the population of conquered people. If you don't think the writers were thinking about both the arms regulations that had historically happened in what is now the UK as well as the action they had just taken part in to create our country, your view is being warped by your place in time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  11. #751
    The Insane draynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    16,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Republicans will happily vote for kiddy diddlers as long as it pisses off the libs.
    At least they're voting for someone that represents them for once.
    /s

  12. #752
    Scarab Lord Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    4,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    That's part of what it's for. The well regulated militia isn't just to protect the borders, but also to safeguard against tyranny. "...security of a free state..." Militias aren't necessarily governmental, and regulations don't have to come from the government (unless you're saying that all entities that employ security or pass regulations are government, which would mean corporations are governments). Nothing in the 2nd says that the militias are gov't entities.

    Whether or not it's plausible for a modern civilian militia to disrupt the gov't enough to allow an existential threat from an outside force to manifest is debatable, but it was clearly possible during revolutionary times and is exactly how the US came into being. It's the same as de-arming the population of conquered people. If you don't think the writers were thinking about both the arms regulations that had historically happened in what is now the UK as well as the action they had just taken part in to create our country, your view is being warped by your place in time.
    I'm still waiting for the Gravy Seals to get to the "WELL REGULATED" part.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  13. #753
    Dear Republicans,

    Stop fucking kids. Stop peeping in on them when they are changing. Stop defending doing both.

    Sincerely,
    Those of us who are not scathing shitbags.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  14. #754
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    I'm still waiting for the Gravy Seals to get to the "WELL REGULATED" part.
    Yeah, those people are dumb. Doesn't change the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Like I said, even if they were well regulated, it's debatable if they'd be able to form enough of a resistance to matter when the US has nuclear weapons to dissuade outside adversaries. As you said though, those dipshits aren't well regulated, which is the only hope of even making that a question.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  15. #755
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Yeah, those people are dumb. Doesn't change the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Like I said, even if they were well regulated, it's debatable if they'd be able to form enough of a resistance to matter when the US has nuclear weapons to dissuade outside adversaries. As you said though, those dipshits aren't well regulated, which is the only hope of even making that a question.
    Just to make a quick point;

    Even the Founding Fathers were opposed to insurrection and revolution against their rule. The Insurrection Act was passed in 1807, and the actions of insurgents would still have been criminal via laws against murder and such beforehand. The 2nd Amendment was not about any supposed "right to oppose tyranny". In fact, the idea itself is pretty stupid, and it's kind of baffling that it's taken root in American culture; any tyranny would just revoke that law as part of the process of becoming a tyranny, if it was even concerned about gun ownership in the first place (Nazi Germany, of course, expanded gun rights for Germans).

    It's like instituting a rule in your marriage contract that "if you divorce me, you can't sleep in my bed any more." If you're at that point, it's already off the table, so why would that rule even make sense? This is less me accusing you of anything, and more pointing out that the Founding Fathers were two-faced idiots in a lot of ways.

    See also speaking of liberties and freedom when a significant chunk of them were literally slaveowners.

  16. #756
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Yeah, those people are dumb. Doesn't change the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Like I said, even if they were well regulated, it's debatable if they'd be able to form enough of a resistance to matter when the US has nuclear weapons to dissuade outside adversaries. As you said though, those dipshits aren't well regulated, which is the only hope of even making that a question.
    Well regulated militia, is the national gaurd. Everyone else that does any shit claiming well regulated militia is just a gang.

  17. #757
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    regulations don't have to come from the government
    Just so we're clear: are you suggesting, like Gaetz is suggesting, that the 2nd Amendment is (amongst other things) for fighting against private entities? Because Gaetz was saying that. And I can think of dozens of ways that can go sideways.

  18. #758
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Just to make a quick point;

    Even the Founding Fathers were opposed to insurrection and revolution against their rule. The Insurrection Act was passed in 1807, and the actions of insurgents would still have been criminal via laws against murder and such beforehand. The 2nd Amendment was not about any supposed "right to oppose tyranny". In fact, the idea itself is pretty stupid, and it's kind of baffling that it's taken root in American culture; any tyranny would just revoke that law as part of the process of becoming a tyranny, if it was even concerned about gun ownership in the first place (Nazi Germany, of course, expanded gun rights for Germans).

