• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

Loren Pechtel said:
You buy your weed from the dispensary I passed today, you get carded. You buy it from the illegal dealer, you don't.
Click to expand...
You buy your legal murderer from the broker down the street, it's recorded and taxed and you know you're going to get a high-quality murder with no risk of collateral damage. You buy it from a back-alley assassin squad and you just never know how many innocent bystanders are going to get taken out in the fray.

I'm not so sure that making things legal and regulated can be extrapolated to all situations. So maybe there's some reasonable limit where most prudent people would agree?

That line... yeah, I think using women's bodies as commodities to be traded for sexual gratification is on the wrong side of that line.
 
bilby said:
The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.
Click to expand...
Are you really intending to say that if the SC woke up tomorrow and said that the first amendment of the constitution says that left-handed people can be purchased as livestock and eaten for food, you think that would actually work, and we'd all just be stuck selling our left-handed cousins and having "Lefty Lou Lasagne"?
 
Derec said:
GenesisNemesis said:
Nope. There's no objective measure of who is on any part of the political spectrum,
Click to expand...
The political spectrum is indeed a crude measure at best. The two-dimensional political compass is better, but still not perfect.
but as far as I can tell conservatives tend to believe highly in nationalism "'Murica is greatest country in the world!" (and whatnot),
Click to expand...
They indeed do go overboard, but then again, the fauxgressives go overboard in the opposite direction about how horrible US is. Oh, and I have only ever seen "Murika" used by the left (Elixir is very fond of it for example).
a traditionalist belief system (blue hair is bad and scary!),
Click to expand...
The hair thing is used to mock stereotypical features of a certain kind of fauxgressive. And likewise, fauxgressives will often mock conservatives for their stereotypical features like, I don't know, oversized pickup trucks.
"strong borders" (gubmit can do whatever they want to them illegals! And whatnot),
Click to expand...
I think strong borders are important for a sovereign country. I can still object to things like sanctuary cities and "catch and release" and a the same time object to how Trump's ICE is going about enforcing immigration laws.
being "tough on crime" (i.e. basically allowing cops to do whatever the fuck they want),
Click to expand...
Again, being a moderate independent, I see it in a more nuanced way. Cops should obviously not be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. Not even conservatives advocate that. They do advocate criminalizing too many things though.
I am for smart approach to crime. On serious crimes we need to be tougher. Especially for teenagers who in many cases face hardly any consequences even for things like carjackings.
4 teens released to parents after arrest for carjacking in northeast Baltimore
CBS News said:
Around 12:45 p.m., officials found the [carjacked] vehicle in the 5400 block of York Road where they arrested a 15-year-old girl and three 15-year-old boys.
The three boys are not strangers to law enforcement and have prior handgun violation, burglary and aggravated assault arrests, according to police.
Officers took all four teens to the Juvenile Justice Center where they were released to the custody of their parents, police said.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a conservative to find soft-on-crime policies like this idiotic.
But there are too many things made illegal that should not be. I am also in favor of bail reform, as long as it is implemented well. The NY law was definitely not a good one. It forbade judges from imposing bail or jail even when the suspect is arrested over and over again, which career criminals then use to maximum effect. The NY law also forbids judges from considering danger to community as a factor in bail/jail decisions.
to name a few things that can make a "conservative" a conservative.
Click to expand...
All of these issues have extreme fauxgressive and conservative positions, but also a wide range of moderate positions in between the extremes.
Click to expand...
Funny but I’ve never once heard anyone I know and think of as a progressive talk about how terrible America is. You seem to regard me as some ultra liberal and certainly I think the US is great, even if under abysmal management bent on destroying everything great about us. Offering criticism and calling for changes is vastly different from the comments emanating from those in peer and their supporters.
 
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
What, exactly, do you think the Spanish Inquisition was? And weren’t the Nazis ‘good Christians?! What do you think the Crusades were? What do you think ‘mission schools’ were? Oh, sure, they were only a part of the plan but make no mistake: the goal was to beat the Indian out of NA’s and exterminate those who would not be made into useful servants.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously comparing the spanish inquisition, which was ~400 years ago, to the CURRENT ACTUAL POLICY OF JIHAD BEING ENACTED RIGHT NOW?
Click to expand...
How is it different? Aside from 400 years or so?
 
