Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Obscura]

It's the same reason the left avoids criticizing any unpopular minority.

Because they see the world in purely utilitarian/economic terms, and minorities are markets that we can sell plastic trash to?

[quash]

The left avoiding criticism of Islam isn't that hard to figure out.

It's the same reason the left avoids criticizing any unpopular minority.

The left avoids criticizing Islam because it doesn't trust the right not to grab that ball and run with it to an ugly place.

We all know it's about race (as well as a focus on their hairy menfolk while their ladyfolk are glossed over or considered subhuman and ugly), in a very tiny concentrated area between Africa and Asia. It's no different than bitching about the "dirty catholics" (aka, the Irish) invading our country and impregnating our womenfolk with their large donkey penises (which we totally have, by the way. We're more horse than man, srsly).

Bringing out all the reductive comparisons, I see.

The Irish, Italians, etc. didn't bring a mindset inherently incompatible with Western society. The Japanese, had they ever acted against the US, would have likely done so on behalf of their government, not a splintered terrorist network (not excusing internment, but that is a fundamental difference which would basically render doing such a thing to Arabs obsolete).

These "refugees" (many of which even the likes of Germany and Sweden are now being forced to reclassify as economic migrants) are not your grandfather's immigrants. The ones that aren't interested in integrating with the West aren't making it a secret in the slightest. The ones who supposedly do care to integrate are not doing themselves any favors by keeping company with the former.

You claim that you fear for the safety of the innocent. How far does this fear extend? Are you fearing for the safety of all innocents, or just the ones who will continue to vote along your party lines?

[quash]

It was your stupid argument that was grabbed at.

This is in the "delete your account" league of idiocy. No surprise that you'd attempt to silence those you disagree with instead of debate them. It would be funny that you'd resort to such childish and petty rhetoric if you weren't a grown ass man.

The only way in which I was wrong was that, surprise, Obama did in fact use this opportunity to tell us we need more gun control.

[GaijinPunch]

It was your stupid argument that was grabbed at.

This is in the "delete your account" league of idiocy. No surprise that you'd attempt to silence those you disagree with instead of debate them.

Yes, b/c I clearly don't offer anything else to the community. Reminds me of another use of the word "grab".

It would be funny that you'd resort to such childish and petty rhetoric if you weren't a grown ass man.

Guilty. I was banging this chick in my building a while back that had these nice fake cans. It was something new to me, and I quite enjoyed them... but at the same time I was torn. I've dated around since then, and getting back to my roots I can whole-heartedly say that in this area Kenny Powers and I are nothing alike: I'm an ass man.

[GaijinPunch]

The only way in which I was wrong was that, surprise, Obama did in fact use this opportunity to tell us we need more gun control.

We do. The problem is that the gun nuts equate making it harder for idiots to get guns as "taking away" their guns. (Remember "Obama is trying to take away your guns?"). At the same time, you still need a piece of paper from a doctor to buy a joint in the states that allow that. Now THAT makes some serious fucking sense.

[quash]

Well therein lies the issue: who determines the idiots, and how?

Do we ignore race and religion when profiling individuals? Do we factor in criminal pasts? Are we actually confident that we could pull this off on the scale necessary for it to have any effect (without turning it into methodical disarmament)?

[Skykid]

Well therein lies the issue: who determines the idiots, and how?

Usually I just ask them if they think Majora's Mask is a shit game.

[BulletMagnet]

In terms of the shooter's motivations, this is probably worth noting. Though of course Trump's attention was elsewhere.

But is that enough facepalm-worthy Trump news for one day? Of course not! It's never enough!

[GaijinPunch]

Well therein lies the issue: who determines the idiots, and how?

Do we ignore race and religion when profiling individuals? Do we factor in criminal pasts? Are we actually confident that we could pull this off on the scale necessary for it to have any effect (without turning it into methodical disarmament)?

For guns we currently do tantamount to nothing. It is literally easier for me to order a gun and have it shipped from out of state than a bottle of whiskey.

Not sure if it makes you an idiot but if you ever thought Obama was trying to take away your guns (totally) then you are at least massively gullible. It takes about 5 seconds to do your own research these days, but of course, nobody does. Obama has said time and time again, it's time for smarter gun laws, or something to that effect. And that's about it.

[quash]

For guns we currently do tantamount to nothing. It is literally easier for me to order a gun and have it shipped from out of state than a bottle of whiskey.

If you live in Chicago, I have to hope for your own sake that you're speaking from experience. You couldn't pay me to walk through Chicago without a gun anymore. Guess that gun control has worked out well for them.

Not sure if it makes you an idiot but if you ever thought Obama was trying to take away your guns (totally) then you are at least massively gullible. It takes about 5 seconds to do your own research these days, but of course, nobody does. Obama has said time and time again, it's time for smarter gun laws, or something to that effect. And that's about it.

We covered this way earlier: the NRA prevents virtually any federally mandated gun control from passing. At the same time, there's little doubting that Obama and the Democratic party at large would love nothing more than to do just that. Look at California and its hamfisted "assault weapons" ban, which really just banned guns that look scary and limited magazine capacity. You can still have a pretty lethal shotgun in California as long as it doesn't have a foregrip.

Which goes back to the root of the issue: distrust in the government. There's always a chance that the feds would botch gun control like cities and states have, but chances are they wouldn't, and would in fact overdo it.

[quash]

snip

All I see is a father in denial shielding himself and his community from criticism and a media ever-increasingly desperate to take down Trump.

But what can I expect from someone who thinks trolling a journalist over a tabloid story is the same as lying about an act of war as an official of the US government?

[BryanM]

In terms of the shooter's motivations, this is probably worth noting.

It is a cliché by this point of conservatives that externalize an internal struggle.

Nobody sits around stewing about some group of people unless they have some emotional attachment to that group. Most male heterosexuals spend about this much thought on homosexual d00ds: "Eh, they seem happy so good for them. More women for the rest of us I guess? That's nice." and then never think of them ever again in their entire lives.

bigotry.txt. Always about cocks with these people.

[Specineff]

But what can I expect from someone who thinks trolling a journalist over a tabloid story is the same as lying about an act of war as an official of the US government?

By the same token, can we expect from a politician who can't take criticism for the media when he makes a faux-pas (and expects them to make him look good by default), calls a justice of the court biased solely because of his ethnicity when deliberating on a case filed way before his candidacy, paints entire nationalities and/or religions with very broad strokes, dodges questions about his tax returns, delivers promised donations only after reporters start nipping at his heels (and make poor little baby Twump look bad in the pwocess, again!), still mantains Obama was born in Kenya, throws tantrums when he doesn't get things his way, disrespects elected governors for not kissing his ass, and running only on a nebulous, hazy, abstract promise of making the country great again (1950's sitcom-great? Reaganomics great? Gold Rush in California great? Clinton years great? Which one? All of them? A few?), that he won't lie, cheat and twist things to get his way in the eyes of the nation as the highest officer of the government once he's in power? Can we expect him to be honest, straightforward and ethical when it comes to dealing with the same things he accuses Obama, Clinton and others of being weak on?

I doubt winning the presidency is going to be the maiden's kiss that transforms the toad into a charming prince.

[GaijinPunch]

If you live in Chicago, I have to hope for your own sake that you're speaking from experience. You couldn't pay me to walk through Chicago without a gun anymore. Guess that gun control has worked out well for them.

Experience trying to import whiskey, yes. I need a gun as much as I need a car. If you had one, it would likely not help you any. The majority of gun violence here is between gang bangers (killing each other) and cops killing innocent people. There's the occasional mugging, in which case they likely have the gun on you before you have a chance to react. Those are far more rare though. (Knock on wood).

Saying that gun control hasn't worked for Chicago (and thus, won't work for anyone else) is a lame excuse that we here all the time. Implementation needs to be fixed. Sadly, they pay more attention to taxing booze than fixing HUGE problems with the system. (eg: everything you see in the news when you google 'Chicago').

[Xyga]

You can afford guns in Chicago ?

[GaijinPunch]

You can afford guns in Chicago ?

??? Chicago is cheapest large city I've spent more than a little time in. Tokyo, Honolulu, San Fran, NYC. 40% cheaper than SF and NYC, according to most indexes.

[Xyga]

From afar in the foreigner's fantasy Chicago is associated to 'that declining old industrial North', like it's cheaper because today it's like the US's third world.
Sorry, I was teasing 'bout that.

[BulletMagnet]

All I see is a father in denial shielding himself and his community from criticism and a media ever-increasingly desperate to take down Trump.

At this point it's pretty clear that you - and pretty much anyone else who could so much as dream of supporting the likes of Trump - see only what they want to see and completely disregard anything and everything else. As Trump himself said, he could shoot someone in the street and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to his crowd - by the way, that wasn't a compliment.

