How to end this

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

14 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

There was one posted on here in the 'not too distant past. 

I'm going to guess 5 years or so, but it could be several off in either direction. 

Of course, it didn't use the 'n' word, and the poster tried to pass it off as 'just a joke', but it was clearly racist and it was posted. IIRC, it stayed.

 

12 hours ago, airdvr said:

A joke that specifically used the N word?  I'm sure there have been racist jokes but I don't buy someone telling a joke with that word in it.

Did you actually read what I posted?

No, it did not specifically use the 'n' word.

But it was just as racist as if it had.

[Phil1111 908]

8 hours ago, yoink said:

NOT WHEN YOU ARE LEGALLY PROTESTING.

Jesus Christ. Does the first amendment mean nothing to you?

I'm starting to think that as an immigrant I'm the only person in this country who's read the constitution. Half the time Trump tweets I'm saying to myself 'you can't do that.... legally. Seriously.' 

You should be fighting to protect these people as strongly as you fight to protect your 2nd amendment rights - You've held the constitution up as an inviolate document before on that issue... Instead, now you're coming up with excuses based on what you IMAGINE these people MIGHT possibly do in the future, all video evidence to the contrary, in order to protect the team you associate with,  you massive fucking hypocrite. 

You completely miss the point. White supporters of trump and the GOP don't need to protest. Like all white collar crimes, no pun intended. Gerrymandering, vote rigging, vote denials, etc. Ensure that one white vote in a republican district counts for two black votes.

-Too bad for them.

White GOP supporters are ready on all occasions to support LE because they fight MS-13 and Black gangs that want to rape their white wives and children. So roughing them up and the occasional night-stick work on the back of their heads for resisting is OK. Just keep it all sub-Rosa.

-Too bad for them.

White trump GOP supporters don't need to protest, taste and feel gas. because. They are in their gated communities armed to the teeth. Constantly on the watch for Blacks who jog through their streets. If they get shot, well.

-Too bad for them.

[turtlespeed 212]

58 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

You completely miss the point. White supporters of trump and the GOP don't need to protest. Like all white collar crimes, no pun intended. Gerrymandering, vote rigging, vote denials, etc. Ensure that one white vote in a republican district counts for two black votes.

-Too bad for them.

White GOP supporters are ready on all occasions to support LE because they fight MS-13 and Black gangs that want to rape their white wives and children. So roughing them up and the occasional night-stick work on the back of their heads for resisting is OK. Just keep it all sub-Rosa.

-Too bad for them.

White trump GOP supporters don't need to protest, taste and feel gas. because. They are in their gated communities armed to the teeth. Constantly on the watch for Blacks who jog through their streets. If they get shot, well.

-Too bad for them.

Wow - you don't really live in reality do you?

What you describe happens on a very small scale - It also happens mainly in large urban areas.

Do you even consider the amount of crime that is in those areas in your equation?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

8 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Do you even consider the amount of crime that is in those areas in your equation?

Do you even consider how much systemic racism plays into being poor and how poverty often leads to crime?

[wmw999 2,116]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Wow.

. . . so much wrong with this.

What is wrong with it, Turtle? Do you disagree with the police protecting white supremacists? With the ACLU defending the right of the Nazi Party to march? Do you disagree with the right of the Black Panthers to bear arms?

If you only value the rights when they apply to you, you're getting deep into the "First, they came for the communists" territory (Niemoller). Rights are ours, not granted. The rights to assembly, association, and protest are just as sacrosanct as the rights to bear arms and participate (or not) in the religion of your choice.

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 212]

15 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

What is wrong with it, Turtle? Do you disagree with the police protecting white supremacists? With the ACLU defending the right of the Nazi Party to march? Do you disagree with the right of the Black Panthers to bear arms?

If you only value the rights when they apply to you, you're getting deep into the "First, they came for the communists" territory (Niemoller). Rights are ours, not granted. The rights to assembly, association, and protest are just as sacrosanct as the rights to bear arms and participate (or not) in the religion of your choice.

Wendy P.

(1)You should be fighting to protect these people as strongly as you fight to protect your 2nd amendment rights - You've held the constitution up as an inviolate document before on that issue... Instead, now you're coming up with excuses based on what you IMAGINE these people MIGHT possibly do in the future, all video evidence to the contrary, in order to protect the team you associate with,  (2) you massive fucking hypocrite.  <self explanatory>

(1) This lends to if you fight for abolishing the 2nd amendment - that fighting against any amendment is and should be acceptable as well.  You can't have it one way, but not the other.  That opens the door to much more.

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

(1)You should be fighting to protect these people as strongly as you fight to protect your 2nd amendment rights - You've held the constitution up as an inviolate document before on that issue... Instead, now you're coming up with excuses based on what you IMAGINE these people MIGHT possibly do in the future, all video evidence to the contrary, in order to protect the team you associate with,  (2) you massive fucking hypocrite.  <self explanatory>

(1) This lends to if you fight for abolishing the 2nd amendment - that fighting against any amendment is and should be acceptable as well.  You can't have it one way, but not the other.  That opens the door to much more.

 

Am I missing something here? Appears you are calling Wendy a massive fucking hypocrite, which I don't think is true, nor called for.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Am I missing something here? Appears you are calling Wendy a massive fucking hypocrite, which I don't think is true, nor called for.

That's incorrect.  I was quoting what she was talking about.  She asked me questions about what I thought was wrong.

[wmw999 2,116]

Took me a couple of minutes, too. Here's Yoink's post, which is what Turtle was actually responding to.

Quote

NOT WHEN YOU ARE LEGALLY PROTESTING.

Jesus Christ. Does the first amendment mean nothing to you?

I'm starting to think that as an immigrant I'm the only person in this country who's read the constitution. Half the time Trump tweets I'm saying to myself 'you can't do that.... legally. Seriously.' 

You should be fighting to protect these people as strongly as you fight to protect your 2nd amendment rights - You've held the constitution up as an inviolate document before on that issue... Instead, now you're coming up with excuses based on what you IMAGINE these people MIGHT possibly do in the future, all video evidence to the contrary, in order to protect the team you associate with,  you massive fucking hypocrite. 

So the "massive fucking hypocrite" didn't come from Turtle at all.

And I think that the response to the first part has a typo ("this leads to" instead of "this lends to"), but yeah, it does mean that if one Bill of Rights amendment can be fought against, so can the others. And that's a good way to put it, too.

But Turtle -- that took some effort to parse. . If you require that much effort of others to read your posts, then you should invest as much in reading theirs.

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Took me a couple of minutes, too. Here's Yoink's post, which is what Turtle was actually responding to.

So the "massive fucking hypocrite" didn't come from Turtle at all.

And I think that the response to the first part has a typo ("this leads to" instead of "this lends to"), but yeah, it does mean that if one Bill of Rights amendment can be fought against, so can the others. And that's a good way to put it, too.

But Turtle -- that took some effort to parse. . If you require that much effort of others to read your posts, then you should invest as much in reading theirs.

Wendy P.

Agreed - I should have spent more time on that one - 

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

(1) This lends to if you fight for abolishing the 2nd amendment - that fighting against any amendment is and should be acceptable as well.  You can't have it one way, but not the other.  That opens the door to much more.

You're getting confused, Turtle.

Yoink said that 2nd-Amendment supporters hold the Constitution as inviolable, and accuses them of not being consistent by ignoring violations of the 1st Amendment.

You're arguing that people who think the 2nd Amendment should be abolished are being inconsistent, because they want to keep the 1st Amendment. Besides the large gap in the logic, you're not addressing yoink's argument directly.

You're basically doing an ad hominem - attacking the credibility of the arguer, rather than arguing against their argument.

Seriously, stop with the pretense about being unbiased.

Edited June 5, 2020 by olofscience

[olofscience 420]

In summary, the background to Turtle's argument is:

L: "we want to abolish the 2nd Amendment (and keep the others)"

R: "The constitution is inviolable, no"

L: "1st amendment rights are being violated, why aren't you complaining then? You're being inconsistent"

Turtle: "This is so wrong. If L wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment, all other amendments should be fair game and they should accept that people will fight against the 1st Amendment. You can't have it one way, but not the other."

Turtle's argument is off topic, nobody's mentioned anything about abolishing the 1st Amendment, and in fact conservatives are VERY pro 1st Amendment too. But only when it's in their interest.

Edited June 5, 2020 by olofscience

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

...nobody's mentioned anything about abolishing the 1st Amendment, and in fact conservatives are VERY pro 1st Amendment too. But only when it's in their interest.

Well, Trump has done a lot to try to stop people from exercising those rights.

Apparently, the ACLU filed a lawsuit about the photo-op and how the protesters were treated.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/lawsuit-white-house-protesters-trump-church-aclu/index.html

The funny part about it is that they are going to use Trump's own words against him.

 

But you're absolutely right about 'only when it's in their interest'.

Trump himself encouraged the 'open up' protests. Praised the protesters.

When armed protesters stormed the Michigan capitol building, Trump tweeted that the MI governor should sit down with them and 'make a deal'.

So why didn't he follow his own advice? Because they were unarmed?

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

What is wrong with it, Turtle? Do you disagree with the police protecting white supremacists? With the ACLU defending the right of the Nazi Party to march? Do you disagree with the right of the Black Panthers to bear arms?

If you only value the rights when they apply to you, you're getting deep into the "First, they came for the communists" territory (Niemoller). Rights are ours, not granted. The rights to assembly, association, and protest are just as sacrosanct as the rights to bear arms and participate (or not) in the religion of your choice.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

One of your best posts ever.  Well done,

Jerry Baumchen 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

12 hours ago, yoink said:

NOT WHEN YOU ARE LEGALLY PROTESTING.

Jesus Christ. Does the first amendment mean nothing to you?

I'm starting to think that as an immigrant I'm the only person in this country who's read the constitution. Half the time Trump tweets I'm saying to myself 'you can't do that.... legally. Seriously.' 

You should be fighting to protect these people as strongly as you fight to protect your 2nd amendment rights - You've held the constitution up as an inviolate document before on that issue... Instead, now you're coming up with excuses based on what you IMAGINE these people MIGHT possibly do in the future, all video evidence to the contrary, in order to protect the team you associate with,  you massive fucking hypocrite. 

Hi Will,

I have posted before that it does seem to me that the immigrants to this country are more well versed in the US Constitution than most native born Americans.

It is a sad commentary on our country.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And I'm no constitutional scholar; I'm ignorant about a lot of what is in it.

 

[normiss 620]

8 hours ago, olofscience said:

In summary, the background to Turtle's argument is:

L: "we want to abolish the 2nd Amendment (and keep the others)"

R: "The constitution is inviolable, no"

L: "1st amendment rights are being violated, why aren't you complaining then? You're being inconsistent"

Turtle: "This is so wrong. If L wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment, all other amendments should be fair game and they should accept that people will fight against the 1st Amendment. You can't have it one way, but not the other."

Turtle's argument is off topic, nobody's mentioned anything about abolishing the 1st Amendment, and in fact conservatives are VERY pro 1st Amendment too. But only when it's in their interest.

Neither has the left called for abolishing the 2nd, that's the right's fear mongering approach to any improvements to gun laws.

[yoink 321]

10 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Will,

I have posted before that it does seem to me that the immigrants to this country are more well versed in the US Constitution than most native born Americans.

It is a sad commentary on our country.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And I'm no constitutional scholar; I'm ignorant about a lot of what is in it.

 

It's not surprising, really, given that gaining citizenship is such a big deal to how your situation changes as an immigrant once it's granted, and given there's an exam with a section on the constitution on it. You go through a lot just to get to that point, so you don't want to fluff it.

I suspect that as a naturalized American it's easy for people to pick and choose the bits of it they associate with and disregard the rest - so they can be extremely passionate about 2nd amendment rights but not really give a shit about the 5th, for example, because it doesn't directly affect them (until it does ). But that's not the way it works - You can't say 'my guns are protected by the 2nd but those protesters need to be shut up'... 

 

And out of interest, can anyone link to anyone suggesting that 2nd amendment rights should be changed since this pandemic started? I've heard Trump say 'They're coming to take your guns' in pretty much every rally he gives, but he's full of shit and panders to his base without any evidence so I generally ignore him. Has anyone with any credibility mixed the corona virus pandemic / the recent racism protests and gun ownership?

I've not seen it, but I might have missed something.