Toni said:
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
What, exactly, do you think the Spanish Inquisition was? And weren’t the Nazis ‘good Christians?! What do you think the Crusades were? What do you think ‘mission schools’ were? Oh, sure, they were only a part of the plan but make no mistake: the goal was to beat the Indian out of NA’s and exterminate those who would not be made into useful servants.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously comparing the spanish inquisition, which was ~400 years ago, to the CURRENT ACTUAL POLICY OF JIHAD BEING ENACTED RIGHT NOW?
Click to expand...
How is it different? Aside from 400 years or so?
Click to expand...
The difference ***is*** 400 years! That's the entire relevant difference. Bilby and Loren both argued that current radical christianity is a bigger threat than radical islam. The four centuries difference makes one of them a much bigger threat than the other.

Loren Pechtel said:
Derec said:
bilby said:
Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.
Click to expand...
No. Radical Islam is a few orders of magnitude more out there than radical Christianity.
But Islamism gets defended by the far left because of the latter's rigid oppressor-oppressed paradigm that identifies Muslims as "the oppressed" because they are not western.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's just we haven't seen much of their insanity.
Click to expand...
 
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
What, exactly, do you think the Spanish Inquisition was? And weren’t the Nazis ‘good Christians?! What do you think the Crusades were? What do you think ‘mission schools’ were? Oh, sure, they were only a part of the plan but make no mistake: the goal was to beat the Indian out of NA’s and exterminate those who would not be made into useful servants.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously comparing the spanish inquisition, which was ~400 years ago, to the CURRENT ACTUAL POLICY OF JIHAD BEING ENACTED RIGHT NOW?
Click to expand...
How is it different? Aside from 400 years or so?
Click to expand...
The difference ***is*** 400 years! That's the entire relevant difference. Bilby and Loren both argued that current radical christianity is a bigger threat than radical islam. The four centuries difference makes one of them a much bigger threat than the other.
Click to expand...
Not in the USA. If Radical Christians were in power, I suspect your view would change.
 
laughing dog said:
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
What, exactly, do you think the Spanish Inquisition was? And weren’t the Nazis ‘good Christians?! What do you think the Crusades were? What do you think ‘mission schools’ were? Oh, sure, they were only a part of the plan but make no mistake: the goal was to beat the Indian out of NA’s and exterminate those who would not be made into useful servants.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously comparing the spanish inquisition, which was ~400 years ago, to the CURRENT ACTUAL POLICY OF JIHAD BEING ENACTED RIGHT NOW?
Click to expand...
How is it different? Aside from 400 years or so?
Click to expand...
The difference ***is*** 400 years! That's the entire relevant difference. Bilby and Loren both argued that current radical christianity is a bigger threat than radical islam. The four centuries difference makes one of them a much bigger threat than the other.
Click to expand...
Not in the USA. If Radical Christians were in power, I suspect your view would change.
Click to expand...
I dunno, these people can't seem to be able to identify when fascist stuff is actually happening.
 
bilby said:
Emily Lake said:
This is your assertion, so defend it.
Click to expand...
The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.
Click to expand...
Technically that wasn't the Constitution, that was SCOTUS's view of the Constitution in Marbury v Madison. It stuck.
bilby said:
And it is always possible to find an argument for or against any interpretation of a sufficiently complex document (such as the US Constitution). It may be a very bad argument, but if the Supreme Court accepts it as a majority opinion, it is the way the constitution must be interpreted, until the Supreme Court overturns it.
Click to expand...
Actually the answer you are looking for, the 9th Amendment says and I'm paraphrasing "We didn't list every fucking right or privilege... that'd take forever. So whenever soneone asks 'where does it say that is protected', tell that fucking twit to read the Ninth Amendment and determine why it shouldn't be protected."
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
tell that fucking twit to read the Ninth Amendment...
Click to expand...
"That fucking twit" is six of the nine SCOTUS Justices.
They'll read it if Trump tells them to read it. Until then it says what they say it says. And after then, it will still say what they say it says, even if that is totally different from what they said it said before and the text hasn't changed.
 
Politesse said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Politesse said:
bilby said:
Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.
Click to expand...
Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.
Click to expand...
People defending their homes and children against an invading force are not "attackers".
Click to expand...
But they were perceived as being attackers. Wrong, but it was a reaction to their violence.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Politesse said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Politesse said:
bilby said:
Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.
Click to expand...
Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.
Click to expand...
People defending their homes and children against an invading force are not "attackers".
Click to expand...
But they were perceived as being attackers. Wrong, but it was a reaction to their violence.
Click to expand...
What point do you even think you're making? How does claiming that your victims were attacking you, however incredibly, make it not a genocide?

