The News Thread

[TechnicalBarbarity]

If you truly felt that way, we wouldn't be debating right now. If you're going to write me off arbitrarily just do it, I hate being flirted with.

If i truly felt that way? What the fuck are you going on about? How are you going to tell me how i truly feel? I've made it clear form my first post on why i dont think hard drugs should be legalized and i dont think there has been a single time where i didn't mention the devastation that those drug have on their surrounding communities. This is what i mean when i say you keep ignoring shit and pushing your nonsense. Not a respectable trait. But hey, your are a left wing liberal after all so its kind of expected.

But don't take muh guns though right? Never mind that irresponsible parents allow their children to accidentally kill themselves with their guns. LIBERTYYY!!!!

Are you implying that getting guns is just as easy as getting a sack of crack out here? Are you serious here? Hold on, i keep forgetting that you dont actually live out here so i can give you a pass for making such a retardedly dumb comparison.

Did I say that? In fact I said the opposite, that we need to legitimize drug dealing in the form of creating businesses that can be regulated, that can avoid malicious tainting of the product and so on.

yes, you implied more than a few times that dealing drugs should not be considered a criminal activity. "DID I SAY THATTTT" backtracking much?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Even though he was the Libertarian Party's nominee? I mean, yes the guy is fucking retarded but he does in some sense represent a large enough portion of the libertarians because he was the party's nominee.

Also:

View attachment 11961

I gave you Gary Johnson first.

I responded seconds after you posted that and only saw the "platform" post(you must have HBB level of editing speed ) and had not even read that part before bringing up Johnson.

also, is arbitrarily your new favorite word that you just learned?

 

[CiG]

yes, you implied more than a few times that dealing drugs should not be considered a criminal activity. "DID I SAY THATTTT" backtracking much?

Oh yeah I did say that, I thought you were saying I said drug dealers aren't criminals. I definitely didn't say that.

I responded seconds after you posted that and only saw the "platform" post(you must have HBB level of editing speed ) and had not even read that part before bringing up Johnson.

I'm always speed editing, not maliciously though.

If i truly felt that way? What the fuck are you going on about? How are you going to tell me how i truly feel? I've made it clear form my first post on why i dont think hard drugs should be legalized and i dont think there has been a single time where i didn't mention the devastation that those drug have on their surrounding communities. This is what i mean when i say you keep ignoring shit and pushing your nonsense. Not a respectable trait. But hey, your are a left wing liberal after all so its kind of expected.

So why are my views voided here yet you keep debating me? That was my point.

Are you implying that getting guns is just as easy as getting a sack of crack out here? Are you serious here? Hold on, i keep forgetting that you dont actually live out here so i can give you a pass for making such a retardedly dumb comparison.

Point of the comparison is that both are individual liberties that involve the privacy of the home, but irresponsible people can cause harm to those around them in the process of exercising said individual liberty.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

the fist part of that one post really pisses me off tbh. its like i wasted my fucking time with you. how are you going to say that the main reasons im arguing isn't about what drugs does to the community? after all of this? fuck, man.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Oh yeah I did say that, I thought you were saying I said drug dealers aren't criminals. I definitely didn't say that.

So a crack dealer isnt a criminal? You do realize that 100% of the crack dealers would laugh in your face for saying something like that ... and then probably sell you a rock.

 

[CiG]

the fist part of that one post really pisses me off tbh. its like i wasted my fucking time with you. how are you going to say that the main reasons im arguing isn't about what drugs does to the community? after all of this? fuck, man.

When did I say you were arguing for any other reason?

So a crack dealer isnt a criminal? You do realize that 100% of the crack dealers would laugh in your face for saying something like that ... and then probably sell you a rock.

Drug dealers are criminals, yes. Not sure what you're confused about...

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I'm always speed editing, not maliciously though.

So considering when i posted and when you edit, were back at I'M the one who gave you Gary Johnson

 

[CiG]

So considering when i posted and when you edit, were back at I'M the one who gave you Gary Johnson

Nope. I didn't even see your comment.

But anyway I also gave you Ron Paul and Stossel who may not be a politician but is at least a well known libertarian figure.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

When did I say you were arguing for any other reason?

when i said this ....

"If it doesn't effect the communities and people around them then i dont care, but to even imply that it doesn't or wont automatically voids anything you would hve to say here."

and you said this directly in resposne....

"If you truly felt that way, we wouldn't be debating right now."

Drug dealers are criminals, yes. Not sure what you're confused about...

What im confused about is how are saying they're criminals now when you implied numerous times that you think they're not.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Nope. I didn't even see your comment.

But anyway I also gave you Ron Paul and Stossel who may not be a politician but is at least a well known libertarian figure.