    It's like instituting a rule in your marriage contract that "if you divorce me, you can't sleep in my bed any more." If you're at that point, it's already off the table, so why would that rule even make sense? This is less me accusing you of anything, and more pointing out that the Founding Fathers were two-faced idiots in a lot of ways.

    See also speaking of liberties and freedom when a significant chunk of them were literally slaveowners.
    Of course they were. They didn't see themselves as tyrants. The amendment is there literally because of how england disarmed the scots and the fact that having an armed population allowed the US to be formed. The federalists admittedly wanted the federal gov't to be in control of the militias, but even hamilton argued that with citizens being in control of their own weaponry, that the fed gov't would be both more restrained in it's efforts to curtail liberty (because the power is in the hands of that citizenry) as well as more trusted by the citizenry:
    If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
    It very much was about the opposition of tyranny, but it was supposed to be about how the defense structure of the US was supposed to be organized along lines that prevented tyrants from abusing military power. Just because the framers clearly didn't get it right, doesn't mean that's not what it was about. Literally about having to fight to compel people who are already armed to oppress their fellow citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Just so we're clear: are you suggesting, like Gaetz is suggesting, that the 2nd Amendment is (amongst other things) for fighting against private entities? Because Gaetz was saying that. And I can think of dozens of ways that can go sideways.
    Just so we're clear, you're saying it's illegal for corporations to have internal regulations and verboten for security guards to be armed? Or are you done misconstruing what I'm saying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  19. #759
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Or are you done misconstruing what I'm saying.
    Gaetz said:

    The Second Amendment—this is a little history for all the fake news media—the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about recreation, it's not about sports.

    The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.

    I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation, and to make sure that they are fully understood.
    I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Okay. Fine. Which branch of the government are "the internet's hall monitors out in Silicon Valley" in? Because, a little history for fake news Gaetz, Silicon Valley isn't part of the government. The point of the Second Amendment, by his own admission, was not about private, non-goverment entities.

    So he's either advocating violence, a complete idiot, or both.
    You replied directly:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    That's part of what it's for. The well regulated militia isn't just to protect the borders, but also to safeguard against tyranny. "...security of a free state..." Militias aren't necessarily governmental, and regulations don't have to come from the government (unless you're saying that all entities that employ security or pass regulations are government, which would mean corporations are governments). Nothing in the 2nd says that the militias are gov't entities.

    Whether or not it's plausible for a modern civilian militia to disrupt the gov't enough to allow an existential threat from an outside force to manifest is debatable, but it was clearly possible during revolutionary times and is exactly how the US came into being. It's the same as de-arming the population of conquered people. If you don't think the writers were thinking about both the arms regulations that had historically happened in what is now the UK as well as the action they had just taken part in to create our country, your view is being warped by your place in time.
    I have helpfully bolded the important parts of what Gaetz said, and my response to such. You will notice I was very specific about pointing out (a) Gaetz said the 2nd was about rebelling against the govt (b) I responded by saying Silicon Valley wasn't the govt (c) you objected to what I said.

    Your move.

  20. #760
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post

    I have helpfully bolded the important parts of what Gaetz said, and my response to such. You will notice I was very specific about pointing out (a) Gaetz said the 2nd was about rebelling against the govt (b) I responded by saying Silicon Valley wasn't the govt (c) you objected to what I said.

    Your move.
    Again, there's nothing in the 2nd about militias being gov't entities. It was one of the fundamental differences between the federalists and anti-federalists. The federal gov't being in control of the militias or not. Neither of them disagreed about the 2nd amendment being about an armed populace being difficult to control for a tyrant. Silicon Valley has literally nothing to do with whether dickbag is right about the 2nd. He is. The amendment was dual purpose: providing a defense force against outside (and internal threats) and also about prevention of tyranny. Literally quoted for you from a federalist's point of view, who would have been most opposed to threats to centralized authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Obviously, Gaetz will hide behind "I hope it never does". But I feel compelled to point out, in the same breath as he said "a little history for the fake news media", he said the Second Amendment was for rebelling against the government.
    This is what I was responding to. Which I notice you felt compelled to elide what you quoted yourself. Again, hamilton himself writes about this exact thing as I quoted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •