It's not even as much that BLM disrupted the Pride parade, but that one of their demands was to ban the police from participating in the parade in the future. That's actively destroying years and years of hard fought progress to bring people together, and I can't fail to call that a bad thing. Again, I hope the US chapters are different in that much, and in many states there is also much more justified outrage against the police, which is very much unlike up here in Canada.

Canada's BLM held sit in protests demanding to meet with the chief of police and then repeatedly abandoned the meetings before they were supposed to happen. They then went on to condemn the police chief for having zero interest in protecting black civilians in Toronto. FYI, the chief of police of Toronto at the time was a black man.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mark-saunders-police-black-lives-matter-1.3587533

A BLM toronto co-founder railed at how our Prime Minister, who makes Barack Obama look like very right -leaning, is a white supremacist terrorist. Rhetoric that just means absolutely nothing and looks like little more than gross false victimhood.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/nzd4px/black-lives-matter-toronto-called-justin-trudeau-a-white-supremacist-terrorist

And then for good measure another co-founder squeezed in a quarter million dollar 'overtime' payment on their last week with the University of Toronto's Student Union. When the Student Union sued to get that money back as their was no documentation justifying paying out that kind of money all of a sudden the Student Union were racists. Eventually the case was settled with an undiclosed amount returned.

https://thevarsity.ca/2017/07/31/the-breakdown-the-utsus-lawsuit-against-former-executive-director-sandy-hudson/


BLM Toronto has done enough harm I am pretty comfortable saying I oppose them. The goal of making race relations better is of course good. Correcting injustices is of course good. I just don't see that coming from a group taking the actions I've seen, IMO they are actively making things worse, not better.

Again, that is specific to up here in Canada, I can't imagine that the US chapters can be as bad without it having been all over the media where I couldn't miss it. That said, up here I would likely have altogether missed everything but the parade as well save for having personally witnessed a just disgusting racist attack on someone at a an event. That led me to discover the attacker was tied in with BLM Toronto and suddenly seeing that as perhaps not an entirely isolated event .

My gut instinct is to say "how dare you? you're getting free food!"

However, just because someone is living in poverty or is disabled doesn't mean they should have to live on what appears to be among the lowest quality microwave meals.

My daughter is likely going to be wheelchair bound for the rest of her life; and while I have high hopes of her becoming the next Steven Hawking, it's probable that she'll need some gov assistance at some point. I cringe at the thought of her being unable to raise complaints loud enough as this angry black lady. That said, this woman is obviously actually living in poverty, look at the wall socket at around the 2min mark.

It's not the most articulate way to put it, but poor communities will understand "Trump ain't playin shitttttttt --fuck this shit... look at this shit yall... I wanna say Trump fuck you and I am not eatin' yo food!......AND!--- LOOK A'DIS BISCUIT!!! Mm! Done fucked up now. Fuck!" And hopefully not fall for the same 'Man of the people' rhetoric in the future.

I asked you how you can possibly think it's never been near the middle, you replied with essentially '100 years ago it wasn't close'.

That question, 'when have I had to fight for my right to vote', was either rhetorical or idiotic, I chose to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume rhetorical, but if you insist you're an idiot.....I have had to fight for my right to vote only once when my registration was not updated, which isn't the fight for women's suffrage but few alive fought that fight and none who still run marathons....it's not applicable. No woman involved (at least not the white women) has had to fight for that right personally.

I don't have time to answer that fully, because it's happened repeatedly. Specifically, there have been several classes I've wanted to take that were women only, I'm a pure honkey who lived in East Palo Alto, on more than one occasion I was turned away from stores/restaurants...usually by customers not the owners, and once chased by a group of men due to my race, sexual orientation, never, the gays I've known love me and I'm totally cool with them...and they're pretty all inclusive with events....but on reflection I'm sure there have been "girls trips" I would have been invited on had I been gay, if that counts.

Now, I asked you 4 questions you ignored completely, so which are you, exceptionally dumb or a troll X4? ;-)

@bobknight33

i was fucking agreeing with you that mueller has nothing on russian collusion! and you come back with....

"alt-left"?

what in holy fuckballs are you squealing about bob?
so what is it now?
somebody has a critical position of trump and they are automatically dismissed because they are ( fill in bullshit political rhetoric here).

"alt-left"...seriously?
you are being serious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cay_Johnston

so now "alt-left" means:pulitzer prize winning,investigative journalist,professor of tax law?

come on bob...
you may want to put that away and zip that thing up.
your ideologue is showing.

BOOM!
right in the meat clackers!
maybe use a thing called "google" before you let that mouth drip like a herpes blister.

now go worship your lord and master..
fucking sycophant rightwingers..even when you agree with them...when are you going to get sick of losin..*cough* i mean "winning"?

[editing down to not make wall of text / rant]

Russia is not a hostile power. We are not at war with them, and we are not in any standoff. While that sort of rhetoric generates plenty of sensation for the news, it isn't factually true. We certainly do plenty to antagonize them (placing missiles launchers on Russia's border, stoking the 2014 Ukrainian coup that led to a civil war on Russia's border), and in light of that I consider it understandable that they would attempt to aide a candidate that is likely to be less confrontational.

(Keep in mind that both sides have been hacking each other on the daily for decades. Nothing special there.)

The DNC hack was a good thing for democracy. People should not be in the dark about any candidate's election cheating.

The news argues about things that are not salient.
Collusion is not a crime. That term only comes up for argument's sake, and has no bearing on the legality/illegality of anything in question.

The crime that the campaign is accused of is 'accepting foreign money for elections', which is a campaign funding violation. The argument is that : while Russia appears to not have provided money, the *information Russians provided directly to campaign staff had a monetary value, which makes it equivalent to receiving money.
(*content of said information as of yet not revealed)

Since then, campaign staff has gotten into individual trouble when their individual financial actions have been dug into (namely, laundering), which has led to individual financial conspiracy charges (IIRC).

-scheherazade

To be fair :

There is no evidence that any hack was by request (* The "Russia, find the 30'000 missing emails, and share them with the FBI" statement was in reference to the emails deleted from the private server - not DNC related). There is plenty self interest to motivate such a hack without anyone asking for it. Especially if the hacker's election favorite is Trump.

The election interference rhetoric started when the email hack was the only item blamed on the Russians.

-scheherazade

Lol, I read "imaginary Hiller" (and assumed you meant Hillary). My bad.



We have reasonable laws already.
Most things people ask for either already exist (and anti-gunners just don't know because they don't have to follow those laws), or only screw collectors and sportsmen while not doing anything to reduce risk (which I already covered, I assume you read the earlier part, eg California compliant AR15, etc).



Nobody expects to need to form a militia.
Nobody expects the country to go to hell.

The seat belt analogy is about preparedness for unlikely events.
Like, you don't "need" flood insurance in Houston - unless you do.

Owning a gun also hurts nobody.
By definition, ownership is not a harm.

Almost all guns will never be used to do any harm.
The very statement that "guns are all about hurting other people" is a non-empirical assertion.

Just shy of every last gun owner doesn't imagine themselves as Bruce Willis. Asserting that they do is a straw man.


You remind me of Republicans that complain that Black people are welfare queens (so they can redirect money out of welfare). Or Republicans that complain that Trans people are pedophiles in hiding (so they can pander to religious zelot voters). Creating a straw man and then getting mad about the straw man (rather than the real people) is self serving.


* Only the rarest few people think they are Roy Rogers. That is a straw man that does not apply to just shy of every gun owner.
* You don't need a gun for home defense... unless you do.
* Differences in likelihood of death armed vs unarmed is happenstance.
(Doesn't matter either way. Googled some likelihoods : http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/15/how-likely-are-you-to-die-from-gun-violence-this-interesting-chart-puts-it-in-perspective/
You'd have to suffer death 350'000 times before you're at a 50/50 chance of your next death being by firearms.)
[EDIT, math error. Should say 17'000 years lived to reach a 50/50 chance of death by firearms in the next year]
* Technically, even 1 vote gets someone elected. You don't control who is on the ballot.



NRA and NSSF are on life support. They have to fight the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, most major newspapers. They are way outclassed. Current events don't help either.
The "big bad NRA" rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As is the rhetoric that the NRA only represents the industry.

-sceherazade

I hear ya. Similar thing with people who proudly announce they are OCD because they clean up.

but... is it hurting anybody? Is it such a bad thing that people apparently seek some sort of commonality with those on the spectrum where previously they might have tried to distance themselves from any comparison? That isn't rhetorical btw. I genuinely don't know whether that kind of appropriation is just annoying, or damaging, or even perhaps beneficial.

