It means a world where our rights are stripped from us is not worth saving, so he'll happily cling to his rights as everybody dies. That's a better outcome to him.
Advertisement
by Tarsonis » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:01 am
by Telconi » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:01 am
San Lumen wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
Elsewhere:
Child: "Grandpa how do we have all this stuff saved."
Grandpa" Well we had guns, thus when the raids started we were able to fend off all the raiders, and take their stash as well. We're pretty much set."
Child: couldn't we have avoided this? I read in a book this all could have been prevented but you did nothing. Why didnt you do something? Why where you so selfish then
by San Lumen » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:01 am
Tarsonis wrote:San Lumen wrote:Child: couldn't we have avoided this? I read in a book this all could have been prevented but you did nothing. Why didnt you do something? Why where you so selfish then
"The people who wanted to help the environment also wanted to rob us of our human rights, and we said no. If they had just stopped their crusade on human rights, everything would have been fine, but we survived, they didn't.
by Telconi » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:02 am
by Tarsonis » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:02 am
San Lumen wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
"The people who wanted to help the environment also wanted to rob us of our human rights, and we said no. If they had just stopped their crusade on human rights, everything would have been fine, but we survived, they didn't.
Child: and you ruined the world as a result. I hope your happy Grandpa. I hate this and wish I could change it all with a time machine but sadly that has no hope of ever being invented now.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:03 am
by Telconi » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:03 am
by San Lumen » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:03 am
Tarsonis wrote:San Lumen wrote:
Child: and you ruined the world as a result. I hope your happy Grandpa. I hate this and wish I could change it all with a time machine but sadly that has no hope of ever being invented now.
Nope you ruined the world. You made taking gun rights paramount, and refused to abandon your crusade against gunrights to the detriment of environmental policy.
by Shrillland » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:03 am
by Telconi » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:04 am
Shrillland wrote:Will you all knock it off? Leave reruns where they belong, on Basic Cable.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:05 am
by Farnhamia » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:06 am
by Telconi » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:18 am
Farnhamia wrote:Telconi wrote:
It's the election thread. It is literally the basic cable of our society.
Every four years we go over the same old bullshit and the same old bullshit keeps being bullshit.
Yeah, but you're not even talking about the election anymore, just arguing about whose philosophy or take on life on earth or whatever is better or worse. Take it to one of the threads we have for that or find a playground somewhere.
by Farnhamia » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:19 am
Telconi wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Yeah, but you're not even talking about the election anymore, just arguing about whose philosophy or take on life on earth or whatever is better or worse. Take it to one of the threads we have for that or find a playground somewhere.
Isn't that sort of the core principle of an election?
by Telconi » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:20 am
by Napkizemlja » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:21 am
by San Lumen » Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:24 pm
Napkizemlja wrote:Farnhamia wrote:If you were talking about the candidates' philosophy or take on life on earth or whatever, sure, but you're not. You're needling San Lumen, who's needling you back, with other people kibitzing.
I mean that sounds awfully like an election ngl. Sanders needles Warren who needles Buttgreg or whatever his name is who needles de Blasio who needles Kamala who then cries out that she'll toss him in prison if his kids miss fourth period geography.
by Napkizemlja » Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:28 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
We didn’t create the dichotomy the politicians did. The democrats are the party of sweeping gun control and environmentalism, while the republicans are the party of gun rights and not giving a shit about the environment. As it’s been said, if the Democrats stop their anti gun crusade it creates room for lateral movement and we aren’t forced to pick between our rights and the environment. It’s a shame you’re so selfish you’re unwilling negotiate at all. You clearly care more about restricting gun rights than you do about the environment.
Hey hey hey I'm for not banning guns. The Dems haven't lost all hope.
by Telconi » Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:28 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
We didn’t create the dichotomy the politicians did. The democrats are the party of sweeping gun control and environmentalism, while the republicans are the party of gun rights and not giving a shit about the environment. As it’s been said, if the Democrats stop their anti gun crusade it creates room for lateral movement and we aren’t forced to pick between our rights and the environment. It’s a shame you’re so selfish you’re unwilling negotiate at all. You clearly care more about restricting gun rights than you do about the environment.
Hey hey hey I'm for not banning guns. The Dems haven't lost all hope.
by Northern Davincia » Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:32 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Thuzbekistan wrote:God I hate NSG and this thread is why. How many times am I going to read about the same argument over and over by people who dont listen to each other, post in bad faith, and sound like a broken record. Its dumb.
But oh well. I was looking over the candidates again and the leaders arent left enough for me. I want a libertarian social Democrat. Give me my guns, freedom, and take care of the poor!
*COUGHS*
I'M RIGHT HERE!
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Telconi » Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:39 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Napkizemlja wrote:Are you pro banning ownership of JDAM's though?
I'll be honest I don't even know what those are.Telconi wrote:
It's the election thread. It is literally the basic cable of our society.
Every four years we go over the same old bullshit and the same old bullshit keeps being bullshit.
Sigged.Tarsonis wrote:
It means a world where our rights are stripped from us is not worth saving, so he'll happily cling to his rights as everybody dies. That's a better outcome to him.
As much as I disagree that makes sense, moral implications aside.
