Two points followed by some general discussion but w/e...

I didn't try to justify his actions in the slightest, he was wrong to draw the gun and to discharge it. I understand why someone might do something if he sees an idiot with the worlds worst flamethrower trying to set people on fire, but I do not condone it.

I also said that he was drawing the gun to defend others, didn't try to make out that he was being attacked personally. Defense of others is a legitimate reason to step in to a situation (even if, again, I think the amount of force he decided to deploy was way over the top and illegal...).

No, neither side should show up armed, that is how far this whole shit show has barreled down the hill. And yes, I would be fairly certain that a bunch of white supremacists would be armed, so if I did show up to protest against them, I sure as fuck wouldn't be attacking them first and giving them reasons to lose their head and draw down on me... They certainly are the types that gravitate to gun ownership, rebellion against the government etc, I don't think that's a huge surprise to anyone right?

One of the first rules about fighting I learned way back in the day when I worked security is that it's fucking stupid to launch violence against anyone that you do not explicitly need to because you have no idea what they can do, what they have access to etc. If you can resolve a situation with words rather than fists (or more), do so at every opportunity. The idiots showing up to 'punch nazis' really have no concept of this. They show up to 'take nazi scalps' and expect no repercussions?

And yeah, you clearly put this up as a 'left did something bad, OMG THE RIGHT DID SOMETHING WORSE', the entire screed describing the vid only mentions the pyro once as a minor note in a story about the evil armed racist. You're about as fair and balanced as Faux and it's bitchy little stunts like this shit which will always put you exactly where BK33 says you are.

Fucking amazing, you're moronic enough to make Bob right. Kudos...

But I still believe that it's more important for people to see what happened than to suppress it, so the vote stands (petty would be taking it away now you've insulted me ; ).

Yes, 15k soldiers is the number I have seen as well.

The other factor is the question about what that $8.4m is being used for. It sounds like you are assuming that it is for hormone replacement and/or gender reassignment, but I haven't heard if that is explicitly what the $8.4m is for, or if is the sum total of all annual trans health care in the military. That is something I would like clarified. It has only been stated as "the cost for health care for the 15k trans soldiers", so it is not clear.

I, too, would like to hear what is the Viagra "head" count. Hooooo!

I just think that it is a small price to pay (0.0017 %) of a $500b annual military budget, for people that are braver than myself, and willing to serve.

Perhaps not directly, but you certainly implied it by saying they would arrest you for just not talking.(Edit: I took that as an endorsement)

Again, you simply don't understand rights if you say it's ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior to actually exercise them, which is precisely what she did.

1 1/2 years on duty is not inexperienced or rookie IMO.
EDIT: Nor is being inexperienced or a rookie any excuse for violating civil rights....it's sad that I think that needs to be stated explicitly.

Exercising your legal right to not say a word, because saying any word has PROVEN REPEATEDLY to be enough to cause exactly the kind of trouble you say she's inviting by being silent, is absolutely NOT instigation. It is being patriotic and standing up for your hard won rights. My forefathers actually fought and died to secure those rights, it is my duty to defend them by using them, as is the case with every American citizen. Period. (I am inflexible in this line of thought, as it conforms to everything I was taught to believe about citizenship, patriotism, and respect)

Before they manhandle her, she tells them she's a lawyer and has no duty to speak....enough? If not, why?


You said "I don't think saying "hello, how are you?" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over." are going to incriminate you...", I explained why you are wrong in that assessment (as did others by pointing you to a video that explains it in detail and much better than I can). There's no question, it's not an opinion, it's historical, verifiable fact. Talking to police can get you in more trouble than remaining silent, but I do agree it's prudent to explain to powertripping ignorant cops what's happening....with a pre-printed card you let them read through your closed window that simply says "Any questioning must be in the presence of my lawyer, and I won't respond, standing on my constitutional right to refuse any self incrimination." or something close to that. I'm usually willing to simply and flatly say " I can't talk to you without my attorney" and they go away, but that's because I'm a pussy.

@harlequinn

Why should you re-read the bible? Because, like most Christians, you clearly demonstrated that you don't know what it actually says (which is the point of the video), and yet here you are telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay. So... hypocrisy much?

But then you double-down and are now trying to argue with me that the Christian god is not actually considered omnipotent--despite me pointing out three places in the bible where it explicitly states "he" is. Although I'm not at all surprised that a religious person is arguing against facts, I actually agree with the sentiment. If a Christian god truly existed, one look at the state of the world would tell you that "incompetent" is a better descriptive adjective than "omnipotent."

Look man, I get it. You're invested in your religion. I was once too, and just like you argued with atheists about these kinds of arcane points (i.e. is the Christian god omnipotent?) before slowly realizing it is all bullshit and that humanity at this stage of development would be much better off without religion (and by religion I mean any philosophical way of life that uses "faith" as it's primary source for finding truth instead of rational thinking). I don't deny it served a purpose once as a unifying social force, but its day is done. One day you'll either come to the same conclusion or you'll ignore the mountains of problems it causes in the world because you feel it brings you some measure of peace or clarity or whatever. I hope it's the former for you.

