Then you don't live in the world most of us live in today or you are being disingenous.
Last edited:
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
One thing is definite: Megablue takes white guilt to the next level. When he refers to Jim Crow and declares that "we" and "us" will somehow stop being racists until it happens to "us", then veers into shaky examples of the nouveau territory of "white privilege", it becomes clear how powerful that media/education can be when it comes to their agenda.
Till you find out it's just corrupted as the small town bible belts.
Same corruption everywhere, but at least the city has more distractions. Nothing changes.
It probably helps, but he's seems like a smart man, who thinks before he speaks, and doesn't carry a huge social justice chip on his shoulder.
No. No, it's not. This country is more like the film Idiocracy every day.
I love this post. It is full of so much anger and bitterness against the white race. This guy is going to live his entire life being bitter against something, and on behalf of something that really doesn't want his representation.
Descendants of the European culture should be just about sick and tired for their ability to create schools, and movies, and for their ability to produce whatever other forms of wealth and beauty that random apologists find worthy of their judgment.
Last edited:
Like I mentioned earlier, I have to finish up some classes. Well, in two of my Journalism classes yesterday, I was blown away by how insane and liberal everything has become.
Swear to God this is all 100% true.
- We discussed the Virginia shooting in multiple classes and this was when all of the info was out. Being a racist was not mentioned once...not once and we had three non-white students who actually agreed w/ each other and said , "Well maybe there's some merit to his (the killer) claims of racism and there's a deeper issue that needs solved" but the same professor showed us two stories 1) About a group of black women being loud on a wine train and getting kicked off for what the women claim was for "being black and laughing."
I said there had to be more to the story but it was like he was pandering to the other students.
Then he showed the Donald Trump video where the combative reporter interrupted and was kicked out and Trump said, "Go back to Univision."
My white professor in this Caifornia university (originally from West Virginia) said,"It sounds almost racist like "Go back to Mexico." And the sheep shook their head in agreement.
How in the hell do these people stand a chance with people like this educating them and throwing this nonsense of "You're at a disadvantage", "White men are opressors", "whites are racist", "Saying white lives matter is racist", "You're a victim if you're black."
This BS has to stop. Could you imagine how pathetic this country would be if everyone was such crybabies and constant "victims" a 100 years ago instead of busting their asses and feeling like the word doesn't owe them anything?
Have you ever seen the episode of Saved By The Bell where Jesse Spano discovers her ancestors owned slaves and then just grovels and desperately tries to appease Lisa because of it? That sums up the white guilt constantly displayed today.
Swear to God this is all 100% true.
- We discussed the Virginia shooting in multiple classes and this was when all of the info was out. Being a racist was not mentioned once...not once and we had three non-white students who actually agreed w/ each other and said , "Well maybe there's some merit to his (the killer) claims of racism and there's a deeper issue that needs solved" but the same professor showed us two stories 1) About a group of black women being loud on a wine train and getting kicked off for what the women claim was for "being black and laughing."
I said there had to be more to the story but it was like he was pandering to the other students.
Then he showed the Donald Trump video where the combative reporter interrupted and was kicked out and Trump said, "Go back to Univision."
My white professor in this Caifornia university (originally from West Virginia) said,"It sounds almost racist like "Go back to Mexico." And the sheep shook their head in agreement.
How in the hell do these people stand a chance with people like this educating them and throwing this nonsense of "You're at a disadvantage", "White men are opressors", "whites are racist", "Saying white lives matter is racist", "You're a victim if you're black."
This BS has to stop. Could you imagine how pathetic this country would be if everyone was such crybabies and constant "victims" a 100 years ago instead of busting their asses and feeling like the word doesn't owe them anything?
Have you ever seen the episode of Saved By The Bell where Jesse Spano discovers her ancestors owned slaves and then just grovels and desperately tries to appease Lisa because of it? That sums up the white guilt constantly displayed today.
Last edited:
Erik Wright, the UW professor who led the protests of Scott Walker and is an avowed Marxist, makes $170k per year and teaches two classes. From his book:
"Capitalism blocks the possibility of achieving a radically egalitarian distribution of the material conditions of life”
"Capitalism blocks the possibility of achieving a radically egalitarian distribution of the material conditions of life”
Got this from another website; not sure of the original source.
It will be interesting to see the spin...
I can virtually guarantee this will never appear on any MSM outlet.
This is not only incredible hypocrisy; it brings up the bigger point: far left viewpoints are by far more popular and profitable.
Why do you think someone making 170k per year is preaching against capitalism yet earning a lot of money? Why does Al Gore push green everything, yet live in a mansion and fly around in jets? Why would white people pretend their black?
Because currently the opportunities are better, the exposure greater, and the money higher for anyone with a far left agenda. How did we get here?
At the risk of entering the political thread ...
The reason "blame" isn't placed on the other objects is that their primary use isn't for killing. Cars, planes, knives, bats all serve very useful purposes outside of killing, it's just unfortunate they can be used to kill. Guns serve a single purpose - to kill. That's it, that's the list.
Guns don't kill anyone or anything on their own, but their entire purpose is to make it more efficient and effective to do so. Do we need to ban them entirely? I'm not sure, but it'd be nice if they were much harder to obtain. In that case, even if someone really wants to off someone else, maybe they choose a knife instead - I'll take my chances against a knife any day versus a gun.
People won't police/challenge/etc anything in their ideological hemisphere.
So will most gun packing criminals and enemies foreign and domestic...which is why we need guns.
“The fact that he kept his job was because he was an African-American gay man. That’s pretty hard to say no to.”
Price of progress, I supppose.......
Price of progress, I supppose.......
I will post this one more time for MACCARD. We have not stopped drugs, drunk driving, corruption, or any other illegal act, how do you think you could curtail the possesion of a fire arm? If you could somehow make them illegal, you would only be disarming those who intend to follow the law.
Last edited:
Used for hunting, target practice, sport, and for self defense. All of which are legal uses. Because someone takes a legal item, and uses it illegally, has nothing to do with the item itself. Its the person.
If we take the logic the gun is to blame, then I suppose this man shouldn't be viewed as a killer? Only the gun?
Each of your "uses" involve killing or pretend killing. Those don't change the idea that guns have no other real use than killing.
But it's obvious that the gun supporters didn't read my post. As usual, they see gun control and equate that to BANNING GUNS!!!! I even stated that "I'm not sure we need to ban them entirely", and I was even being a little facetious with that. If you ban something entirely (i.e. drugs), it usually backfires in the long run, so that isn't the answer.
I'm for keeping guns legal (and legalizing most drugs), but heavily regulating them so that by all reasonable measures, they get into the right hands. Will that always happen? Of course not. But as usual, the problem with the entire discussion is the extremes - both the "BAN ALL GUNS" and the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" nuts. The rational middle gets ignored because the crazies on both sides scream the loudest.
Pretend killing doesn't equal killing. So no, that's not correct.
I read it. I just don't agree with it. Big difference.
We're already there. Ive never owned a gun and probably never will. But iirc there is already a mandated 10 day federal waiting period (some states are longer), background checks, etc. That's quite a bit of restriction.
Plus logic tells us making tough laws isn't the answer. Criminal don't follow laws. Otherwise laws against murder would stop them. If they cant get the gun legally, they'll it illegally. The only people effected by tougher gun laws, are law abiding citizens.
What I WOULD support, is the same background checks, waiting time, etc be applied to gun/trade shows.
Got this from another website; not sure of the original source.
It will be interesting to see the spin...
What's the definition of a "rampage shooting" as it's used herein?
I agree with your last paragraph but the paragraph before it has been the NRAs argument against. So I'm confused as to what you are advocating.
A law achieving what you outline was introduced in congress a couple of years ago by Republcian Senator Tomey and Democrat Manchin, and even though it had overwhelming public support it failed due to the pressure by the NRA and other lobbyists representing gun manufacturers.
I agree that the focus should be on WHO is getting access to guns, not the guns themselves so perhaps a better way of pursuing this issue would be to call it more appropriate a gun access bill rather than a gun control bill. Using your automobile example, I would support a law that required gun ownership licensing, as opposed to gun licensing and background checks. Just like with automobiles you go to a local government facility once, and demonstrate your knowledge of gun safety, that you are not a felon, or a terrorist, and not a mental case, then they issue you a license. Once you have your license you can buy all the guns you want without going through a background check each time, just like when you get a drivers license you can drive any car you want.
Yes! More laws and regulations are *definately* the key! That seems to work well! The humans really respond well to more rules!
Wouldnt work. Someone thats perfectly sane could obtain a license, then have a traumatic event, snap, and buy another gun and kill people. Any check that happens, needs to happen at the time of purchase.
Even then, if someone wants a gun bad enough they can obtain one illegally. Its still based on the premise that someone intending to kill people will follow the law and not obtain a gun illegally. So thats a terribly flawed position.
Just because the NRA backs something, doesnt mean its right. Thats a much larger issue of campaign contributions and special interests.
Fine by your idiotic logic let's just do away with all laws since people don't obey them anyway and have anarchy.
Who said anything about liberals? I live in one of the largest cities in America. I can disappear. I don't have to deal with the small mind/small town mentality. No one cares what I am doing. I have people that do what I do that I surround myself with. It's great. I get to meet all sorts of people on top of that. Some are Christian, some are atheist, some are muslim, some are Sikh. People are just different here. They're more accepting.
The fact this happened to a member of the media has set the grandstanding factor off the charts. This "it could have been me" and "I'll be in fear doing a live-shot from now on" crap is pissing me off.
Dear all media - this guy was out to kill his co-workers because he was a nut-job. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact they were in the media. Shut up!
Dear all media - this guy was out to kill his co-workers because he was a nut-job. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact they were in the media. Shut up!
Nope, that's be the first step to a more civilized society. Just be rough initially as humans relearn how to handle their shit and police themselves as a community/neighborhood. But we can even stomach that discussion because of PC f-bois like yourself and the idiots you vote for.
We are so reliant upon our inept government; it's very scary. But, please, keep voting to give them more power. Do it for the children!
There is corruption everywhere. Here I know no one outside of my little circle friends. No one cares about what's going on down the road. It's just different and I love it. I hate the small town drama. I was also being a little facetious in my comment you quoted.
Lol wth
What do you think rural areas are like? You got a concrete jungle, they got a jungle. Different means to the same shit. Open your brain. Expand your shit.
That's the wrong metric. There is no fool proof perfect solution to this problem, so holding that up as the benchmark will always result in any proposal missing the mark. Rather we have to focus on what will make a direct impact on reducing incidents like we saw yesterday in Virginia.
Last year there were 170,000 incidents of gun sales that were denied due to background checks that revealed the would-be purchaser was an x-felon, mentally ill, or had terrorist connections. I'm sure some of those 170,000 found a way to get a gun illegally - OR legally at a gun show but not all of them.
Your counter argument to my proposal makes some sense, but how about if we do this. If the licensing was done on a national level, a license could be revoked if the holder had a felony conviction or was determined mentally unstable. The license would be like a credit card with a magstrip or chip that can be swiped for instant approval - or called in (again like a credit card transaction).
The bottom line for me is that we can't just shrug our shoulders when there is another senseless killing and say "$hit happens don't mess with my 2nd amendment rights" That's a cop out. WE can protect gun owners rights and do a much better shop of filtering the access at the same time.
Yeah, the goal is to reduce the total amount of gun violence rather than eliminate it all. The what-ifs don't help.
I'm for a big-time registry of hand-gun ownership tied to serial numbers with audits. Hand gun crime is the big problem in this country. The AR-15s and what not are not even a blip on the radar. So don't require anything additional in terms of checks with that stuff - which are the kind of weapons you need if you are taking on the government.
I posted that you have more distractions. Which is true. Basically you're too busy to worry about getting corruption ran up your ass. That's the difference between boredom and distraction.
Similar threads
