Printable View
Here's a thread where we post current events/news not about conspiracy theories, anti gun laws and obamacare.
First off i will post these current events/news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIYV...LYZA4dmDt4Cd6A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t5U...LYZA4dmDt4Cd6A
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/chile-e...ll-6-1.2594894
Sandy Hook was a hax
* hoaxQuote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtYr-sYlCY4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-6Sdo6eAI4
Here is a bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJz-sgJJ-cg
The Pacific and Nazca plates have been busy lately. A few mid-level earthquakes near L.A. a few weeks ago, the 8.2 off the coast of Chile yesterday, and now a 5.8 near Panama today. Good discussion topics for my geology class.
Edit: 7.4 magnitude earthquake just happened off Chile (10:43 PM EDT).
Edit 2: USGS upgraded it to a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, and places the epicenter on-land.
Just heard about the after shock. Damn, LA got off easy. Must be all the Scientologism.
We need Snake Plissken.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Mozilla's CEO Brenden Eich resigned after OKCupid promoted a Mozilla boycott because the CEO donated 1,000 dollars to prop 8 in 2008. If you aren't aware, prop 8 was a California ballot to ban gay marriage.
Mozilla CEO Resigns After Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Campaign Donation - ABC News
Gay marriage people are hypocrites. They want gay marriage but they won't allow polygamy.
That's funny because one major argument against gay marriage is that it's a slippery slope and next people will push to marry their dogs. Like it's the gateway marriage, and here you are calling activists hypocrites for not trying to take a mile with an inch. By those standards, why aren't people that only support heterosexual marriage just as hypocritical?
Legally speaking polygamy would be hard to do, the whole point of gay marriage is to give your same-sex significant other the right to de facto inherit your shit if you die without a will, or keep you plugged in (or pull it) if you go on life-support without a living will, or allow the joint adoption of a child so if the natural parent dies the spouse retains legal guardian status. It also comes down to things as simple as being allowed to visit your SO in the hospital, but that's not really where the dilemma is. The dilemma is that your spouse has precedence if you lack a will or living will, and if you're allowed multiple spouses it negates precedence and could cause legal debacles that don't help anybody. The battle between parents and spouses is bad enough regarding these issues but luckily in this country the spouse has precedence over the parents.
Nope. Hypocritical, but not as much. Traditional conservatism has been pretty consistent on what constitutes marriage for about 2000 years. They never argued to expand the definition to include some types but exclude others. It is only modern liberalism that seeks to both toss aside the traditional definition and at the same time exclude other definitions. This is a key distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
And let's be honest here. The only reasons liberals hate polygamy are twofold: 1) mormons do it, and mormons are religious, and religion is bad, and 2) polygamy is usually 1 man to several women, which offends the feminists.
Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the government just got out of the marriage business entirely.
Homosexual and polygamous marriage should both be legal. Heterosexual marriage should be illegal because it is not what the Flying Spaghetti Monster intended.
I didn't bother bringing this up, but a "gay marriage people" is defined by only one trait, they're in favor of gay marriage. You'd likely find more people in the anti-gay marriage side of the fence against polygamy than in the pro-gay marriage side, simply because the pro-gay marriage side includes libertarians like U.M.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
And you can't take the government out of marriage because it's not legally meaningless, as I've already explained it directly relates to inheritance, life-support rights and legal guardian status. You need a binding contract between people to grant each other de facto rights for those situations. That's all marriage is, a contract. Traditional marriage existed for a specific purpose regarding land and inheritance, and it still holds that purpose but there's no reason to disqualify this inheritance simply because the couple is same sex. In fact, by simply extending marriage law to same sex couples it simplifies the matter of legal guardian status and everything else and prevents a lot of head aches. Granting multiple people the same de facto rights would only increase the head aches.
But none of that even comes close to the major point you've failed to address. You're essentially bitching at activists for refusing to take a mile with an inch, for not following through with the fallacy used to argue against them. You've still utterly failed to give a good reason why being pro gay marriage is more hypocritical, same sex couples have wanted to get married since as long as homosexuality has existed, their stance hasn't changed any more than anti-gay marriage. It's just that now you don't get lit on fire for promoting it.