Unfortunately, knowing a lot of religious people, I expect it will be the latter. In which case, I can only hope your religion brings you only happiness and you keep it from damaging others' lives as much as possible.

You might want to re-read your bible (I refuse to capitalize it).

Revelation 19:6:

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Also Matthew 19:26 “with God, all things are possible” and Luke 1:37 “with God nothing is impossible” make it clear the Christian god is omnipotent without actually using the word.

And even if it wasn't explicitly written, in practice every major sect of Christianity follows the doctrine that the Christian god is both omniscient (i.e. going to judge everyone for their sins on judgement day) and omnipotent (i.e. can do anything, such as create a universe from nothing).

EDIT: So @newtboy's original comment stands. The bible's inconsistencies are too huge for anyone not completely indoctrinated into Christianity to ignore.

That guy did an excellent job. Kept things a bit neutral, hinted at being unhappy with Trump without being explicit about it, then cut straight to Russia when the opportunity presented itself. Really well played.

Chomsky\s position doesn't surprise me in the least and I think is much more easily explainable than you want to make it. Chomsky is taking the default most anti-American position that he can. Part of that includes not letting Russia be painted any more black or dark than America. There's nothing new, surprising or different in his opinion here, he's just expressing it in a way that goes against the democrats which throws people that hadn't seen Chomsky that way before when he was mostly condemning right leaning America. It's pretty much the exact same thing as the shift in opinion towards wikileaks before and after they ran a freight train over Hillary. When they were releasing secrets damaging to the right end of the spectrum they were doing the lord's work. The explicit and sole focus on western evils was ok until suddenly the left end of the west got included. Now suddenly a pro-Russian conspiracy was visible to left leaning folks. You know, the now that it's affecting me it's a problem viewpoint.

@newtboy,

You said:Stop.

Glad we might be getting somewhere .

I agree on not forgiving the blatantly racist factions. I've said the same thing of ISIS, jihadists and their ilk. They and guys like Richard Spencer remain the mortal enemies of civilization. We never accept them or their ideas, if they want peace or cooperation, they are the ones that need to change.

I do still fear that for all practical purposes your position, and seemingly that of the democrats and protesters out in force, is little different from writing off everyone that voted Trump. If the expectation is that Trump voters need to be the ones that swallow all the change or make all the compromises then the difference doesn't matter. If you want to get people to vote your ticket or candidate, you've got to be the ones reaching out. Demanding the prospective voters come apologetically to your party isn't drawing them in, it's driving them away.

Neil Mcdonald from CBC I think summed up where a lot of Trump voters came to the conclusion that Hillary was no lesser evil:
You can bet they're listening closely every year at Halloween, when progressives reliably denounce as racist anyone allowing their children to dress up as a member of any other culture. Like, say, sending a little girl out dressed as Mulan.

Or when they're denounced as Islamophobes for even discussing the question of why so many people who commit mass murder of innocents do it in the name of Allah. Or as transphobes for using the pronouns "he" or "she" without explicit permission. Or as homophobes for obeying their priest or imam. Or as some sort of uninclusive-o-phobe for uttering the phrase "Merry Christmas."

There are millions of people out there who aren't terribly interested in a lecture about the difference between "cisnormative" and "heteronormative," and how both words supposedly describe something shameful.

Is there a signed treaty? No. But the US SoS (James A. Baker III) and the German Foreign Minister (Hans-Dietrich Genscher) are on the record in 1990

Genscher is on video tape stating very clearly: "Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht das NATO-Verteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten. Das gilt übrigens nicht nur im Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverlaiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell."

In English: we are in agreement that there is no intention of expanding the NATO security zone eastwards. This applies not only to the GDR, which we do not intend to incorporate, but in general."

Or how about Baker's words, Feb. 9, 1990, St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin:
"If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the East."

And the minutes show Gorbachev as having said:
"Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

To which Baker replied:
"I agree."

Again, no treaties, nothing. But some people, myself included, make the argument that unequivocal statements of a nation's highest-ranking diplomat are to be taken seriously, unless overruled by explicit, written agreements.

And from what we've heard from Gorbachev over the years, he took them for their words.

Admittedly, having been replaced by Yelzin who received massive "help" from the US might have made Gorbachev a little grumpy.

What remains at the end is this: NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the Soviets and wasn't dissolved when the Soviet Union collapsed. The highest-ranking diplomats of the primary players at that time (US, FRG) are on the record with promises that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards after the German reunification. Now NATO is closer to Russia's border than ever and the Ukraine had a democratically elected government (they were thugs, but elected) overthrown by forces that had massive support from the US. As a result, fascist militias wearing SS insignia are roaming free in Novorossiya, with government support.

If I were Russia, I'd be pissed.

But I'm in Germany, so now I have a strongman in charge of Russia, a thug who has journalists and opposition in general killed, on the one side, and the Americans who installed a Nazi-sympathising regime in Ukraine on the other.

What's not to like about it.

So when the US establishment then goes on a full-blown bender to position Russia as a scapegoat for now having to live with President Trump, they are playing with fire just to distract from their fucked-up domestic policies.

And we're not even touching on the hypocrisy of the US being outraged when some foreign nation meddles in their internal affairs. Of course Russia tries to influence US politics in their favor. Guess what, so does the UK, France, Germany, NZ, China, Japan, even bloody Luxembourg for all I know. Just like the US exerts influence on German politics (ie German Marshall Fund, Atlantikbrücke, etc), and on politics of every other nation of significance.

Offensive jokes are hilarious. I mean, if it offends bitches, niggers or fags, who gives a fuck?

I mean, people joke about white dudes all the time and you don't hear them complaining, unless they're Jews or some shit.

It almost like the most powerful demographic in history is less easily offended because they haven't endured centuries of oppression! Nah, that's ridiculous...

Here's the thing, you want to make a joke about rape or slavery or whatever, provided you are not explicitly advocating violence, I will defend your right to make that joke.

And I will defend my right to say you're a fucking asshole for making it.

I agree that facts should be checked, but for this particular story the facts lead to more questions. Was there ever a safety incident in the past with Christmas lights strung between poles? It mentions the law doesn't allow using the electricity, but does it explicitly forbid it? Why not put a weight limit and wattage limit rather than an outright ban? (LEDs have come a long way)
"technical reasons" should have technical merit.

Even if the ban was to stop offending others, they are a sovereign nation and can pass laws however they like. I wouldn't of shared the story (if I had facebook) just because it was obvious trolling.

Wow! The Obama administration considers all military aged males in a strike zone as combatants, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

How convenient. We wouldn't want to admit we are killing civilians. That might upset people.

Anybody who says they are a Sanders person and votes for anyone other than Clinton is a damn fool.

You think Sanders is so great? You think he is a progressive and our best hope?

THEN FUCKING VOTE FOR CLINTON. Sanders knows how politics works. He knows that there has been progress made on progressive issues. And he has explicitly stated that if you want progressive values to hold sway in this country, YOU MUST VOTE FOR CLINTON.

So do what you say -- vote your conscience. And vote for Clinton.

Because if Trump wins? I swear, I WILL come to your house and personally beat the crap out of you. And take your weed.

I am not questioning your credentials, your intent or anything like that.

And I understand that what you are saying is logically the best course of action for any individual, that being the one that doesn't result in the person being in a body bag.

But unfortunately things tend to not change unless blood is spilled and lives are lost. It's moments like these that shock people out of their complacency. I don't need to tell you this of course, you understand it explicitly already (eg. mentioning Stonewall, for example). Black lives matter started out of this, and while I disagree ideologically with their methods of whitewashing (pun intended) the stats to ignore black deaths at the hands of black perpetrators, I think generally it has at least focused the spotlight back on what is essentially acceptable racism, ie. that any person with black skin is a ticking timebomb of crime and we should all feel justified in treating them that way... = \

But even if you take out the element of standing up against a bad system, there is still that frustration that causes a person to eventually say "Fuck it...". And yeah, I agree, it's far better personally to just eat shit and wait for daylight, but I understand why someone who makes all the right moves and still get's treated badly will finally push back, despite the possibility of tragic consequences.

I don't really care what his fans said on Twitter or anywhere else for that matter. Unless he explicitly instructed them to go out and harass somebody you can't realistically hold him responsible for the actions of others.

1:1 example? Were we even reading the same article? The bulk of the article describes how the Baphomet board on 8chan used publicly available information, possibly gleaned from thunderf00t's video, or perhaps not, to target Jennifer Keller and her business. The folks over at Baphomet were really just doing this for their own amusement, here's a quote from the article.

" I'll save the trouble that I'm a bit of a thunderfag and while I understand he's a cucked shithole obsessed with Anita Scamkeesian, the fact they will get him fired merely on the base of their hurt feelings kind of ticked me off. "

I should also take a moment to point out that Jennifer Keller aka 'Laughing Witch' on YouTube along with others engaged in a letter writing campaign to try and get Phil Mason 'thunderf00t' fired from his job. Now I don't know about you, but I would call that harassment. I find that kind of behavior unacceptable no matter which side you are on. But there she was, down in the trenches slinging shit right along side the other trolls and misanthropes.

As for specious arguments, the focus on minor details and painting whole groups of people with a broad brush, Sarkeesian and company do all of these things. Sarkeesian criticizes an industry and thunderf00t attacks her criticisms and questions her rationale. But supporters will try to draw attention away from his arguments by calling it an attack on her.

You want to hold thunderf00t responsible for the actions of trolls and MRA wack-jobs, but are you willing to hold Sarkeesian responsible for the actions of feminism's lunatic fringe?