s0crates

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

Do you have a fear that one day you will advocate against people, or do violence against people, because of their gender, creed, or race?

 

No, not exactly. I have a fear that people will do that, which is why I do my best to adhere to the principles designed to prevent it.

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yup.

 

They are a cancer on society and causing problems for everyone. Even someone like me, a white male. You treat cancer aggressively.

 

They should be exterminated. Their whole identity is derived from hurting (mentally or physicall) people simply because they not look alike.

 

I'm not looking for your approval on my morality. I'll sleep quite comfortably knowing our society would be better off if people who praise Hitler or advocate for hurting people because of their skin/gender didn't exist.

 

I'm know I'm right. I don't have moral or religious constructs that require me to respect or cherish the life of a white supremacists.

 

I have equal views of Muslim extremists that kidnap young girls from school and sell them into sex slavery.

I don't doubt some people deserve to die, as for example people selling young girls into sex slavery, but I will insist nobody deserves to die because of what he thinks, even if what he thinks is stupid. 

I do agree with you in the sense that our society would be better off if these people weren't so stupid, I just think there are better solutions to that problem than genocide.

4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

This is peachy coming from the turd who spent his time on this board shilling for Bernie, and now posts alt-right junk and calls people SJWs.

Maybe you'll exterminate me too?

12 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

No. 

 

Im not dealing with this "it's both sides that are like this" bull**** today. The other side isn't showing its ass in Charlottesville right now. Stop trying to deflect from what this really is. Whenever the other side gets violent, it's always in direct response to what the PoS that are in Charlottesville are doing or have done. The root of the issue is these PoS in Charlottesville and their millions of sympathizers across the nation. 

I imagine you're quite right on this point, but I'm looking at a bigger picture. There's a culture war happening, which is why we spent all week arguing about some mid-level IT guy getting fired for an email. The fringes of the culture war are radicalized. This march today is evidence of that, as were the Berkeley antifa riots.

Most of us aren't them, and those of us who aren't them need to do a better job of communicating before they get out of control. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it doesn't look good to me.

8 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Get the **** out with the both sides nonsense in here. 

 

No one on the left is marching while praising the Nazis. 

 

No one on the left is voting for extremists like Corey Stewart. 

 

This rally has explicit ties to the VA GOP. 

Quite a few in this thread have openly advocated exterminating these poor ignorant slobs, do you not think that's a radical solution to the problem? Suppose that was the reaction to an antifa rally with communist flags if it helps.

This is not good. There are a lot of radicals on both sides of the aisle ready for violence. Hopefully things don't escalate too much and nobody gets hurt out there. I'm still holding out hope that the more sane among us can resolve our political disputes with words. 

On June 29, 2017 at 2:29 PM, TryTheBeal! said:

The NRA is a Death Cult.

 

<viral NRA ad video>

Just saw this video, and I must say it is scary stuff. Worse than the lunatics on the left who want to burn the racist patriarchy to the ground are the compensatory forces they've summoned on the right who are stocking up on ammo to use against them. Now might be a good time for the ideologically possessed folks on both sides to stop regarding half the country as the enemy.

I'm just getting up to speed on this, so I don't know what the law does or what impact changing it might have. I do find it interesting that both Google and 4chan are protesting the Republican plan.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN19X268

Quote

Wed Jul 12, 2017 | 5:10 PM EDT

Tech firms protest proposed changes to U.S. net neutrality rules

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc (FB.O), Twitter Inc (TWTR.N), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and dozens of other major technology companies protested online on Wednesday against proposed changes to U.S. net neutrality rules that prohibit broadband providers from giving or selling access to certain internet services over others.
 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-switch/wp/2017/07/12/even-4chan-is-opposing-the-republican-plan-for-net-neutrality/

Quote

Even 4chan is opposing the Republican plan for net neutrality

 

But joining them is a curious corner of the Web: 4chan, the message-board site that's known for producing an avalanche of pro-Donald Trump memes during the 2016 presidential campaign that made the GOP nominee a viral sensation on social media and, many argue, helped usher him into the Oval Office. It's Trump's own telecom regulators who, now, are spearheading the very repeal effort that so many websites are protesting this week. And 4channers are irate about it.
 

 

4chan summoned an Egyptian god of chaos to help get Trump elected, so maybe he'll listen to them.

https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com

Quote

THE REAL STORY BEHIND HILLARY CLINTON’S “CARTOON NAZI FROG” WILL BLOW YOUR MIND

I’ll cut right to the chase:

 

Pepe the Frog isn’t a white nationalist symbol.

Pepe the Frog isn’t a harmless meme propagated by teenagers on the internet.

Pepe the Frog is, in fact, the modern-day avatar of an ancient Egyptian deity accidentally resurrected by online imageboard culture. 
 

 

Obama tries diplomacy with Iran. Republican response: "Obama is a Muslim terrorist! Probably born in Kenya! Here's a picture of him in a Turbin! All true patriots must resist this treason!"

Trump tries diplomacy with Russia. Democrat response: "Muh Russia! Trump is a Putin puppet! Probably a KGB double-agent! Here's some real estate he bought in Moscow! All true patriots must resist this treason!!"

10 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Another person that cares about party over country. 

That blade cuts both ways.

Anyway I agree with the sentiment that this place can be pretty insufferable if your worldview deviates much from Rachel Maddow.  

1 hour ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

My take is it is a big noting burger served up to prove the meeting accomplished something.