Seriously, your argument is essentially the same as calling civil rights activists hypocrites for not wanting to extend voting rights to chimpanzees just because they wanted to grant that right to women and minorities.
I've been looking into this for a while, but it finally hit the Times last week: Why Only One Top Banker went to Jail for Financial Crisis
Pretty much seals the coffin on American Democracy.
What is modern democracy but a dictatorship, with parts of the population electing a group of oligarchs, which in turn appoint the people in charge of running the dictatorship?
This woman is facing 7 years for elbowing a cop. She claims he was sexually assaulting her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CZKO0aS7QA
So we're on the verge of over-turning Super PACs, the infrastructure is already in place for a mass exodus to google fiber if we can stop telecom lobbyists, John Oliver is putting massive pressure on the FCC to do the right thing, polls show despite NBC and CNN's best efforts to rig the public opinion, the majority of Americans side with Snowden.
It's easy to get drained by all the negativity, to see the country as slipping into a GOP envisioned dystopia with the DNC acting as a buffer to suck up all the resentment. It's difficult to remember that plenty of democrats, and a republican or two, are still doing their honest best for the country, that even if the biggest news and cable companies are in cahoots to form a monopoly and control every aspect of public perception in America, the dissenters are never far off the beaten path and people just aren't buying into this bullshit anymore.
Then of course, you hear this: Report: Honeybee Death Rate is Currently too High for Survival of the Species and remember that no matter what social justices we protect and tyrannies we stop, we're still completely fucked. Even Fox News has stopped bothering to deny global warming because at this point there's no more purpose in creating a wash, the ship is sinking no matter what. When Fox News drops a charade, it's never because the truth has proven irrefutable. Neither the company nor its audience has much concern over truth. It's because the charade has fulfilled its purpose. Whatever reason conservatives had for inhibiting the call to arms against global warming, they've likely succeeded.
Now for the plot twist! A freedom "known" fighter has emerged in Canada....go look at his facebook profile...it's all anti gov stuff and all pro-gun.
Moncton shooting: Finding, arresting suspect 'top priority' - New Brunswick - CBC News
This is all from someone who "had enough of gov" but i know media is going to say he is mentally deranged.
Then more control for guns in Canada....like we haven't had enough already??...makes no sense.
Moncton shooting: National Firearms Association blasts gun rules after deadly attack - Canada - CBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqBMS2E4p74
The guy is a nutjob.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
Being anti-gov is meaningless unless you have the intentions and the means to bring about genuine reform. This guy's just an armchair-revolutionary with no knowledge whatsoever about socio-political change and has done a great deal of damage to anyone who supports gun rights. This mental health issue is going to be sidetracked by knee-jerk reactions calling for more gun control (even though Canada does a fine job of it already), and pro-gun citizens are going to get caught in the same nonsense as the Americans have gotten themselves into. The only way to curb the damage done by this jackass is to remind people that mass shootings are a primarily a mental health issue.
All i can say is....maybe. But tell me how are we going to go about restoring the gun rights??....which i know what you said doesn't give the answer.....are we going in circles again? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
By remaining reasonable and reminding people that it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue. People that are in favor of gun rights should also start campaigning for change in the way we deal with mental health issues. The Americans fucked up already, we just have to make sure we don't follow suit.
Anyone can say you got a mental issue when you don't :) if you catch my drift. This is not the issue, because you will see lots of abuse of power against people who are "known" as mental cases only because they assume so or those who need to take medications causes these issues...we can debate on this all day but from my point of view it's different because there always will be abusive power over those who are deemed "mental" like example..."You're mental because you are against guns...or you're mental because of your religion..etc etc" I can go all day about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Oh god dammit not every fucking loopy gun nut is a government sleeper agent. Can we stop perpetuating the Alex Jones crazy tour already? Is it really supposed to be surprising that he inspires ultra-conservative terrorists? His fucking self-fulfilling prophecy has basically been used to justify the surveillance state in the first place. He is unknowingly bringing to reality the phantoms he rants against, and this shooter is one of them.