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:06 pm
The three candidates at risk of missing the debates are Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam, whose campaign has struggled to get any traction; Rep. Seth Moulton, who announced his campaign in late April and has yet to qualify on either threshold, and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who has currently not qualified for the debates by either committee standard and whose team is the angriest about the possible snub.
Bullock got into the race in mid-May, relatively late compared to other 2020 contenders. The governor has told CNN that he launched late because, as the governor of Montana, he had to oversee his state's legislative session, which happens every two years. Bullock did that and the body passed Medicaid expansion. His advisers now believe that the DNC rules are punishing a candidate who stayed at work instead of running for President.
"The DNC seems, on paper, interested in a 50-state strategy, but they're punishing the only candidate in the field to win a Trump state for doing his job," said Matt McKenna, a longtime Democratic operative who is advising the Bullock campaign. "I can say with 100% certainty that if Gov. Bullock announces in January, to chase after the DNC's arbitrary and secret rules, there's no way he gets Medicaid expansion though a 60% Republican legislature."
Asked about the grassroots fundraising threshold, McKenna added: "I'd say that punishes candidates from the parts of the country you fly over to get from the DNC HQ to Los Angeles."
One of Bullock's primary complaints is that a February poll from The Washington Post/ABC News is now being counted under DNC rules because it asked an open-ended question that included a host of names like Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama.
Bullock's campaign emailed reporters on Thursday about the poll not being allowed, calling it a "secret rule change for debate qualification."
"While Governor Bullock was expanding Medicaid to one in ten Montanans despite a nearly 60% Republican legislature, the DNC was making arbitrary rules behind closed doors," said Jenn Ridder, Bullock's campaign manager. "The DNC's unmasking of this rule unfairly singles out the only Democratic candidate who won a Trump state — and penalizes him for doing his job."
But Xochitl Hinojosa, a spokeswoman for the DNC, said Thursday that the committee "notified the Bullock campaign several times beginning in March that this poll would not count because it was open-ended and not a traditional horse race question."
Gillibrand called the 65,000-donor threshold an "odd measurable" that is "random and inaccurate." Although she added, "They're the DNC, so I'll follow the rules that are given and I'll have to play by the rules," the senator said the measure "is not determinative of any of the things that matter about whether I'd beat Trump."
"Because if Madonna was running, she'd have a million supporters. She'd have more than anybody," Gillibrand concluded. "What having followers is a measurable of is whether you're famous, it's a measure of whether people know enough about you to send you a dollar."
Almost a month later, Gillibrand still remains short of the 65,000-donor threshold (she qualified based on polls months ago). She announced on Thursday that she was within 5,000 donors and her campaign spokeswoman said they had seen a recent uptick in support, days before the DNC determines who makes the first debate stage.
"No, I'm not going to make the first debate, but I knew that getting in so late," the congressman told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in an interview this week. "But I think that's OK, that there's, this first debate's going to have 20 people. Folks are barely going to get a chance to speak. This is a long campaign. And it's not going to be decided by the Democratic National Committee in their debates. It's going to get decided by the American people. And that's where the response to my campaign has been so positive so far."
The other area of complaints stems from the fact that the DNC has declined to focus an entire debate on climate change, something that Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has asked from the committee.
Inslee sent a letter to Perez on Tuesday asking for a debate focused solely on climate change, the issue the 2020 candidate is staking his entire campaign on. By Wednesday, the DNC had already told Inslee no and warned him about attending debates outside the DNC structure that may be focused solely on climate.
Inslee seized on the moment -- and has been fundraising on it ever since.
"This is deeply disappointing," Inslee said Thursday. "The DNC is silencing the voices of Democratic activists, many of our progressive partner organizations, and nearly half of the Democratic presidential field, who want to debate the existential crisis of our time. Democratic voters say that climate change is their top issue; the Democratic National Committee must listen to the grassroots of the party."
A recent CNN poll found that 82% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents find climate change to be a "very important" issue, ranking it at the top of the list ahead of universal health care, tighter gun laws and impeaching Trump.
Inslee has looked to garner more support for a climate debate by calling on his competitors to support his cause. The likelihood that happens, however, is slim.
by Shrillland » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:11 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Napkizemlja wrote:Are you pro banning ownership of JDAM's though?
I'll be honest I don't even know what those are.Telconi wrote:
It's the election thread. It is literally the basic cable of our society.
Every four years we go over the same old bullshit and the same old bullshit keeps being bullshit.
Sigged.Tarsonis wrote:
It means a world where our rights are stripped from us is not worth saving, so he'll happily cling to his rights as everybody dies. That's a better outcome to him.
As much as I disagree that makes sense, moral implications aside.
by Napkizemlja » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:22 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Shrillland wrote:
Joint Direct Attack Munitions, little computers stuck on old-fashioned bombs that can turn them into smart bombs. We developed them in the 90s since it turned out to be cheaper to convert old bombs($20,000 a pop) rather than build new ones($700,000 apiece).
SocDem Revolution would require military grade technology so sure.
I'm unlike any other candidate in America. I'm not Left, Right, or Center, I'm Forward.
GOING 3D BITCHES!
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alvecia, Ariddia, Cerula, Dumb Ideologies, Omphalos, Pasong Tirad, Republics of the Solar Union, Shearoa, Tungstan
Advertisement