But what can I expect from someone who thinks trolling a journalist over a tabloid story is the same as lying about an act of war as an official of the US government?

Over the course of this thread I've had enough words put in my mouth to last me a lifetime, each and every one of them in the name of feverishly circumventing any actual, expansive discussion of the topic at hand; it's like I'm back in middle school (if that) all over again. Sorry, but not all of us are as frighteningly, one-dimensionally absolutist when it comes to the people and causes we nominally support as you are, and you're laughably inane to simply assume so whenever it happens to suit you. At this point, frankly, we're hardly even speaking the same language, and only one of wants to allow even a figurative translator past customs.

[GaijinPunch]

From afar in the foreigner's fantasy Chicago is associated to 'that declining old industrial North', like it's cheaper because today it's like the US's third world.
Sorry, I was teasing 'bout that.

You're mistaken for Detroit. Chicago is home of futures trading, and thus, a huge financial hub. Jobs a plenty. Just tons of gun violence to go with it.

[quash]

At this point it's pretty clear that you - and pretty much anyone else who could so much as dream of supporting the likes of Trump - see only what they want to see and completely disregard anything and everything else. As Trump himself said, he could shoot someone in the street and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to his crowd - by the way, that wasn't a compliment.

I'll give the media credit where it's due: they managed to convince a lot of people that the real issue is discrimination against gays, not radicalized ideology.

Over the course of this thread I've had enough words put in my mouth to last me a lifetime

On more anecdotal grounds, Hillary has at least shown herself occasionally willing to say "I screwed up" and change course - the point I made a few posts ago, about Trump denying he ever used a fake name to do publicity despite having admitted it in court years earlier, is the equivalent of Hillary still insisting that she did dodge those bullets on the tarmac.

I'm not putting anything in your mouth. You seem to think that these two lies are, or could ever be, somehow equivalent. Consider that one was a long forgotten instance before the media decided to dig up everything they could on their least favorite candidate, while the other could have potentially started a war.

Sorry, but not all of us are as frighteningly, one-dimensionally absolutist when it comes to the people and causes we nominally support as you are, and you're laughably inane to simply assume so whenever it happens to suit you.

I'd love nothing more than a presidential candidate that would operate on nationalist principles that could also successfully sway party alignments. Unfortunately, that is not possible with our current batch of senators, so we're left with the status quo or a long overdue purging of our two party system.

You certainly are, as you say, one-dimensionally absolutist in your opposition to Trump. You're willing to vote for a candidate that is about as close to the opposite as your favored candidate there is, pretty much entirely out of spite.

I guess there is one sense in which I am absolutist: I don't want a glorified war criminal in the White House. I said before that I'd even consider voting for Bernie if he clinched the nomination, but the Democratic party is actually that stupid. So here we are.

At this point, frankly, we're hardly even speaking the same language, and only one of wants to allow even a figurative translator past customs.

I'm listening to what you're saying, it's just that we clearly have some polarized values, or at the very least, different observations on the same issues.

I think the writing on the wall is quite clear in regards to Syria (and by extension, Russia and China). I place this above all else because, frankly, we'd all have a different perspective on everything once America enters a war in which we would actually incur some serious losses. Second to that would be the economy, but much of that is out of a president's control anyways. Then there's the border, which we absolutely have to get a handle on. Wall, UAV's, more agents, National Guard, whatever it takes. I do think we need to overhaul our entire immigration system, but before we can get to that, we have to make sure our border is secure. No point in overhauling a system nobody's going to use. Then we could legalize weed and start to close in on the cartels; surely nobody has any objections to that.

Past that, I don't see what else can compare in terms of importance. I would like to see certain types of surveillance outlawed or at the very least significantly curbed, and I wouldn't mind an actual, no bullshit overhauling of our electoral system. I'd even like to see some form of gun control, albeit a very carefully outlined one that doesn't infringe upon law abiding gun owners.

I understand that ultimately everything is important, but things are so fucking crazy in the world right now that we need to sort that out before we do anything else.

[Mortificator]

I don't want a glorified war criminal in the White House.

What actions by a current candidate do you think are violations of the Geneva Conventions or other laws of war?

[BryanM]

We hung people in Germany for aggression.

Turns out there's a different standard on that issue depending on which party ends up winning, though.

[BulletMagnet]

while the other could have potentially started a war.

Sorry man, I'm just done. I don't even know where to begin anymore.

[quash]

while the other could have potentially started a war.

Sorry man, I'm just done. I don't even know where to begin anymore.

Tell me an assassination attempt on anyone residing in the White House isn't an act of war. Go ahead. Try.

[quash]

I don't want a glorified war criminal in the White House.

What actions by a current candidate do you think are violations of the Geneva Conventions or other laws of war?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fei ... 13372.html

1. The war, initiated by President Obama without congressional authorization, violated Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution--a high crime and misdemeanor that justifies impeachment and removal from office. James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated to Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch most prone to war and most interested in it, therefore the Constitution has with studied care vested that power in the Legislature." In the United States Senate in 2007, then Senator Clinton maintained: "If the [Bush] administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority." But as a presidential candidate in 2008, she thundered that in the White House she would obliterate Iran unilaterally if it attacked Israel: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel). In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

2. The war constituted the crime of aggression under the precedents of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the United Nations Charter, and the International Criminal Court, i.e., the use of force by one State against another--including bombardment--not justified by self-defense. Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed that the civil upheaval in Libya that triggered the war was not a "vital interest of the United States."

10. The war culminated in the establishment of rival lawless governments in Tripoli and Tobruk, multiple armed militia groups guilty of civilian abductions, torture, and extrajudicial killings, 550,00 internally displaced persons, and 150,00 Libyan refugees. Hillary Clinton, by precipitating the war, is morally complicit in these horrors and miseries.

Good starting points. Not to let Obama or Bush off the hook, but at least they didn't have all this dirt on them going into the presidency.

Not to excuse Trump on "going after the families", either, but, well, let's just say the precedent has been set on that, as well.

[quash]

I really don't want to talk more about the Syira/Russia/China trifecta past this because I don't think there's much more that needs to be said. I leave you all with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww

Here we see Putin giving journalists the type of discussion that should be had behind closed doors. It'd be easy to point the finger at him for not wanting to negotiate with the US, but it's actually the other way around. Ever since they took in Snowden, Obama hasn't given Putin the time of day. Not exactly a winning strategy for dealing with one half of the world's second strongest military alliance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdi_LhiAzsE

Here we see Obama clumsily dodge around explaining exactly how and why Ukraine and Syria came to be. "We will not turn Syria into a proxy war between the US and Russia"; too late, we already have.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z_8WiScUUw&t=2m48s

Here we see Trump weigh all of our options and conclude that it would be best to let Putin send in the cleanup crew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rtCDnuDXk4

Here's Hillary doing her worst to discredit Putin. Tell me who focuses on superficial insults over policy, again?

[Mortificator]

I don't want a glorified war criminal in the White House.

What actions by a current candidate do you think are violations of the Geneva Conventions or other laws of war?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fei ... 13372.html

The war constituted the crime of aggression under the precedents of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the United Nations Charter, and the International Criminal Court

The Nuremberg tribunal wasn't even a lawmaking body, but a judicial one convened to try cases against Axis leadership.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, which does not have jurisdiction over US citizens.

And claiming that the United Nations criminalizes the intervention is especially ludicrous, considering that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 established the legal basis for the intervention, following an affirmative vote by the Security Council which no members opposed. It is the very opposite of being condemned as a war crime by the UN... as, contrastingly, the bombing of Libya ordered by Ronald Reagan was.

[GaijinPunch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

[Ed Oscuro]

Turns out there's a different standard on that issue depending on which party ends up winning, though.

That was true even back then - look up Joe McCarthy and a certain winter massacre of GIs.

The Nuremberg tribunal wasn't even a lawmaking body, but a judicial one convened to try cases against Axis leadership.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, which does not have jurisdiction over US citizens.

And claiming that the United Nations criminalizes the intervention is especially ludicrous, considering that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 established the legal basis for the intervention, following an affirmative vote by the Security Council which no members opposed. It is the very opposite of being condemned as a war crime by the UN... as, contrastingly, the bombing of Libya ordered by Ronald Reagan was.

Damn, that's impressive knowledge. I think the last point is the most compelling though - Nuremberg has often been invoked as a sign of standards we ought to hold ourselves to. On the other hand, gassing millions of "undesirables" is somewhat different than anything Clinton's been even accused of (or other former Secretaries of State).

[BryanM]

Also it turns out gloating over people being murdered doesn't increase your poll numbers.

Who could have figured that one out, eh.