What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

I thought you were saying everyone can benefit from chemical compounds that react in their body to produce certain effects.
That I agree with.

That everyone should use recreational (I'm assuming including unregulated, blackmarket, psychoactive) drugs I strongly disagree with.
Many people are not mentally equipped to have a single light beer, one of the least potent recreational drugs while some few can successfully smoke crack in moderation. Many don't have the experience to avoid fake, adulterated, or deadly drugs. Some have physical limitations that could make a joint deadly.

Remember, especially with humans, there are always exceptions to any rule.

Brave President Bone Spur wins by not getting killed in war.

"We elected the worst of us."

I disagree. His presidency was gifted to him. He is not who the majority voted for. Simple.

I don't advocate or support this man ( I use that term loosely ) but I think it's important that this "Grand Lizard" reveals his soul to expose the hate that him and his president is trying to support on this planet. If you disagree with his view vote up so others get to see his bullshit. If you agree with him vote down. Plus, he has no fashion sense.

Likely not.

Wait.
You're saying there's video of him being chased from his gun toting friends by one guy with a pistol? For blocks? And none of his friends helped him at all? That might change my mind completely....but only if they essentially dragged him away, not if he followed along arguing, and if they physically forced him away from his friends, why didn't his friends try to help?

Again, I'll need some evidence of the pepper spray to believe it, because the videos of him running he wasn't acting like a person who had been pepper sprayed, not that it would excuse killing someone else, and I'm assuming the spray came after the first homicide.

(Edit: if the pepper spraying happened, and happened before he shot, then he has zero excuses for any of them. He couldn't see, so had no idea what was happening around him, who threw what, what was thrown, or who he was shooting. You can't see after being pepper sprayed. That makes every shot fired attempted murder of any random person in the area, not self defense. To be self defense, you must know who and what you're defending yourself from. If he was sprayed, he couldn't possibly know, nor could he properly aim.)

A plastic bag mistaken for a Molotov? Not by any American kid, all boys over 7 know what a Molotov looks like from movies and video games, they don't resemble empty plastic bags.

I think you're being biased. I may be too. I'm not excusing any threatening acts by protesters before he killed one, but do excuse any acts committed trying to apprehend him afterwards. (Edit: anything they did at that point would be real self defense, not just in their own minds.)

I can't find any way to excuse him, from going armed looking for trouble to leaving his group where he felt safe to mistaking a harmless object for a deadly one and killing someone out of fear to running away armed to shooting at his pursuers to not reporting it, every act indicates intentional murder and an attempt to escape. He might have had a reason, he may have even feared for his life, but he had no real reason, put himself in the situation that scared him, and opened fire for no GOOD reason.
Children often do things for bad reasons, that's one reason they shouldn't be let loose with firearms unaccompanied, especially not in high stress events like this.
It's not that he had no reason, it's that his reasoning was flawed on all points. He had no legitimate reason, and no legitimate excuse.

Btw, in case you don't recall, I'm not anti gun at all. I am anti armed groups traveling the country intent on killing unarmed people they disagree with, even if those people are being mean and scary, even if they're stealing. If they're committing arson, well maybe, that can be mass murder.

If you find a still live version of him being chased by armed protesters away from his friends, or threatened, I would be interested in seeing them. I find it impossible to envision. It's not that I'm not open to new info, it's only that I've seen none that excuse his killings.

(Edit: I'm looking at it like this....If a 17 year old kid wants to do extreme mountain climbing with little to no training, gets on the mountain and gets panicked and, thinking it will make him safer to have two ropes disconnects his partner's harness and they die, he had a reason, but not a legitimate reason, and not an excuse. This kid wanted to do extreme policing totally untrained, he panicked, people died because of his panicked actions. It's really that simple to me.)

sounds like the ultimate answer.
a final solution.


🦜 bob's bunk would inspire this conversation during his arrest...

bk: "what are you doing"
'better' person (bp)*: "arresting you!"
bk: "why - what for?"
bp: "for being a bad person!"
bk: "no i'm not!"
bp: "are you disagreeing w/me?"
bk: "yes! yes! i am!"
bp: "then you're a fool too!"

*strange that 'bp' could stand for bad person also?

could throw in matthew's 'judge lest thee be judged' routine but the plank in the eye gag doesn't bring in the ha-ha like it use to.
(it's a very old joke)

You're bad. All Trumpsters are bad.
Ready to be locked under the prison without ever leaving that 6'x8' room alive?
You said it's totally rational to label a group as bad and imprison them for life, only fools would disagree, right?

🤦‍♂️

Nothing racist about this statement.


Stating that there is a need to lock up bad people. Only fools would disagree.

You know I won't click on your links since you sent me to that virus hosting site. How about name an instance and I'll investigate myself, I certainly won't trust your sources....especially when it comes from a Trump tweet. Get real, I expect another "professional opinion" like the doctor that supports hydroxy, and alien DNA in medicine, lizard people, and demon sperm as the cause of all gynecologic issues, not facts...he hates facts, they never agree with his uninformed opinion.....but he loves the uneducated, they'll believe his insane bullshit and never check for themselves.

HOLY FUCKING SHEEP SHIT YOU MORON.... I checked first then read it....it doesn't say this was fraud, much less democratic fraud, it makes no mention of political affiliation, but based on recent history chances are great that, if it's fraud, it's Republicans. How long were these few dead people dead before the election? Could they have been alive when the vote was mailed in? Doesn't say. How many cases are considered fraud by the election board? None I could see.

What it did say was many didn't receive their ballot in time to vote, or at all, because Trump and friends hobbled the mail services causing delays that suppressed thousands of votes. It also said most votes that were disqualified had issues with either the signature, something Trump claims isn't being checked, or the section for someone to deliver the ballot for the voter, something else he claimed isn't checked. Kinda blows his claim that fraud is rampant and unchecked when his evidence is the votes that didn't pass the checking they did of them. His solution, suppress tens of millions more votes. Evidence of Republican vote suppression, not democrats vote fraud.
A vote denied is a vote stolen.

This article actually makes the point that any possible vote by mail fraud will be caught, not that it's a problem.

This is Trump and friends interfering in the election by your estimation, Bob. If it's fraud because people didn't get their ballots, or they were delivered too late to count, and they didn't get them because the post office is slowing down at Trump's order, that's Trump and co. committing election fraud.

Not true, mail in ballots are exactly the same as absentee. There's never been a distinction made before this election. There are multiple states that have had universal mail in voting for decades.
There is no difference in the processes, despite what Trump and Fox have told you. They're liars, you know it. The only difference is you don't have to lie about your ability to get to a polling place with universal mail in voting. The article Trump had you link to proves it conclusively....those votes were disqualified because they did check signatures and more.
Trump's entire family votes mail in, even though they have no reason to. They're all registered in multiple states too....from what Trump says, that's proof they're committing vote fraud.

Lest you forget, the CDC stated unequivocally that mail in, not in person voting is the ONLY safe way to hold an election this year.
Lest you forget, Trump has said unequivocally that if every eligible voter voted, Republicans would disappear instantly. The ONLY way for Republicans to win is to disenfranchise millions of voters. That is why, when logic and reason say the post office should be expanding operations to prepare for weeks of high mailings, but instead they are cutting hours, removing 10%+ of their sorting capacity and removing an unknown number of mail collection boxes, already creating massive backlogs in normal mail service of weeks to months, making them incapable of fulfilling huge numbers of contracts they have which will cost them package delivery business they desperately need to survive when they should be ramping up. Only a brain dead slug can't see that's intentional, especially when Trump goes on TV and says it is, intentionally done to suppress the Democratic and independent vote because if they vote, he'll lose.

Trump refuses to fund even normal operation at the USPS because it would make delivering ballots easier.
You know he agreed to fund the post office, including money needed to greenlight universal mail in voting, if Democrats give him tens of billions for tax cuts and pet projects for himself, right? So, he's saying he will allow election fraud for a price? Or is it more likely he's willing to give up a dishonest and failing political ploy for a bribe?
You know this is tax payer money meant to fund civil services, right, not some handout? It seems you think funding essential civil services is a gift in your mind, not an obligation. So you'll stand behind Biden if he halts all funding for police and military until they get their act together, right? (Not that he plans any such thing, I'm making a point about your hypocrisy as a defense for intentional election disruption and massive voter suppression as a campaign strategy.)

The international community disagrees. When only 10% of votes are cast this election, the world will declare the election a fraud, so will 90% of Americans. Talk about dividing the nation for one man's gain. That's why we think you're Russian, Americans care more about the nation than their cult leaders.

The check and balance comes at registration, and again when the vote is counted....just like absentee votes. Trump is lying when he claims they aren't validated.

Trump disrupting mail service in any way possible to deny voters a chance to vote safely, also closing thousands of polling places (mostly in democratic leaning areas) from lack of staff IS election rigging....he has said specifically on television it is done to sway the election results by suppressing a majority of votes, leaving only the method he polls best with, unsafe in person voting which the CDC said clearly is a recipe for disaster and will kill people. He doesn't care a whit that hundreds more Americans will die and thousands be disabled because he forces them together to fulfill their civic duties, not his problem because he's mailing his vote in (so he has time to go golfing, watch TV, and tweet all day, not because he can't vote in person btw).

the subliminal message @ 10:20 (ish)

another method of diffusing tension in an argument about ideas is to locate a cat.

if someone says, "no, you are stupid and i disagree," etc, you can say, "yes but hey look, a cat."

and they'll say, "wow, that is a good cat." and you'll say, "yes, i know. let's stop arguing and be friends." and it's possible they'll say, "yes okay"

it's also possible they don't like cats, but then that friendship was never going to last anyway.

Funny, but I think there are a lot of comments from the "woke" dude that progressives / SJW types probably would vehemently disagree with. Or at least, I've not run into them.

Try the first one....lazybones. ;-) It lays out both the stated intent and the actions that belie that statement.

When the video guy is well known for publicly defending the far right, neo Nazi supporting gallery that holds private, secret white power rallies, that's enough for me. He clearly made himself look like a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, and that's how the community sees him. He may just be a friend to Nazis, not one himself, but that's both a distinction without a clear difference and an image he created without stating clearly that he disagrees with them but supports their right to be wrong. That's on him.

It seems far easier to read the links than try to research it yourself, so I don't understand why you decided to ignore the research offered in favor of your own unproductive but far more labor intensive research. Seems a bit like putting fingers in your ears and saying you hear no evidence during a discussion.

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

@newtboy
Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

Not only did I never claim that, I have trouble figuring why you think I would? My second sentence again:"My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies."

I oppose meeting speech with force excepting when that speech is being used to promote violence or harm, I'm also willing to allow that 'speech' can also amount to being disruptive or harassment like your notion of bringing inappropriate material to a kids park, or using a megaphone inches from someone's face.

I kind of thought on that point we'd find agreement, or at least understanding and agree to disagree?

Opening a new point from you're statement:He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood.

I've read a few of the links you provided, and looked up a few articles on the gallery and I'm having troubles with the characterization. Do you have a good specific link that more clearly focuses on the nazi support from the gallery? The reading I've done seems to describe an art gallery, that allowed exhibits and talks from far-right and at least arguably fascist speakers on possibly a few occasions. You seem to talk like it was operating openly as a neo-nazi HQ.

So, what I've looked up so far, it does look an awful lot like a gallery pulled in speakers that people disliked, so they rallied to shut down the gallery as punishment for allowing wrong-think to be spoken. Then when guys like the one in the video came to defend free-speech, they too were classed as nazi's and lumped in as enemies too. Last article I found by the guy in video, so maybe he's lying, but other articles I've found also suggest that the gallery operated more generally rather than being an explicitly alt-right hub:
https://medium.com/@dctvbot/i-regret-nothing-c05401636032