If I walk into your house and murder you, your wife, your child, and your elderly father, and use your finger bones to make a necklace for my girlfriend, I don't get to claim that it was self defense in all four cases because your wife brandished a steak knife while I was doing it. Of course she fucking did. Because I was murdering her family. That doesn't even justify under the killing her, let alone everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Emily Lake said:
chooses to sell his services as a slave on HIS terms
Click to expand...
That's a contradiction. A slave by definition cannot sell services on his terms.

The word you need there would be "employee".

Emily Lake said:
IF a man is in his right mind (not being trafficked due to an addiction or debt) AND he chooses to sell his services as an employee on HIS terms, then I see no moral issue; it should be legal.
Click to expand...
That seems fairly uncontroversial; It's the basis of most men's lives. Including my own.
 
Emily Lake said:
bilby said:
The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.
Click to expand...
Are you really intending to say that if the SC woke up tomorrow and said that the first amendment of the constitution says that left-handed people can be purchased as livestock and eaten for food, you think that would actually work, and we'd all just be stuck selling our left-handed cousins and having "Lefty Lou Lasagne"?
Click to expand...
Who would have the authority to contradict them?
 
I'd never heard of Charlie Kirk until he was already dead; and have hardly paid any attention even now. The Google summary tells me enough:
A key ally of President Donald Trump, Kirk espoused a variety of conservative and Trumpist stances, including opposition to abortion, [opposition to] gun control, [opposition to] DEI programs, and [opposition to] LGBT rights.
Click to expand...

Google's summary was poorly phrased. I've added "opposition to" in brackets to correct an ambiguity.

I don't disagree that DEI often goes too far, but it doesn't make the Top 100 List of Problems Facing America and the World. Those who are obsessed with opposition to DEI tend to be racists, misogynists and/or xenophobes. "Tend to be" -- I won't indict on that alone.

But the rest of this brief summary makes it clear to me that Kirk was part of the problem, not part of the solution. There are "conservatives", perhaps with views farther right than Kirk's, who are NOT "Trumpists." John Bolton, Dick Cheney and his daughter, and perhaps even Ted Cruz are about as extreme right-wing as one can get without being certifiably insane, and all oppose Trump.

The ignorant equation of "conservative" with "Trumpist" is exasperating. If the fascist take-over by Trump and his MAGGOTs of our once-great country is not clearly visible by now, just Shut the F**k Up -- You're too ignorant for your opinion to have any value.

No, I'm not glad that this guy I'd never heard of is dead. I'm not cackling with glee: That's what high-placed MAGGOTs (including MOST of the FoxNews shills) did when Paul Pelosi was bludgeoned.

Kirk's assassin was a crazy man who should never have been allowed to possess a gun. WTF difference does it make if he was a left-wing psychotic, right-wing psychotic, up-wing psychotic, down-wing psychotic, north-wing psychotic, or a south-wing psychotic?


Emily Lake said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Bomb#20 said:
Can't say what's in Robinson's heart, but he called Kirk a fascist and hateful, and those are shrink-wrapped leftist slurs. Quack like a duck, don't be surprised if you're taken for a duck.
Click to expand...
It amazes just how far right some of the "conservatives" are here.
Click to expand...
What the actual for realsies fuck was "far right" in Bomb's post?
Click to expand...

:confused2: Hunh?? Read my comments above. I don't want to slur Mr. Bomb more than he is already slurring himself. I had much respect for "conservatives." ... But NOT when they mutate into Trumpists.

And by the way, Emily, your views on the Second Amendment are atrocious. Please stop blaming America's stupidities on the Founding Fathers. If they were alive to see what guns represent in America today, every single one would vote to expunge the stupidities of that Amendment. Every.Single.One.
 
Elixir said:
Bomb#20 said:
he called Kirk a fascist and hateful, and those are shrink-wrapped leftist slurs.
Click to expand...
Can we sue the apricot for trademark infringement?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's America -- you can sue anyone for anything.

Dolt47 said:
”I HATE MY OPPONENTS!”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You won't win your lawsuit with that one, though -- nobody has a trademark on hating his opponents. It's interpreting your opponent disagreeing with you as proof that he hates some group higher up on the progressive stack that's the shrink-wrapped leftist slur.
 
bilby said:
Emily Lake said:
bilby said:
The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.
Click to expand...
Are you really intending to say that if the SC woke up tomorrow and said that the first amendment of the constitution says that left-handed people can be purchased as livestock and eaten for food, you think that would actually work, and we'd all just be stuck selling our left-handed cousins and having "Lefty Lou Lasagne"?
Click to expand...
Who would have the authority to contradict them?
Click to expand...
The President and Congress. SCOTUS has no actual enforcement powers.

The US Government lasted through 2016 (minus a minor scuffle in the 1860s) because everyone behaved. That has ended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom