Messages

2671

Off Topic / Re: NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:38:59 AM »

Part of the problem is that they allow the protests to get to the point where they're blocking traffic in the first place. There's plenty of videos of protests that have been allowed to stay around for quite some time. Microwave dispersal units may very well be the answer, but who's to say they won't be ruled inhumane based on current standards?

If this bill were to actually pass (which it probably won't), then I don't see why a similar law with more lenient methods of dispersal wouldn't pass either. It would have to take some serious mental gymnastics to be okay with shooting people but not firing non-lethal microwaves at them.

2672

Off Topic / Re: NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:34:57 AM »

I like how Seventh is dead set on enforcing the mind-set that this bill is 100% geared towards violently murdering protesters, even though it isn't and is never even said to in the original bill

Again, you don't seem to understand that allowing police 'any means necessary' to disperse protests effectively legalizes lethal force. Whether or not they use it is irrelevant because the wording of the bill makes it legal.

well states rights is a right-wing belief

Right-wing also means an emphasis on small-government, meaning you wouldn't typically expect someone 'right-wing' to advocate for allowing the government more avenues to kill dissenters.

Isn't that why you guys love guns so much? So that you can overthrow a tyrannical government?

2673

Off Topic / Re: NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:31:43 AM »

The problem is either they can't effectually enforce the law, or they won't.

Police have dispersed tons of protests on interstate highways over the past year. The next logical step might be employing some new microwave dispersal units, not opening fire into crowds of people.

It doesn't even mention lethal force. It just says they can do whatever's needed to fix the problem. Maybe that does involve non-lethal methods.

Or maybe it doesn't. The point is that we follow the letter of the law, not the spirit. If cops decide to mow down 50 protestors on a highway, they can point to this law and say, "Hey, we needed to clear the highway," and then nobody gets punished.

Better the state have the power and not need it than need it and not have it.

Didn't you just self-identify as far-right like ten minutes ago? Do you know what 'far-right' means in the context of American politics?

2674

Off Topic / Re: NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:25:10 AM »

Complaining about "authoritarianism" is just one big slippery slope fallacy and the reality is we lose nothing as a nation if we don't allow people to block highways.

Again, you're completely missing the point here. Nobody is disputing whether blocking highways should be illegal. In fact, it already is.

The problem is that choosing to legalize lethal force against highway-blockers is completely insane. There already exist dozens of effective crowd dispersal methods that do not involve murdering unarmed civilians.

the problem is there is really no other way stopping all of these riots other than lethal force. but that's never the answer.

This bill has nothing to do with riots. It's about people who block highways.

2675

Off Topic / Re: 2017 WORLD POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:23:39 AM »

Yes people obstructing traffic and damaging property get attacked after 15 minutes. This is Orwellian how?

I don't get how you can make a huge stink about a neo-national socialist getting punched in the jaw, but you can turn around and say, "Yeah, blocking a highway for more than fifteen minutes? Mow the forgeters down with a machine-gun."

2676

Off Topic / Re: NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:21:36 AM »

oops did i say legal i meant lethal lol

Ok, that's more reasonable. But honestly why shouldn't Republicans support it either? Sane usage of force shouldn't be a partisan issue IMO.

2677

Off Topic / Re: NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:18:01 AM »

Well I don't particularly value the lives of those who have nothing better to do than block interstate commerce.

for real?

2678

Off Topic / Re: 2017 WORLD POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:17:21 AM »

This looks to be more against rioters and the pieces of stuff who obstruct traffic. I have no problem with this.

"Yeah okay, let's just mow down crowds of protestors just because they're blocking cars. Definitely nothing Orwellian about that."

2679

Off Topic / Re: NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:16:30 AM »

dems would for sure never get behind a bill allowing legal force against unlawful protesters.

That's literally not what's being disputed at all. There are already laws allowing police to forcefully disperse crowds.

2680

Off Topic / Re: NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

« on: January 23, 2017, 01:13:37 AM »

pretty sure in most cases police/SWAT can simply use crowd dispersal weapons such as microwave guns/sound blasters to clear it out without killing anyone.

Exactly, they can. But this bill seems to ambiguously allow police to use lethal force when dispersing crowds.

I don't think unleashing Kent State on crowds of unarmed protesters should be legal.

2681

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Annoying Orange withdrawing from the UN

« on: January 22, 2017, 11:05:51 PM »

we could but that brother gonna be drooling all over his papers.

jesus christ blf

2682

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Annoying Orange withdrawing from the UN

« on: January 22, 2017, 10:17:14 PM »

it does make sense if you're a hyper-nationalist like Annoying Orange and want to get the support of other hyper-nationalists

It wouldn't make sense why hyper-nationalists would support this. At least Brexit kind of made sense from a nationalistic perspective, since British nationalists didn't want the EU to force the UK to accept migrants. But like, the UN effectively can't force us to do anything. We'll just veto it if we don't like it.

2683

Off Topic / Re: blf what are your thoughts on incestuous relationships

« on: January 22, 2017, 10:00:09 PM »

Incest is one of those weird kinds of ethical questions. Like for instance, incest doesn't seem any less gross to me just because both people are using contraception, but if they're using contraception, then there's effectively no danger of birthing kids with forgeted up genes.

Don't think it should be illegal, but it should definitely be discouraged since close family members are more likely to share harmful recessive alleles.

2684

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Annoying Orange withdrawing from the UN

« on: January 22, 2017, 09:09:26 PM »

Even if you're a hyper-nationalist like Annoying Orange, it makes absolutely zero sense for the United States to withdraw from the UN. We are a permanent member of the Security Council, which means we are literally immune from UN sanctions and can veto whatever resolutions we want. Our presence in the UN only gives us more international power than we already have.

Edit: This is my 20,000th post. Accidentally passed it without knowing. I'm happy it was this post. Go UN!

2685

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Annoying Orange withdrawing from the UN

« on: January 22, 2017, 09:02:45 PM »

Two things:
1. Annoying Orange didn't introduce this. The bill, as stated on the website, was introduced on January 3rd. He wasn't president.

2. This is possibly the worst diplomatic idea ever. Both Republicans and Democrats will oppose this. It will die in the House.