- 24,947
- 23,287
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2010
Gas yourself to own the libs
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I'm going to start typing something going through my head now and hope it makes sense to y'all when I'm done.
anybody else ever entertain the thought that the redcaps at least kinda have the right idea?
like, they stormed the goddamn United States Capitol. did it. broad daylight. took souvenirs.
yes it is illegal and rude to foment an insurrection, but does that mean it is objectively wrong?
of course, we do not agree with their ideology...but is their method really flawed, pragmatically?
were the American Revolutionaries not breaking British law?
if the old guy had insisted he keep his seat in the White House, and ordinary citizens dragged him out, is that also wrong?
or just illegal and rude?
from 6th grade social studies or even before we are taught through traditional educational channels that voting and referendums are the main vehicle of progress in this country, the only legitimate ways to shape the society around us.
however, it can be easily illustrated that active struggle has achieved as many or more gains than passive methods.
example: Civil Rights Act probably would have not garnered universal support at the ballot. hell, child labor laws.
so, does a reluctance to embrace "a diversity of tactics" decrease confidence in the possibility of a fair society overall?
if people say "voting doesn't work," and they vote, and it doesn't work (alone), aren't they correct?
if only one side of a dispute is willing to contribute to their preferred outcome through use of force, isn't the decision made?
Jan. 6 was spectacular, but the real takeaway is these people are willing to be openly hostile.
for instance, some folks put the onus on Afghans to use their training to forcefully resist the unchecked incursions of their oppressors, and somehow the same mind can sit there and wonder why and how Christopher Dorner could...ah, you get it.
anyway, as a direct result, the legislature at every level of government is actively scared of these people.
they will bend laws around them, they will avoid the greater good, they will EXTEND A PANDEMIC to avoid pissing them off.
they will risk the stability of free society itself to make sure certain folks don't get too riled up because the threats are valid.
all that typed, is conflict an underutilized civic force?
It’s the only way to get **** done in this country. I don’t agree with the capitol terrorists but look at Minneapolis. Another thug cop would have been free of the city didn’t get burnt down.I'm going to start typing something going through my head now and hope it makes sense to y'all when I'm done.
anybody else ever entertain the thought that the redcaps at least kinda have the right idea?
like, they stormed the goddamn United States Capitol. did it. broad daylight. took souvenirs.
yes it is illegal and rude to foment an insurrection, but does that mean it is objectively wrong?
of course, we do not agree with their ideology...but is their method really flawed, pragmatically?
were the American Revolutionaries not breaking British law?
if the old guy had insisted he keep his seat in the White House, and ordinary citizens dragged him out, is that also wrong?
or just illegal and rude?
from 6th grade social studies or even before we are taught through traditional educational channels that voting and referendums are the main vehicle of progress in this country, the only legitimate ways to shape the society around us.
however, it can be easily illustrated that active struggle has achieved as many or more gains than passive methods.
example: Civil Rights Act probably would have not garnered universal support at the ballot. hell, child labor laws.
so, does a reluctance to embrace "a diversity of tactics" decrease confidence in the possibility of a fair society overall?
if people say "voting doesn't work," and they vote, and it doesn't work (alone), aren't they correct?
if only one side of a dispute is willing to contribute to their preferred outcome through use of force, isn't the decision made?
Jan. 6 was spectacular, but the real takeaway is these people are willing to be openly hostile.
for instance, some folks put the onus on Afghans to use their training to forcefully resist the unchecked incursions of their oppressors, and somehow the same mind can sit there and wonder why and how Christopher Dorner could...ah, you get it.
anyway, as a direct result, the legislature at every level of government is actively scared of these people.
they will bend laws around them, they will avoid the greater good, they will EXTEND A PANDEMIC to avoid pissing them off.
they will risk the stability of free society itself to make sure certain folks don't get too riled up because the threats are valid.
all that typed, is conflict an underutilized civic force?
I'm going to start typing something going through my head now and hope it makes sense to y'all when I'm done.
anybody else ever entertain the thought that the redcaps at least kinda have the right idea?
like, they stormed the goddamn United States Capitol. did it. broad daylight. took souvenirs.
yes it is illegal and rude to foment an insurrection, but does that mean it is objectively wrong?
of course, we do not agree with their ideology...but is their method really flawed, pragmatically?
were the American Revolutionaries not breaking British law?
if the old guy had insisted he keep his seat in the White House, and ordinary citizens dragged him out, is that also wrong?
or just illegal and rude?
from 6th grade social studies or even before we are taught through traditional educational channels that voting and referendums are the main vehicle of progress in this country, the only legitimate ways to shape the society around us.
however, it can be easily illustrated that active struggle has achieved as many or more gains than passive methods.
example: Civil Rights Act probably would have not garnered universal support at the ballot. hell, child labor laws.
so, does a reluctance to embrace "a diversity of tactics" decrease confidence in the possibility of a fair society overall?
if people say "voting doesn't work," and they vote, and it doesn't work (alone), aren't they correct?
if only one side of a dispute is willing to contribute to their preferred outcome through use of force, isn't the decision made?
Jan. 6 was spectacular, but the real takeaway is these people are willing to be openly hostile.
for instance, some folks put the onus on Afghans to use their training to forcefully resist the unchecked incursions of their oppressors, and somehow the same mind can sit there and wonder why and how Christopher Dorner could...ah, you get it.
anyway, as a direct result, the legislature at every level of government is actively scared of these people.
they will bend laws around them, they will avoid the greater good, they will EXTEND A PANDEMIC to avoid pissing them off.
they will risk the stability of free society itself to make sure certain folks don't get too riled up because the threats are valid.
all that typed, is conflict an underutilized civic force?
I fundamentally understand your point cosmiccoffee9 and would agree with it in an idealistic world where all things were considered equal. However, that is not the world we live in so I unfortunately have to go with IATT because he took the words right out of my mouth. I shudder at the thought of the reaction of a non-white group did that. To be honest, it would actually be extremely reckless because it would be putting that entire group at risk.I would not suggest anyone who isn’t white, straight and republican from even thinking of doing this
if you’re white and don’t dont the other 2 things going you might at least get some sympathetic news, like when school shootings happen.. But like when school shootings happen, that will go away
you ain’t white, you getting called a thug or terrorist REAL QUICK
Outside of Portland. I thought in Hillsboro (20 minutes west and lib af) but it might be in Sandy (a super redneck town) about 20 minutes east of the city, based on Twitter comments. Even better if it's in Sandy because that's like Trump-town thru and thru, so them having NO. crowd is extra pleasingis that Kmart in St. Paul off Maryland anybody know?
They should make anti-vax version of this
One where someone ingests horse paste, the cells touch it, and then they get poisoned
Another one when Covid shows up, all the cells say "We are more libertarian", then Covid massacres them
Its amazing that abandoned K Mart buildings still litter the country despite being empty for like a decadeDamn, I guess we all got abandoned Kmarts all over.
shout out to the lake street Kmart that’s literally been blocking a road for 50 years.
Its amazing that abandoned K Mart buildings still litter the country despite being empty for like a decade
That’s how you get clicks……that screen cap looks like someone is gonna get a shot in their d.
Already started laughing right here.There is a K-Mart in Bridgehampton, NY. During the summer with all the extra tourist and business, they used to hire Jamaican college students for the summer.
I fundamentally understand your point cosmiccoffee9 and would agree with it in an idealistic world where all things were considered equal. However, that is not the world we live in so I unfortunately have to go with IATT because he took the words right out of my mouth. I shudder at the thought of the reaction of a non-white group did that. To be honest, it would actually be extremely reckless because it would be putting that entire group at risk.
You know how THEY get down in this country. Just take a look at how 45 coined the term “China Virus” and Asians were subsequently harassed around the country. Now imagine if there was a non-white insurrection.