Edited June 6, 2020 by yoink

[kallend 1,621]

7 hours ago, normiss said:

Neither has the left called for abolishing the 2nd, that's the right's fear mongering approach to any improvements to gun laws.

What's the point of the 2nd when Obama confiscated all the guns anyway?

[turtlespeed 212]

7 hours ago, yoink said:

It's not surprising, really, given that gaining citizenship is such a big deal to how your situation changes as an immigrant once it's granted, and given there's an exam with a section on the constitution on it. You go through a lot just to get to that point, so you don't want to fluff it.

I suspect that as a naturalized American it's easy for people to pick and choose the bits of it they associate with and disregard the rest - so they can be extremely passionate about 2nd amendment rights but not really give a shit about the 5th, for example, because it doesn't directly affect them (until it does ). But that's not the way it works - You can't say 'my guns are protected by the 2nd but those protesters need to be shut up'... 

 

 

It would seem that more emphasis would be put on the education of the citizenry then.

The (modern) education system needs to accept responsibility for this.

Letting people "pass" because they showed up, shouldn't be an acceptable result.

 

[BIGUN 1,049]

9 hours ago, normiss said:

Neither has the left called for abolishing the 2nd, that's the right's fear mongering approach to any improvements to gun laws.

I think it's more of a concern about erosion. Each party uses the other's pattern of erosion to get what they want. Kind of a peanut bowl approach. One peanut at a time until "they" have the whole bowl. It's just which side is the loudest or creates the most fear in their marketing efforts.   

[timski 80]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2020 at 5:44 PM, airdvr said:

And I'm glad that's happening but I get tired of Dekker pointing his finger at the US as if our problems don't exist in his country as well.

I know we have a problem here...we have for decades.  It doesn't seem to be getting any better and I don't know what to do about it.  I do know that riots don't help the problem.

I let it briefly bother me too, that some Canadian has nothing better than to point out America's "stupid gun accidents" or the like.  I'm over it.  As if his own country doesn't suffer the exact same shit... Granted on a much smaller scale (let's keep it real).  Not to veer off course...  

[Phil1111 908]

6 minutes ago, timski said:

I let it briefly bother me too, that some Canadian has nothing better than to point out America's "stupid gun accidents" or the like.  I'm over it.  As if his own country doesn't suffer the exact same shit... Granted on a much smaller scale (let's keep it real).  Not to veer off course...  

Well you're certainly free to use your search function to look for stupid Canadians. Perhaps ones that overheat their igloos and have to move into a tent in the summertime.

Or Two RCMP officers criminally charged by ASIRT in 2018 police-involved shooting that left one man dead

Or Canada Bans Assault Weapons in Wake of Deadly Mass Shooting

If Canada elected someone like trump he would be removed in short order. With the current PM there was the "Blackface" affair prior to the last election. Under Trudeau Canada has slipped three places on the world transparency international corruption index. because of what he did to cover up a Quebec based corporation's bribery scandal in Libya.

The substantive difference is that trump is a racist. Canadian politicians who have gone anywhere near what trump routinely does. get the boot from their respective parties or jobs. Almost immediately. There are dog whistling Canadian politicians. They are seldom elected. Immigration almost a non issue.

There is a current issue 'Almost half of Canadians want border with U.S. to remain closed until end of 2020: poll" because of the concerns of the lack of discipline of trump and the C-19 issue.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

The idea that perfection needs to be achieved prior to being "allowed" to comment is idiotic.

[gowlerk 1,903]

38 minutes ago, timski said:

As if his own country doesn't suffer the exact same shit... Granted on a much smaller scale (let's keep it real).  Not to veer off course...  

The US rate of gun deaths is 5 to 10 times the per capita rate in Canada. Depending on how and who is measuring.

[wmw999 2,116]

I'm sure Canadians have plenty of better things to do, but this was a thread mostly about the US. The US has a much larger impact on Canada than vice-versa, so they are discussing something that impacts them.

And yeah, if someone has to be perfect before they can criticize, we're all fucked. There's something to that "don't criticize the little bitty problem the other guy has when yours is so much bigger," but somewhere there's a discussion medium. That's the place where you can admit that you're not perfect, while talking about someone else's faults, or let others, who also agree they're not perfect, talk about our faults. 

Admitting fault doesn't weaken us.

Wendy P.