Looks like it's the boogaloos, a right wing, pro Trump, anti liberal, pro civil war, pro collapse of society group, stirring that pot of discontent. Three were arrested on terrorism charges with explosives trying to start riots in Las Vegas, and known members have been seen in almost every city that's had riots.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/three-men-connected-boogaloo-movement-tried-provoke-violence-protests-feds-n1224231

Can you point to a non OAN or Fox opinion report of verified antifa caught trying to start riots, fires, and explosions in the crowds? I haven't.

Funny, but the robbers had axes. The owners had a defensible position and swords. Since this is known now, the robbers can bring bows and...soon you end back up with guns.

The only alternative to this is to disarm everyone, knowing the criminals will not obey, and hope that the 'safer' weapons the criminals do use will at least allow for a less wounded victim. This method also relies on the victim to capitulate completely in mortal fear.

Many might prefer the second method, I do not. Sadly, most nutjobs and criminals know that good targets can be found in any state, some much more than others but realistically any state is vulnerable.

Why? Because even in gun friendly states, 'gun free' zones exist. Nine times out of ten, that 'gun free' zone is going to be the target. You will hear stories that say "Oh, a person was shot at a gun range/show" or "Chris Kyle was killed with a friend at a gune range." What those stories leave out are the details, because the headline is what matters when you are pushing an agenda.

The gun range Chris Kyle was shot at is an outdoor one, the three men were alone and isolated. The mental one shot two men and fled. You will hardly read that, usually the image they want to present is that multiple other gun owners were standing around and did nothing.

You will see stories about people shot at other ranges or at gun shows. What they generally won't mention is that almost all of them are due to either a self wound (suicide) or an accidental shooting from poor handling.

I don't think zerohedge is a reputable source.
Why wasn't this found before the event., not that there's anything odd about looking for photographers at a KKK/Nazi rally. Of course you would want them to be comfortable participating in protests, you have to be to get decent photos of them.

Zerohedge : In April 2016, the authors writing as "Durden" on the website were reported by Bloomberg News to be Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall (a credit derivatives strategist), and Colin Lokey. Lokey, the newest member revealed himself and the other two when he left the site. Ivandjiiski confirmed that the three men "had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll" since Lokey joined the site in 2015. Former Zero Hedge writer Colin Lokey said that he was pressured to frame issues in a way he felt was "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft." Zero Hedge founder Daniel Ivandjiiski, in response, said that Lokey could write "anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it." On leaving, Lokey said: "I can't be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It's wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run. This isn't a revolution. It's a joke."

Well, I fully support the Black Lives Movement. Peaceful, and sometimes agitated, marching for justice. Gay Rights. That explosive moment at Stonewall in Greenwich Village, when the gay men fought back and said NO MORE.

Do I want a single woman who is in danger of being physically assaulted to "fight back?" A single gay man? A single black person? No, honey bunny, I absolutely do not. I think that is the height of idiocy for a single individual to fight back against one, two, three men. Especially when they are armed and have proven that they are capable of using that weapon in anger, fear, adrenaline.

Keep yourself safe, deescalate the situation if you can, submit to rape [edit] IF you think the man/men will kill you if you do fight back -- fight back if it is safe to fight back. (Interesting stat -- something like 90% of assaults against women are by single unarmed attackers. No gun? No knife? Try to avoid, try to deescalate, and if that doesn't work, fight back and yell and make yourself as difficult a target as possible.)

I took a self defense class years ago, geared towards women protecting themselves from violence by men. Not because I was afraid, but because of the psychological skills that we were taught about setting boundaries, taking charge, making choices -- skills needed in every day life that can also be applied to rare events of possible violence.

It was called Powerful Choices. Choices, my friend. Choices.

I must say, it is shocking to me that so many people live in a zero sum world. A black and white world. Where there is only one way to respond despite the actual circumstances. That this moment has to be used to fight larger battles or you are a failure.

I am a big fan of using your noggin to be safe. A fan of demonstrations (I prefer peaceful.) A fan of changing the laws, the procedures, the culture. A fan of acting strategically for the long run.

So you have me all wrong, my friend. All wrong.

Indeed. The only thing notable about this video (other than the bravura performance by Lindsey Stirling) is how evident it is that Freddie Mercury by himself could out-sing three men at the top of their craft.

Authorities puzzled by three men's deaths. al they could find was entrails and cookie crumbs

6' 5"!

I love a long femur in my men.

(Favorite moment while working a cash register -- three men in my line. Only three men. They were all 6' 5" tall. And two of them were named Walter. I mean really.)

What is it with homophobes and this ridiculous argument?

And why is it always a horse? I'm starting to think that you secretly hope your ludicrous scenario will come true and then you can finally satisfy your craving for horse cock.

And hey, if two women want to marry three men, if they're all consenting adults, good luck to them. Maybe it turns out that's a great way to have a relationship. I doubt it, but I don't see that they're harming anyone other than themselves.

>> ^kymbos:

This is fascinating. Is the fundamental religious critique of presidents focussed on their interpersonal behaviour because God is deciding on their policies and those aren't up for debate?
Maybe God is making Obama 'rude' to people too - should you be judging that?


The policies are up to debate, especially those which contradict Gods word, however the man himself should be respected. I don't have to agree with him, but I respect him because God put him there (and also because he is a human being made in the image of God). There is a good example of that from scripture regarding Daniels friends..you can see that even though they did not agree with the Kings policy, and were sentenced to death, they still treated him with honor and humility (because his authority was ordained by God):

Daniel 3:14-30

Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good.c But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?”

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.d But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated. And he ordered some of the mighty men of his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics,e their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace. Because the king’s order was urgent and the furnace overheated, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace; he declared, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men. The hair of their heads was not singed, their cloaks were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them. Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set asidef the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.” Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

How's about three men and a marsupial?

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^gorillaman:
Why not three men?

Why can't a woman marry two men? Or a man marry two women? Duh. It was a stupid, red herring response to a reasonable question. He didn't like the road she was taking him, so he jumped off the bike. If you think "why not three men" has any validity whatsoever in regards to the question that was asked, you are as irrational and detached as Santorum. He thinks he's shoving logic down their throats, but he's just making an ass of himself, and so are you.


I'll admit to somewhat playing into Santorum's hands by following the diversionary path he threw up and, yeah, I understand how the questions differ in their specifics.

But, both questions do need to be asked because both address serious state and social interference in private life. It's important to question whether that interference can be justified, and while gay marriage has huge public support and garners significant attention, group marriage gets almost none of either.

Ultimately opposition to polygamy has its roots in the same bigotry that condemns other non-traditional practices, and the same irrationality that views marriage as anything other than an artificial construct that should probably eventually be dismantled.

So, why not two men? Why not three men? Why not a man and a donkey? Why not twelve men, sixteen women, a chicken and a block of wood?

>> ^gorillaman:

Why not three men?

Why can't a woman marry two men? Or a man marry two women? Duh. It was a stupid, red herring response to a reasonable question. He didn't like the road she was taking him, so he jumped off the bike. If you think "why not three men" has any validity whatsoever in regards to the question that was asked, you are as irrational and detached as Santorum. He thinks he's shoving logic down their throats, but he's just making an ass of himself, and so are you.

Why not three men?

There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.

As far as Jobs children:

Job 8:4

When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin.

You have also completely misinterpreted what his "friends" were telling him, to the point of getting it entirely backwards. The three men indeed thought Job deserved his punishment, and when Job argued back that he hadn't sinned (at least not recently), they didn't believe him. Job prayed for them because they had given such terrible advice and misrepresented God to Job.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^bobknight33:
The bible is not fictional. God did not kill his family , servants or his animals.
This man in the video does not know jack about the Bible.

GOD did not make Satan do it as incorrectly stated in the video. Satan indicated to GOD that If I destroy all that he (Job) has including servants and family that Job would surely curse your name. GOD allowed Satan to anything except kill JOB. Job never backed away from GOD and never curse his name. In the end GOD restored everything Job has lost.

But this is Old Testament which means this is ha-Satan we're talking about, not the Devil. This is one of God's angels who serve God and do his bidding. What was done, if it was not by God, was done with His approval.
Furthermore, God does not restore Job's family. Rather, Job goes on to have a new family: 7 sons and 3 daughters. The suffering that Job endures is not undone and God even orders him to pray for his friends to be forgiven because they had the nerve to say it was fucked up that Job should be punished like this.
Regardless of whether or not this was God's direct action, the point from the video stands. Does your indoctrination prevent you from acknowledging that the treatment of Job was morally reprehensible?

@shinyblurry

Sorry for the delay... had some "real life" to deal with (as well as a little sift-nonsense).

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning.

Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. You said all matter (material) sprang forth from nothing and BBT doesn't agree.

What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

You're the one who said we only act selfishly, not me. I don't believe that at all. My point was specifically that both selfish and non-selfish behavior are part of our nature to varying degrees and that non-selfish behavior tends to benefit us (biologically) more as a species than selfish behavior. That's all that's necessary for evolution to provide morality.

What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement.

I think you're arguing whether or not this is a good system whereas I'm just stating that it's how it works. However, if we follow through on your example, those two men would probably face severe punishment (and/or death) for those actions because they went against the consensus of what the larger population thinks is moral behavior. Evolution by both natural and artificial selection.

While it's a subtle distinction, I believe it's an important one: There's a difference between making a decision based on your emotions and making a decision based on how it will effect other people. Yes, I believe that not causing harm or distress to other people is an objective base. I realize that's controversial.

Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion.

Agree. Unfortunately that's all we've got. Even your God doesn't stop or prevent people from doing horrible things. He leaves us to fend for ourselves and do the best we can.

God told us that everyone is equal. The bible is the original source for the conception of equality for all people, men and women, free or not. Knowing that, I would never deign to be someones "master", since I myself am only a servent and no better than they are.

God told us that it's ok to beat a slave as long as we don't kill him. Only Israelites are above slavery.

In Exodus we're told that if a bull goes on a killing spree, the bull and the bull's owner are to be put to death. However, if the bull kills slaves, then the bull's owner owes the slaves' owners some cash.

The NT is a little softer (not surprisingly) on slaves, but still states that it's ok to own people so long as you treat them reasonably well.

Generally, were you ok with slavery and other immoral acts before your conversion? Did you really need to be told that these things were wrong? Or did you already know? I bet you already knew and I bet you were no less moral a person then than you are now.