I've gone to church for a few years. And I see no women staying silent, nor any man telling them to. I really don't care about "tradition" and would voice serious concern if these type of crap happens in the modern church. Believe me, my church sisters takes no crap from the brothers. And I don't really see much old-school practices except communion, and that's not far-out unacceptable a tradition considering its purpose.

I (or at least hope to) continuously carry a critical eye & mind on these social-issue things as in many others at the church. Church "doctrine/tradition" is no excuse to justify bad social/inequality/bigotry behavior. For me, discussion on why the heck Paul wrote these words is fine, it's good to find faults how those people who lived 2000 years ago and evolve the modern church practices to align better with Jesus' intention.
Overall, in my church, I think most people are pretty grounded in real-life struggles... but hey, I fully understand these are subjective opinions... we all have our blindspots. I think we're all better man/woman if we can take in criticisms.

I can't for the life of me understand the U.S. "Christian Right" (but I'm Canadian, so I'm just a passive observer, as I can't vote on US politics) nor, from my understanding of Him, Jesus (as a preacher of love & peace) could be a far/alt-right-winger. But oh, sorry, I don't mean to talk politics... just hope to convey from which side of the discussion I come from.

It's foolish (and arrogant) to take the Bible literally... so much contradictions, inconsistencies, if read this way. And really, I keep thinking - WHY LITERALLY? - I don't dare listen to my pastors and think their words MUST be what God/Jesus meant. Martin Luther's movement freed us from those chains of mindlessness from the church preachers' power over us.

Akways look to the intention of Jesus, which for me, is honestly good, relevant and much in demand, and do those as the Christian mission. The Bible can be confusing, but the message is crystal clear. And that's love & compassion towards our neighbors, go a preach THAT! Not hate/fear-filled "damn this, damn that"/"End of the World is nigh"-type rhetorics.

Seriously man, looking from a distance (again, Canadian here) those loud-voice Christian Rights in the States scare the hell out of me and most of my brothers & sisters, the general thought around me is that they've move way far out from the Christian's way that Jesus want us to be (that I know of)... makes me so sad.

He was a champion college level debater. And it appears that he still thinks that being good at that odd exercise in silly rhetoric allows you wear that expression.

i have to agree that when the election was nearing the end,and it was time to vote.the choice was pretty clear.

i never liked the "lesser of two evils" argument,but when faced with a choice of:

soft fascist,narcissistic used car salesman,who spoke in bombastic and racially charged rhetoric,but really said nothing.

or...

a war-mongering corporatist,who never saw a war she didn't want to send your kids to go die in,or a corporation she didn't want to extract donations from for political favors and who basically said nothing as well.except for 'well,at least i am not that THAT guy"--->points to trump.

i am still gonna say...go with the corporatist.

because in the end,at least on domestic policy,hillary would have been adequate.oh she would have signed the TPP,and fucked millions of american workers,and she would have most likely expanded the drone campaign,and continued with the american empires policy of "regime change",but she had/has the knowledge and capabilities to actual lead a government.

hillary knows how to politic,and understands how shit gets done in washinton,and things would have remained relatively unchanged here in america.maybe..maybe.... some incremental change due to the political pressure the sanders campaign brought.

so i get it,and maher is not exactly wrong per se",but i think he is missing the bigger picture that so many in the beltway have missed,and CONTINUE to miss,because they reside in their own,tiny and insulated bubble.

the american people were desperate for change,and they have been for decades.after obama's campaign of 2008,and his "hope and change" platform,which ignited the american people,only to see,not "hope and change" but rather "more of the same".

and what was hillary offering?
a new message or vision? a new path for america that would include everybody to blaze a new path of invention,creativity and imagination to create an america everyone could be proud of? and feel a part of?

nope..she was offering "more of the same".

well,americans had already had their fill of "more of the same".they had lost faith in a system that appeared to no longer represent them.so they chose the nuclear option for change.terrifying and horrifying change.

so go ahead and blame the "bernie bros".feel free to slap responsibility on those "uneducated and redneck hillbillies".cry and whine and point the finger at those liberals who refused to abandon their principles,and by all means bask in the glory of your own self-righteous moralizing,and condescendingly condemn anyone who voted for trump,or who refused to vote at all.

you can sit in a small room with everybody else who voted for hillary,and self-righteously smell each others farts and call it a rose,because you are obviously a better quality human being than the rest of us.