I don't see how to read a move towards peace in Syria as anything but a step in the right direction, if only a small step. 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/us/politics/syria-ceasefire-agreement.html?referer=http://www.bing.com/search?q=cease-fore+syria&a=results&MID=2500

Quote

U.S., Russia and Jordan Reach Deal for Cease-Fire in Part of Syria

WASHINGTON — The United States, Russia and Jordan have agreed to foster a cease-fire in a limited area of southwestern Syria that will begin at noon on Sunday, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson said on Friday after the first face-to-face meeting between President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
 

I doubt it will happen, but if Trump can help broker an end to the fighting in Syria, then I'll buy one of those red hats. If you're against peace just because somebody you don't like offered it, then perhaps you're too dogmatically positioned against him.

5 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

If you have followed what is going on in Syria you would know it has been in the grey area between the two. We have some overlapping interests wrt ISIS, and some conflicting ones wrt Assad and the resistance to Assad. Plus neither side really wants to have a war with the other, could get ugly.

So therefore Trump's efforts at diplomacy are what? Not newsworthy? Bad?

@Bang Sorry, I took "cooperative forces" to be a synonym for "allies."

Anyway, I was trying to point out what seems to be a logical problem with your dismissal of the cease-fire. Either relations with Russia have been cooperative or they have not. If they have, then maybe we should stop acting like we're still fighting the Cold War, and if they have not, then a cease-fire is news.

8 hours ago, Bang said:

Oh cool, a cease fire between supposed cooperative forces.

Wait, are you saying the US and Russia are allies? 

On April 28, 2017 at 0:34 PM, mcsluggo said:

 

this needs to be reposted in every thread in the tailgate. 

Did the 1980s call?

Edit: redacted.

<deleted OT video> 

20 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

 

It's an exceptionally dumb argument. I know it in detail, and it isn't worth the time to unpack.  I have noted the people who think that way use it to here as a form of blame game, trying to avoid any culpability (everyone who could vote and didn't vote for hc directly helped elect trump, or as direct as you can short of voting for him). The only way to stop trump was to vote hc.

 

Many made a choice to go alt-candidates or sit home out of "principle" as they sse iot, but to they're sitting on a thin soap bubble re: their rationale. Any vote for a stein or a johnson was helping trump, not hc. Those were the obvious mechanics, not spins or feelings or ideas, and that outcome was easily figurable by any competent intellect with some emotional management.  

 

These kind of posts as taylor makes is a way for the person to avoid assuming any culpability in what is being regarded by so many of their fellows as a horror show, but gives them in their mind a "reason" to chide the same side they were chiding before the election, even though they lost. Not surprised soc liked it. 

You're making several assumptions about debatable propositions that I don't have time to discuss at the moment. The following video deals with some of them:

23 minutes ago, Destino said:

So trump chose the seven countries based on Obama administration's vias wavier restrictions that identified the same ones.  While I have had no trouble finding that information online, each of the two dozen or so articles I read this morning stop there.  Can someone educate me on why the Obama administration chose those same seven countries?  I'm not justifying what Trump is doing, I simply want to understand why these seven nations in particular stand out. 

 

 

I don't know the answer to your question either, but this might be related somehow:

These are the seven countries we've been bombing: Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Libya.

These are the seven countries on Trump's ban list: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen.

20 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Okay, believe his lies. Cheers for you, Soc.

Who said anything about believing him? To paraphrase the conversation:

Tailgate: We love Muslims. Trump is evil because he hates Muslims.

Me: I love Muslims too, but where was all this love for them while we were bombing the **** out of them?

You: Those bombs weren't targeting Muslims, they were targeting terrorists and enemies of the US. Important distinction.

Me: I'm sure Trump would make the same distinction.

You: Absolutely not.

Me: Quote from Trump making the same distinction.

You: s0crates believes Trump's lies!

Me: :confused

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

Absolutely not. 

That's "absolutely not" what he would say?

Direct quote, "This is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion -- this is about terror and keeping our country safe."

Looks to me like the same "important distinction" you made. Isn't it?

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

That's not fair.  I'm still here.  TWA, Kilmer, and many others all still here.

Might as well add me to that list.

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

Have we been bombing Muslims or terrorists and enemies of the US? Some would argue that there is an important distinction there.

I imagine Trump would make that sort of argument. Can't you hear him saying this? "It's not a Muslim ban, it's a ban on terrorists and enemies of the US. Bigly important distinction."

As far as who we've been bombing: I'll grant that the 100,000 bombs we dropped over the past two years have targeted "terrorists and enemies of the US," but I'm pretty sure they've killed a lot of innocent civilians and contributed to the mess in the Middle East in the process.

Anyway of course people are fleeing their war torn countries in the Middle East, and to be clear, I completely support offering these people asylum in the US, but I also think we should examine the root causes of the refugee problem. Why is the Middle East so bad? I'm sure it's partly just the way the Middle East has always been, but I'd argue a big part of the problem is the mess Bush and Obama made. Frankly I don't see why this is such a contentious thing to say. 

4 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I chose not to look at them at all.  And to read your post.  Which, as near as I can tell, makes no attempt to somehow link Trump's Ban to the fact that there's been war in the Middle East for the last 100 years.  (Not 10.)  

 

Did you actually have a point?  (Other than "Hey, look at these videos"?)  

 

If you want to discuss the content I linked (which is directly relevant to the topic), then I'd be interested. If you want castigate me for my opinion without considering the information and arguments that support it, then there isn't much I can do. 

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And Trump's Ban is both Constitutional, and a solution for these problems you've stated, because . . . ?  

 

Or did you not actually have a point other than using this discussion as a venue in which to say that you think the US has been bad, in the past (while avoiding the topic being discussed entirely)?  

1. I linked two videos about the topic being discussed. I assume you chose to ignore them. Anyway I think the point both videos make about "selective outrage" is fair and relevant.

2. I never said I agree with Trump's executive order. In fact my only other post today on this topic linked to the ACLU's website and applauded their efforts.