Liberia bitch using liberal media slant describing The Federalist Society.. How how funny to watch.

Please re enlighten me the 3/5 clause...

It was to limit the racist southern politicians ( all Democrat)from getting more voting power. This was a provision that was not directly about race but about status and the allocation of political power. Free blacks were counted in exactly the same way as whites. The clause did not say that a slave was three-fifths of a person. The clause said nothing about free blacks, who were treated by the clause exactly as free whites were.

Rather, the clause provided a mathematical formula that allowed for the allocation of representatives in Congress that factored in the slave population. No slaves could vote in the country (although free blacks could vote in a number of states), and the clause did not provide a voice for slaves. This was about the distribution of political power among the states.

So yes you can thank Republicans for limiting the power from the racist KKK loving political south.

This is getting old.
If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.
I point out that historically you are wrong. I cite specific examples illustrating that you are wrong. Still you come back insisting that somehow men with guns can't starve people out who want to farm. That somehow the mass starvations under Stalin, Mao, and North Korea weren't even related to the mass theft at gunpoint of farm crops and land from farmers. You insist that it's not what is today stopping farmland from productivity in places like the DRC, Liberia, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and many more. I give up.

the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today
But also
we can't get to the moon with NASA today, or get on a concord
I give up.

78% less glacier doesn't mean ...
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years
I cited the actual science from the IPCC with their own projections. You take the very, very worst of the multiple scenarios the IPCC run. Not content with that, you take the most extreme range of error within that extreme scenario. Not content with that, you then inject your PERSONAL BELIEF that even that position of science is likely to optimistic.

I give up. If you refuse to listen to fact and reason that's up to you. Just don't pretend your any better than the other side ignoring the actual science just from a different end of the spectrum.

You better start using the metric system then.

On the other hand, the list of countries that don't use the metric system is:
- the US
- Myanmar
- Liberia

Oh yeah, that's a list you want to be on.... USA! USA!

Historical Rift? Anyways this is somewhat true, I know two guys who are Africans who moved to America and they do have some problems with some African Americans. I've seen one get really mad at them since he's a substitute teacher as well.

BTW I don't like the term African Americans, it seems to me that people who have come from Africa recently and have become American citizens should be considered African Americans. Those who's families have been here longer than most everyone, from the original formation of our nation in my opinion would be called Black Americans. They are not Africans and they have nothing to do with Africa, but there is such thing as a black culture and a black America which some might identify with quite strongly. Also more to the point who the fuck is African? You ask someone from the Continent of Africa where he's from he says Kenya, or South Africa, or Liberia. They don't say, OH just somewhere on that GIANT FUCKING CONTINENT!

In a better society we'd simply call them Goddamn Americans and be done with it. However in our society there are some definable lines that should be respected and recognized. And hopefully and eventually overcome completely.

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

I gotta say the 'anti-interventionist' mentality just pisses me off when gets so extreme as to lament the middle eastern curse of oil and that if only it wasn't there the middle east could be more like Africa where nobody considers intervention. I'm not sure how many middle eastern people are longing to trade places with Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, Liberia, the DRC and on, and on. Africa's a great place, when the local dictator or militia decides to hold a genocide, nobody else in the world cares enough to do a bloody thing, it's like a paradise.

>> ^bmacs27:

Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.



Hence why I said most.

>> ^bmacs27:

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?


Personally I'm undecided. I think sword deaths and injuries may be rare; I can't find any statistical data on them, which in itself possibly supports that; or they just get thrown in with knives and other sharp objects; and a wholesale banning of sharp things would be highly impractical.

They are practically banned in Japan though; who would have thought?

They are also banned in Washington DC; and in the UK (unless you jump through lots of hoops proving you are a genuine collector).

Ultimately I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.

>> ^bmacs27:

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?
>> ^L0cky:
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.



I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring specifically to teaching children how to use firearms, which was done by both the NPFL in the Liberian civil war; and pretty much everyone in Mozambique's civil war, and those children (as young as 10) were actually used in the wars.

It's horrifying, and probably a bit of an extreme reference, but my point is we shouldn't need to teach children to use guns in the first place.

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?

>> ^L0cky:

You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I have personally witnessed one murder and one attempted murder, both committed with handguns. I have yet to witness a "defensive" use of a handgun.
There are just too many morons out there, for the number of guns circulating around.

Oh, so since you haven't personally witnessed a gun being used in self defense, it must not happen at all. I personally haven't witnessed a police officer stopping a crime, so why do we need them?

>> ^arekin:

You know taking the deathcows arguments into account (though I don't agree with them), Guns are meant to be fired. The guy only has two arms. I've heard the argument "what about his friends?" If they wanted to fire a gun they probably already have one. So either the guy has to grow more arms or hes just carrying around alot of extra weight.
Buy more clips and less guns.


I like to play video games, but by your logic, one game is enough. Also, stamp collectors, they only have two eyes, so why do they need so many stamps?

>> ^L0cky:
And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?
I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!
I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.


No one said anything about teaching a child how to use a gun. You have lots of things in your house that are deadly to kids (knives, chemicals, etc.), and I hope you would teach them that those things are dangerous and not to be played with rather than hiding them and hoping they wont find them. Why would a gun be any different?

Around 6% of US Americans hunt, yet around 34% own a gun; therefore around 82% of gun owners own a gun for something other than hunting. Bringing up hunting is just avoiding the issue.

Besides, I don't think that guy's UZI is for hunting rabbits.

Also, you don't need to teach children how to safely use firearms if they don't have access to firearms. Kinda like how you don't need to teach them how to safely use a particle accelerator, even though they too are dangerous.
>> ^colt45:

>> ^L0cky:
So you're offering free classes? And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?
I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!
I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.

I don't know enough about firearms, and own none. I'm hardly qualified. Also, please stop putting words in my mouth. I want to live in a civilized country, where people understand PROPER use of, and care for, firearms, including safety, control, and discipline.
Your obsession with murder is a bit concerning. Firearms are very effective at hunting. They are great at providing food from that use. Why you are so obsessed with war and murder, I really don't know. Should you be on a watch list?

>> ^L0cky:
So you're offering free classes? And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?
I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!
I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.


I don't know enough about firearms, and own none. I'm hardly qualified. Also, please stop putting words in my mouth. I want to live in a civilized country, where people understand PROPER use of, and care for, firearms, including safety, control, and discipline.

Your obsession with murder is a bit concerning. Firearms are very effective at hunting. They are great at providing food from that use. Why you are so obsessed with war and murder, I really don't know. Should you be on a watch list?

>> ^Barseps:

Potential international enemies will think TWICE before invading America because they are the most heavily armed civilian population on Earth.

This isn't paranoia?

The USA has the largest military in the world, by a factor of about a zillion. How exactly do you envisage this nightmare scenario playing out, and who is the enemy?

Mexicans? Canadians?

If it's anyone else I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to enlist in the army, learn how to use a weapon, and do your part as a soldier rather than a cowboy.

[spoiler]It's not going to happen. Really.[/spoiler]

>> ^colt45:

Children who are not taught properly about firearms are, generally, viewing them as toys to play with. Children who are properly taught about firearm safety, use, etc., are much more likely to view them properly; as very dangerous tools.


So you're offering free classes? And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?

I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!

I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).

You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.

>> ^jmd:

Looks like cops and a dose of Mr Obvious.
The war on drugs is because a significant part of the population does not want drugs in their country. Now is it having a huge impact on us because of our poverty rates? yea.. if anything it is a holocaust on the dollar bill. The more we spend on drug wars, the more people that get poorer. There isn't a GOOD ending to this scenario.. either we stop fighting it or it will eventually makes us broke.. how ever...
Still doesn't stop the fact that we don't want these types of drugs around, or the people that use them. Find a different country if you want to shoot up. A country I can't go around without seeing people overdosing in front of me is not a country I wan't to live in.


I took your advice, rounded up all the drug users, quickly organized them for a mass exodus, and gleefully watched as they ratified amendment after amendment into their own system of government. I take no credit in this feat, as the combination of their GEDs and generations of unchecked family abuse paved the way. If their government fails they can always move to Liberia and die in a torrent of AIDS and more AIDS. Thanks for the advice, fuckface.

Where they constantly complain about "reposts" and "karma". It's a strange, rather self-congratulatory community at times and it feels like a group I just can't get into.

The stuff you find is brilliant at times but it's strictly a read-only experience for me.

Actually can anyone explain what the point of karma is? Is there a leaderboard or something because I've never seen one. I just don't get their meta-game.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^ulysses1904:
Everything from Rita Pavone to a documentary on Three Mile Island to the VICE guide to Liberia to math and science videos and old songs and movies that I had forgotten about or never knew about. Where else you gonna find all that?

Apparently on reddit
rimshot!
Thank you, I'll be here all week....

>> ^ulysses1904:

Everything from Rita Pavone to a documentary on Three Mile Island to the VICE guide to Liberia to math and science videos and old songs and movies that I had forgotten about or never knew about. Where else you gonna find all that?


Apparently on reddit

*rimshot!

Thank you, I'll be here all week....