and by all means,refuse to examine the fact that hillary ran a shit campaign,and had no real message,vision or path to the future.ignore the corruption and blatant,and politically motivated shenanigans of the DNC.god forbid you experienced a moment of honesty.

is trump going to be a disaster of presidency?
well,it sure is shaping up to look that way isn't it?
but we have survived horrible presidents before,and we shall survive trump.

and on a positive note:
trump has brought many people out of their apathetic slumber,and they are scrutinizing everything he does with a fine toothed comb.the amount people who are becoming politically engaged is quite impressive.

there is nothing in our representative democracy quite as powerful as people gathering together to put pressure on our elected representatives.

town hall meetings,that used to be wastelands,are now being packed to over-flowing.with citizens calling out their representatives..to their FACE..on how unhappy they are.

so go ahead and ridicule those who voted for trump,but it is due to trump that so many have gotten off their couches and are taking it to their congressmen and senators.

just a non-controversial,and easily predicted side effect,when you put someone like trump in power.

man,the politics in my country is getting really fucking interesting!i cannot WAIT to see what happens in the next episode!

what do you guys think?
/end rant

*promote

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

Both "the west" and Putin are up to no good in the middle east, that is easily an ugly draw. Watch Turkey implode next.

Read up on "Russia's ally in Syria" if your stomach is up to it.
But then if you support Putin in any way you are probably used to that kind of stuff.

That said US foreign policy is... hard to understand sometimes.

Oh and debts on state level dont work the way you imply, but i understand the propaganda viewpoint. Russians have been trying to be economically independent from "the west" for a hundred years now. Maybe if they tried to be responsible partners it would be better for everyone.

And Im not saying the west should or indeed can do something about Putin. All I meant was that Russia is enemy No. 1 in rhetoric only. Not that important at all.

"Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils...."

I beg your pardon Bill? What part of lesser of two evils was an endorsement for Trump?

If one were to describe Hillary as the lesser evil, would that not effectively be an endorsement? The underlying inference being that Trump was the greater of the two evils surely?

I think I'll just chalk that one up as a brain fart and assume he said it bass aackwards.

Though lets not forget Mrs Sandwitch would have given us TPP and the Syrian no fly zone.

Genuinely struggling to call it between who would have been most disastrous.

Trump was probably worse for America, I suspect Clinton might have been worse for the rest of the world. Not that it matters what any of us think in hindsight.

& yes @LiquidDrift it clearly isn't an actual Muslim ban! The fact that the majority of the worlds Muslim population is not affected by it should probably have been a big clue.

I guess though, given Trumps rhetoric, people can be forgiven for seeing it that way.

But yes it's a list of seven countries compiled by Obamas administration for being hotbeds of terrorism (if not before being bombed, certainly after). Not even close to banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Probably useless and needlessly divisive, but the man does need to at least appear to be fulfilling his campaign promises.

I certainly don't think the Nazi comparisons are at all helpful. There's no shortage of genuine things to attack the man on, hysterical fabrications just make him look right.

You know you're on shaky ground when Piers Morgan is the voice of reason

the left won the moral argument decades ago,now a small cadre a shrieking harpies has taken over to....ok..i don't know WHAT they are trying to do,because everytime i try to speak to one of those snowflakes,they spray me with pepper spray,call me a rapist and run to their safe space.

or they tell me that i am not entitled to an opinion,because i am a hetero-white-male.

not saying a discussion with someone on the ultra right fares any better.either they want to share their adoration of their corporate jesus..joel olsteen..or they are constantly trying to berate me with neo-fascist literature,and show me just how patriotic a super patriot like them REALLY is,and then tell me why they couldn't join the military due to horrible bunions.

and of course one mention of muslims and they wet themselves.getting sick of loaning out my extra clothes because their bladder gets weak at the mere mention of brown people.

for years we have watched the left lose their way,and get lost in an ocean of rhetoric and faux outrage,and the same has happened with the right.

the extremes have taken hold of the megaphone,and are trying to shout each other down with their own sanctimonious self-righteous moralizing.

so the left is in the corner picking boogers and the right has gone fucking insane.

i'm telling you guys...
trump is not the disease...
he is a symptom.

our country is very very sick right now.

and i fear it is only going to get worse.

i predicted when trump won that he would rival bush in his ineptness and bungling buffoonery.well here it is a month into his presidency and i think i can say with some conviction:i was wrong..it is going to be so much worse than bush.

i need a drink...