Ron paul is not an active politician. He is an old nutcase who hasn't been involved in any polices for yeeeeears and has done nothing but try to make a run for president in the last 20 or so years. And he also said "LEAVE IT TO THE STATE" not "YEAH SURE LETS LEGALIZE CRACK, METH ETC" I asked you for a Liberation political of today ... so technically you gave me nothing. Closest was Gary Johnson. Who i brought up to to ridicule.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

oh im guessing that was in response to my "voiding your opinion" comment. To which i would still say yes, if you're someone who thinks good will come out of legalizing hard drugs and integrating them into our communities is OK than i have no respect for your opinion on the matter. That doesn't change the fact that i love arguing with you fags

 

[Einherjar86]

Violence is easy to condemn. That's not the point here, you were placing guilt on people for standing near other people who said things.

I'm not placing guilt on anyone! All I said was that if you didn't move away from people who espoused white supremacist values, then your motivations are suspect. That's what I said.

So you're doing what Donald Trump did, even though you condemned him for saying what you're saying now?

He's the president. Maybe you don't realize the responsibilities that come with that office.

I didn't realize you were this unprincipled.

Dear god, I'm not being unprincipled. I'm trying to talk about the practical differences between two different events. You're not even being remotely principled, you're just being impossibly obtuse.

According to you, there's no way to approach political demonstration rationally or practically if even the slightest degree of violent behavior occurs, even when this behavior occurs on the outskirts of an event and isn't sanctioned by the official organizers. That's very different than an event that is effectively co-opted by a large, significant group of disreputable individuals whose presence actually persuades many of the original attendees to stay away.

There are demonstrable differences between these two events. But according to you, they're exactly the same. Really great point of view you have there.

Not peaceful for the outnumbered people who were assaulted.
This shows how one-dimensional your thinking is. Hangings in the old west or lynchings in the Jim Crow days by your definition were non-violent and peaceful.

Jesus Christ, that's a stupid comment. I'm sorry.

Hangings and lynchings were events organized around those very central occurrences. Lynchings were defined by a group of angry white men gathered around to watch a black man hanged.

The rally in Boston wasn't an event organized around violence, nor can it be defined by the violence experienced by less than one percent of those in attendance. Your attempts to do so really shows how one-dimensional your thinking is.

What is the problem with illegally arming yourself to make sure you can counter-protest?

Pepper spray isn't legal? Carrying around a can of spray paint isn't legal?

I'm still laughing at this.

Your difficulty with all this is pretty funny.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

and ill just leave this here before i start malfunctioning(its 4am here), that's if i haven't already. If you feed crack and heroin to my neighborhood, then you are in fact treading on me, my way of life and my community. Goodnig.. err good morning, ya' cunts

 

[CiG]

when i said this ....

"If it doesn't effect the communities and people around them then i dont care, but to even imply that it doesn't or wont automatically voids anything you would hve to say here."

and you said this directly in resposne....

"If you truly felt that way, we wouldn't be debating right now."

I meant that you think what I have to say is void.
If you truly felt that way, you wouldn't keep engaging me, unless you're some kind of masochist who enjoys arguing with voided people.

oh im guessing that was in response to my "voiding your opinion" comment. To which i would still say yes, if you're someone who thinks good will come out of legalizing hard drugs and integrating them into our communities is OK than i have no respect for your opinion on the matter. That doesn't change the fact that i love arguing with you fags

What im confused about is how are saying they're criminals now when you implied numerous times that you think they're not.

They're criminals right now by definition, I think you're confusing my saying that the dealer should become a legitimate business via legalization with something else.

Why the fuck would I say they're not currently criminals? That would be antithetical to my entire legalization position.

Ron paul is not an active politician. He is an old nutcase who hasn't been involved in any polices for yeeeeears and has done nothing but try to make a run for president in the last 20 or so years. And he also said "LEAVE IT TO THE STATE" not "YEAH SURE LETS LEGALIZE CRACK, METH ETC" I asked you for a Liberation political of today ... so technically you gave me nothing. Closest was Gary Johnson. Who i brought up to to ridicule.

 

[CiG]

I'm not placing guilt on anyone! All I said was that if you didn't move away from people who espoused white supremacist values, then your motivations are suspect. That's what I said.

So they're guilty of suspicious behavior for standing near wrongthinkers? Got it.

He's the president. Maybe you don't realize the responsibilities that come with that office.

Responsibilities should include: never condemning both sides of a violent and ridiculous event, only condemn the side the most sensitive people hate at that time, right-wing extremism is always worse than left-wing extremism and so on?

Everybody will point out the murder by the driver at Charlottesville to justify demands to exclusively condemn the right, but you people were making the exact same demand before Charlottesville, when the leftists held the monopoly on street violence.

Unprincipled, opportunistic bullshit.

Dear god, I'm not being unprincipled. I'm trying to talk about the practical differences between two different events. You're not even being remotely principled, you're just being impossibly obtuse.

According to you, there's no way to approach political demonstration rationally or practically if even the slightest degree of violent behavior occurs, even when this behavior occurs on the outskirts of an event and isn't sanctioned by the official organizers. That's very different than an event that is effectively co-opted by a large, significant group of disreputable individuals whose presence actually persuades many of the original attendees to stay away.

There are demonstrable differences between these two events. But according to you, they're exactly the same. Really great point of view you have there.

I didn't say they were exactly the same. Where did I say that?

Pepper spray isn't legal? Carrying around a can of spray paint isn't legal?

Shooting fire from a can with a lighter is very legal.

 

[Einherjar86]

So they're guilty of suspicious behavior for standing near wrongthinkers? Got it.

They're not guilty of suspicious behavior. I'm not a judge.

Responsibilities should include: never condemning both sides of a violent and ridiculous event, only condemn the side the most sensitive people hate at that time, right-wing extremism is always worse than left-wing extremism and so on?

Everybody will point out the murder by the driver at Charlottesville to justify demands to exclusively condemn the right, but you people were making the exact same demand before Charlottesville, when the leftists held the monopoly on street violence.

Unprincipled, opportunistic bullshit.

Please.

Trump could have said something along these lines:

Racism, in all its forms, should never be tolerated silently. We can respect the rights of these individuals to organize and speak their minds while condemning the beliefs they hold. The counter-protestors gathered in an effort to combat those beliefs, and many of them did so peacefully. We also must not apologize, however, for the episodes of senseless violence committed by both white supremacists and certain left-wing protestors in attendance. We can effectively criticize what the Charlottesville rally became without admitting that violence is admissible.

But Trump never says anything like that. Gone are the days of respectable diplomacy and admirable leadership.

I didn't say they were exactly the same. Where did I say that?

You reduced both events entirely to the violence that was committed. You effectively made them nothing more than the violence that happened at them. You're treating them as equivalent rallies when they were nothing of the sort.

Shooting fire from a can with a lighter is very legal.

...it is. Flamethrowers are only illegal in California.

 

[CiG]

But Trump never says anything like that. Gone are the days of respectable diplomacy and admirable leadership.

Gone are the days of actor politicians who say nothing with a lot of words and flair. I just want to be lied to by a career politician damn it.

You reduced both events entirely to the violence that was committed. You effectively made them nothing more than the violence that happened at them. You're treating them as equivalent rallies when they were nothing of the sort.

Wrong I just pointed out that you characterized your event as non-violent in the same comment that you said there was some violence. I understand that small incidents shouldn't tar an entire event, I merely pointed out that calling it non-violent is probably pretty absurd to the people who were attacked.

...it is. Flamethrowers are only illegal in California.

I thought that was related to proper flamethrowers, rather than improved devices?

 

[Einherjar86]

Gone are the days of actor politicians who say nothing with a lot of words and flair. I just want to be lied to by a career politician damn it.

I doubt you'll agree, but I think Obama would have actually said something substantive and diplomatic. Then again, maybe he simply would've condemned white supremacy. I guess we'll never know.

Wrong I just pointed out that you characterized your event as non-violent in the same comment that you said there was some violence. I understand that small incidents shouldn't tar an entire event, I merely pointed out that calling it non-violent is probably pretty absurd to the people who were attacked.

But see, I'm confused by your reason for pointing out my comment. There's a difference between a violent event and a peaceful event with a few isolated incidents of violence, none of which were very serious.

Do you think I don't realize that to a single individual who was attacked, the event would appear violent? That seems so obvious that it doesn't merit any mention. Sure, someone attacked during the rally probably thinks it was a violent event, and that person might find it absurd to call it peaceful; but their experience doesn't define the event. We can't reduce everything to personal experience lest we get ensnared in the barbs of relativism all over again, which is exactly what modern politics is trying to avoid (well, except for "alternative facts," alas).

I called it a peaceful event because it was, far and away, a peaceful event. I acknowledged the few incidents that occurred for the sake of honesty, but those incidents don't affect my description of the event as a whole.

I thought that was related to proper flamethrowers, rather than improved devices?

No, they're not federally regulated. According to U.S. law, there's no such thing as a "proper flamethrower."

California has state laws about licensing them, but other than that I don't think there are specific regulations on the books (maybe at lower local levels, I don't know).

 

[rms]

blame our neighborhood autistic cunt. And what the fuck is a pms?

pm's, private messages


98 FUCKING REPLIES SINCE I WENT TO BED AFTER THE SHITTY TB NE GAME. GAWD

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

View attachment 11964

Funny coming from you, who has perfected that game.

Ron Paul is not a politician, hasn't been for years. And them saying "leave it to the state" does not equate to "I WANT TO LEGALIZE CRACK METH HEROINE ETC" . So yes, technically you still have nothing for me.

I meant that you think what I have to say is void.

but do you remember when i said i dont care what people do in their own homes and you said this ....

Clearly you do.

Which is really no different from what i was mad about. And Its like you've never actually heard of or seen what these drugs can do for you to say something so ignorant as "ITS NOT GOING TO EFFECT ANYONE ELSE"

Why the fuck would I say they're not currently criminals? That would be antithetical to my entire legalization position.

Oh I'm sorry, you think they shouldn't be criminals but you also agree that they're criminals. Hmmmm ok.

View attachment 11963