Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Zguy28

Members
  • Posts

    1,326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Zguy28

  1. 54 minutes ago, Bang said:

    "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country"

     

    not too long a step to 'maybe you should be in this camp"

     

    It is the inevitable direction these things take. Kilmeade's comment is by design, and this sentiment will grow just like it is supposed to, and just like it has in the past anywhere else words like this have been uttered. Fox is state propaganda, and we know it. 

     

    Ask yourself. When they discuss their Final Solution, on which side of the fence do you think they will put you?

     

    ~Bang

    I can only hope to live up to the legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

    So, the current talk in the Santa Fe shooting thread is in regards to mental health.  Some posts about on particular party not doing anything about that either.  Me personally, I think both parties have failed everyone.  I actually often wonder if any career politician (both parties) really gives that much of a **** about improving anything at all.  The last time we had any real changes was the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 1994.  And that was a close vote with 10 Republicans voting for it and 9 Democrats voting against it.

     

    It's just become a pissing war and talking point for debates for primaries and general elections.  Instead of implementing common sense gun control laws, that don't even threaten 2nd amendment rights, they just keep focusing on extremes.  There is room for common ground.  Raising the age limit to 21 does not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

     

    Passing laws that hold gun owners responsible for allowing access to their firearms by delivering stiffer penalties is not infringing on anyone's 2nd amendment rights.  Implementing another ban on certain future manufacturing and sale of certain models of semi-automatic rifles, limiting magazine capacity, banning bump stocks does not infringe upon anyone's 2nd amendment rights.

     

    Requiring a purchase permit to purchase all firearms and not just handguns does not infringe upon anyone's 2nd amendment rights.  Now, with all that said, I do not think the government should be able to outright ban owning/possessing any firearms that would be on a future ban list, as they were purchased legally (and in the 1994 ban, it wasn't illegal to own/possess/use if purchased prior to the ban date).  

     

    Sorry for my rant.  On to mental health.  What really can either side do on this?  Seriously.  Have to take a mental health test and be cleared by a professional and show proof prior to being able to purchase any firearms?  How will that get paid for?  Would you trust that the "professional" that was evaluating you would be professional and honest and really know after one test if you or anyone was deemed competent to possess a firearm?  

     

    Would this infringe upon our privacy?  Do you want the government to be able to require mental health tests for purchasing a firearm?  And what about the test itself, is there really a set number of questions/answers that can determine mental stability?  

    Its really impossible as a solution. "Prove to me your not a psychopath." Its totally subjective unless there is past actions to evidence it. You've got to make it more difficult to obtain the guns, not impossible, just more difficult. At least one's that are capable of rapid fire. I also would love to see mag limits and banning of bump stocks and similar devices that are "end arounds."

    1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

    I made a similar statement a while back saying both parties would rather keep their talking points instead of actually fixing anything.  And it is not just limited to gun control.

     

    I was accused of "both side-ism" and no meaningful discussion was had about it.

    I'm sure there are some who care about the issue on both sides, and many who care more about their seat and/or money, or just fighting the fight to keep those.

  3. 3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    Hmmm...dark web eh? Sounds more like he was on a website designed with Angelfire.

     

    I know what you mean about intelligent people getting sucked into this nonsense. Somewhere along the line we started believing that the counter voice was correct by virtue of being different. Sow in enough doubt about what passes as journalism and you have an intellectual person seeking truth in a place with no stops or accountability to insure accuracy or even basic truthfulness. 

     

    I blame the popularity of the X-Files... or maybe that's why it was so popular?

    • Like 1
  4. 42 minutes ago, Bang said:

    So if they aren't "conservatives" they must be "liberals"

     

    You guys and your labels.

    they are not conservatives. Their policies are not conservative. They are whores, sellouts, duplicitous silver tongued devils. They are bought and serve special interests. Wrapped in the flag, thumping bibles, and fleecing us all.

    When there is such a fundamental inability to recognize hypocrisy without justifying it by pointing at someone else.. , and there exists such a fundamental ability to adjust "facts" to fit thinking, to be so enamored of labels that everything must boil down to A or B, then i am certain there is no way out in this country except fire.

    Conservatives stand for personal responsibility.

    None of the current crop of GOP understands this. everything is someone else's fault, your dear leader spends his morning pushing out big mac turds and screaming accusations at everyone for the things he is doing. He's a filthy degenerate, period. He rips up every one of your values and ****s all over them and hands you a ****ing spoon.

    And you clowns eat it and pretend to be 'conservative".. and astonishingly, manage to do so without shame.

     

     

    ~Bang

    I hope you know it was not serious and I was messing with him. I know that the the "us and them" mentality is flawed. Its what I might hate most about politics in America. I label myself a moderate conservative. For instance, I don't agree with trickle down economics and support Gov. Hogan's new community college initiative to set aside public money for tuition grants. I think its reasonable and not irresponsible fiscally. So all that, I hear you, but trust me, I was joking at the expense of our antagonistic & hyper-polarized political discourse. 

    • Like 1
  5. 58 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    Reagan

    Perry

    Trump

    Cruz

     

    Wow, there’s a collection of Conservative...nope that’s not right, ummmm

    Oh yeah, massive fricking hypocrites...yup there it is.

    It’s unbelievable that people can even call these guys conservatives with a straight face. 

    So a liberal is responsible for the failure that is trickle down economics? Noted.

  6. 9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

     

    How cynical. 

     

    Then you know all that Social Security and Medicare you've been paying into for years? You won't see a penny. And no more safety net for the poor and oldsters. 

     

    You should read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood to see a foreshadowing of the Dominionist state.  Of course the rich will survive pretty well. 

     

    Are you sure you are rich enough?

    You calling me cynical? That's rich in itself. You're the one casting doom and gloom all the darn time. I'm pretty sure you exist on this forum to do nothing but that. I don't think the USA is collapsing as a republic any time soon. You on the other hand sound like Republicans in the Obama years.

    • Like 3
  7. 1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

    Hillary still better than Trump.

     

    And at least she respects the Republic and wouldn't try to make herself President for Life as Trump has gotten it into his brain.

     

    You prepared for that, the demise of our Republic?

    I know people who said that when Obama was president. Wasn't correct then either. Or maybe I should say immediate. No nation lasts forever. Its just a matter of when.

  8. 1 hour ago, zoony said:

     

    Want to bet these monsters are spawned as 100 percent a result of the relationship with their mother?

     

    No doubt there are very sick men out there.  You do a great job pointing it out.  Wondering if you ever stop to realize that behind every male sexual deviant, harrasser, and sicko is a sick, twisted mother figure.  Not even gonna mention serial killers and where they get their sickness (sick, twisted moms)

     

    I think its important you recognize that... this is not a `male` issue as much as you want it to be one... it is a societal issue.  Men and women play important roles

     

     

    It can be the mom, or lack of a deep emotional relationship with the father, which has all kinds of damaging results including crime, lack of independence in life , victim complexes etc.

    1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

    One thing that I've been wondering, how many guys in their teenage years flat out suck with women but mature in their adult years and go on to lead healthy, happy lives?

     

    I wonder if having access to communities like this is actually stunting the totally normal personal and emotional growth that is just a part of life. But if at 15 you start looking at your peers through the lens of the alt-right and the incel community?

    I absolutely believe this.

  9. 1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

    Nope, sorry Lady. You don't get to say you're fighting oppression and use that as an excuse for exercising bigotry.

    We can protect both women and transgendered rights at the same time. We can recognize and accept a groups right to exist and identify as who they naturally feel to be while ALSO protecting women from those who would abuse that fluidity to prey on women.

    That's my main point and I'll park it for now, so I don't derail the rest of the thread.

    What is unique to the transgender movement is that it is full of men who identify as women and vice versa, but by nature of what they are doing, they are essentially eroding what "man" and "woman" actually mean. If gender itself is fluid (not individual cultural norms such as what is considered masculine clothing in a time period, since that changes), then what purpose does it serve at all?

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...