I'm way pass that "agent" stuff already, i'm going after clues...like how we all should be doing...going after mental or deemed mental people is a start for gun grabbing. I realize the feds took peoples advice and twist it and make it more on the abusive power, people always say..."It's the person behind the gun that is the problem"....now the NWO is going to use that in abusive power now. sigh thanks for every ones advice...they actually ratted on themselves now. "The non-awake people".Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
That doesn't mean none of them are patsies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
People need to attribute it to mental illness because they don't want to admit that they're capable of extremist violence as well given the right circumstances such as buying into Alex Jones and being radicalized. Look at the Children of Drone or Terrorist University docs from Vice, the process of being radicalized into terrorism is ubiquitous. If Alex Jones were Muslim he'd be accurately labeled a terrorist recruiter. He preys on the weakminded and victimized, fuels them with anger then provides them a scapegoat.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
Which is why I say the extreme right-wing libertarian movement in this country is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for tyranny. Just like how terrorist organizations in the Middle East end up provoking the very attacks and western occupation they are supposedly trying to put a stop to, these gun nuts trying to defend their rights by assaulting random civilians are pressuring local, state and federal governments to roll back on their rights. You don't need a conspiracy or a mentally ill margin, the feedback loop is right fucking there.
As far as shooters that don't act out of political reasons, well the political aspect may be a bit more vague but terrorism is always political in nature, ultimately violence is the language of the voiceless, people don't feel like they're being heard in society so they make the world pay attention to them. SSRIs are linked to virtually every mass shooting, which not only increase a person's likelihood of acting out their fantasies (SSRIs are also attributed to the worst kinds of murder you could imagine) but also give evidence that they were troubled and marginalized for their troubles, given a pill and told to fuck off basically. So their troubles were not realistically addressed, and that's the way our society, especially the US and Canada, is set up. Everything is gilded and ugliness is swept under the rug so it comes back to bite us in the ass.
Yes i agree with all that you said...but i'm still keeping mind on where the feds is going with this "Mental illness" thing, and if anyone can take your rights by seeing that you are not "mind fit" they can "rat" on you....that's what basically is going on...next will be thought police and emotions...like the movie Equilibrium. Who the fuck knows! Anything goes with Nwo.
OP, screw Alex Jones. A shooting hoax is a big deal, and you can't expect people not to say anything about them when they know they have happened. Your argument about encouraging violence can be applied to any political position. Nobody in this thread has advocated violence against the government, and I have written against it a bunch in this forum. To say that we are encouraging violence is just like saying you are. There are lots of left wing nuts who are violent. Maybe you should stop giving them reasons to be angry?
How about, if you're prescribed to a SSRI, you can't own a gun? I know it sounds like a slippery slope, but the definition is plain, and you're not attributing it to mental illness, you're attributing it to the side effects of the drug, just like how on alcohol you're prohibited from operating a vehicle. Warning: May cause psychotic outbursts.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
I'm not sure about the latest two outbursts, I attribute that mostly to radicalization toward violence. The way to solve that is to change the cultural language on the conservative side of the fence. They use hate and anger to get the voters to the polls, or to attract viewers as pundits. Valuing corporations over people is hardly a slogan that rallies the vote.
I live in Australia, where gun violence is almost non-existent, even among those on psychotropic medication.
I won't infiltrate your thread with my opinions on gun laws, but I'll leave this here for you guys... ;)
http://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE
Yes even the medicated will be attacked....remember this isn't my opinion, it's the feds. I know it isn't right deeming almost everything mentally deranged. It seems like there will come a time when people don't know who's mental and who's not, lots of confusion upon the future is coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
~Dreamer~ i don't mind, my country is also non-existent about gun violence, but now it's starting because america is doing the same but in a different way of society trend. What is said here most often is "What happens in america also happens in canada and vice versa."
They're not going to take responsibility. But think about the John Oliver video, gun lobbies are pushing for open carry and stand your ground and then shooters seem like they could be anywhere right now. So people are being radicalized into violence and a short step away from people so looney they're shooting people are people so looney they're shooting people with impunity because of "stand your ground" and people that think they should be allowed to carry their fucking assault rifles into Denny's. So basically if I have a gun in a Denny's, ready to be a good guy with a gun, and I see a bunch of other good guys with bigger guns coming into the Denny's, what am I supposed to do? I wouldn't even be a hero if it were the old days, I could assume they were just robbing the place. Now I could worry they might just be out to kill people and I'm not gonna want to give them a chance to explain themselves.
EDIT: Also here's a video that I can't stand watching through. I hope his moment where he talked about the Illuminati spreading DMT to bring in the fourth dimensional aliens.
SSRI's do not make people mentally ill. Mentally ill people sometimes take SSRI's. The pills are not the problem. A lot of people desperately need SSRI's. Those medications can pull people out of the far depths of depression. Prozac saved my life twice. I was close to killing myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
People who want to kill with guns are going to do it, law or no law. You can't stop the underground gun market any more than you can stop the underground drug market. Where there is a demand, there is a supply. That is how it works. If you piss on the Second Amendment and make it illegal for people on SSRI's to have guns, you will just be pissing on the Second Amendment. Also, let's not create a deterrent to people being prescribed SSRI's. The medications often prevent suicide. Let's also not screw with doctor/client privilege.
Attachment 7197Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
:cackle::laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
China should do the same; they could use names like Edward Snowden, H. Rap Brown, etc.
LMAO! Oh God lol this world. :laughtillhurts:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
We should talk to China about it. That'd be the perfect passive-aggressive counter.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BANQuote:
Originally Posted by ~ Dreamer ~
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
Before Shooting in Iraq, a Warning on Blackwater - New York Times
And then it gets worse.Quote:
WASHINGTON — Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports.
I'm fucking nauseous right now. This is fucking infuriating.
Supreme Court rulings 2014: SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on birth control - POLITICO.com
Explain to me why you think it's infuriating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
You see nothing wrong with that?Quote:
The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Even if you ignore that, their defense was absolute nonsense. The law didn't infringe on their religious beliefs in the slightest.
Exactly. What they've essentially done, with the single sweep of a pen, is roll back decades of work by the ACLU to protect workers against discrimination. In protecting a company's freedom of religion, they've destroyed the worker's freedom of religion.
You realize it's poor form to just list a source on the subject without expositing even so much as your point, right? Are you trying to make an argument here? Because this article isn't making it for you. In plain English, it's still stating that owners have control over their employees' religious practices in the scope of all aspects related to their employment. Jehova's Witnesses, who do not believe in using medicine at all, or practice holidays, could effectively ban all healthcare and holidays.
http://i.imgur.com/Tpr7E5G.jpg
The simple fact is, by giving corporations freedom of religion, they have taken it away from the people. They have put a corporation's freedom of religious practice's ban on birth control precedent over a citizen's freedom of non-religious practice to take it.
Businesses should not be forced to pay for the medical insurance of their workers. If they are, they should not be forced to pay for birth control. If they are, they should not have to be forced to pay for birth control that a large portion of the religious population considers murderous. I am so sick of all of this outrageous control freak shit. People who can't respect other people's property still need to stay off of it when they are not welcome.
A business owner is not violating people's freedom of religion by not giving them things they should not be entitled to. If I have people at my house and I don't give them my liquor because I worship tulips and think people who wear hats shouldn't drink vodka or tequila, I have not violated their religious freedom or anything else of theirs. If they mow my yard, I will pay them money. If they don't like that deal, they don't have to take it.
Watching Republocrats argue with each other about government is like watching Catholics and Mormons argue about God. They are so close to agreeing with each other but so cultish that they can't appreciate the similarities. Obama is light years from being a libertarian. The fact that he is closer to us in some ways than one of the two major political parties on some issues and closer than the other one on other issues does not change that. Obama is a big government president. It blows my mind that Republicans don't see how close to being one of them he is. His presidency is the reincarnation of the Bush 2 presidency. It is one of the most extreme smoke and mirrors tricks I have ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster