In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 16 2017 07:18 Plansix wrote: [quote] I taught US history. They can remove that statue, we won't forget Lee. He also isn't really worth all the celebration compared to other US historical figures. Plus, that statue was put up in the Jim Crow era, when the south was super nice to blacks, so it can be removed and given proper context in a museum.
Then lets have proper discourse and not allow protests to turn violent. You have to admit partisan politicians are guilty of this whether right or left. Theres no excuse to order the police to stand down and cause people to die to make political statement. Also the next day a statue remembering the dead confederate soldiers was torn, yes torn down and again the police did nothing.
When will when the law crack down on these thugs? People want a civil war?
The proper discourse was happening. The problem was that the remove side was winning. So the out of town nazi/kkk group showed up to do what Nazi skin heads and the KKK have always done. They don't like it when democracy doesn't go their way. That is why the civil war happened. The anti slavery party took power.
And the people who took down that statue were arrested.
Yeah but its their right to do so. And the left says worse in media outlets and does worse with their hired radical goon squads. And im aware if the right was in power it would be opposite land. As for the civil war i can say with absolute certainty the cause of the war was not about slavery. All wars are bankers wars and it was about the north taxing the south which infringes upon their states rights. The untied states itself would never revolted if not for such a high tax on the colonies. So I know slavery is a subject that makes people feel horrible but there is a bigger picture here.
The civil war was 110% about slavery. The people involved all said so at the time.
People can say and believe what they want but all wars are bankers wars.
We've been needing this perspective to balance GH's (and more recently Wulfey's) for a while now. Our thread American right of the aisle representation has been lacking the equivalent flavor of crazy.
Lmao Danglars are you serious?
Kwark and Plansix argue with GH on a regular basis. The fact that they're "on the same side" doesn't stop the left-leaning posters from critically challenging GH's viewpoint when they disagree.
Your "he's crazy, but he's OUR crazy so I'm just going to let it slide" attitude is bullshit.
Umm I'm talking crazy like white fragility, anti law and order, and all the rest that's out of left field.
Not that he goes unchallenged (Did Noidberg go unchallenged?) if you haven't been following, it's apparently fine to call conservative Republicans only one step removed from white supremacists, nazis, and the alt right. The left wing is surprisingly content with extreme opinions of their opposition across the aisle, which is a function of not seeing straight.
The only fragility is coming from you. You take every single criticism of conservatives as a personal attack while heaping derision and petty scorn onto anyone who disagrees with you. And you are so desperate for affirmation of your views, you leap to defend someone like Noidberg, who was one step away from saying all wars were planned by the Jews.
Nope. It was just refreshing to see a right of center post spouting crazy given how much left wing crazy is swallowed whole in this thread. The sky is falling, half the country is racists, the GOP wants to kill the poor and elderly, and Trump is both evil conspiratorial villain and stupid incompetent boob.
And the scorn I reciprocate. Getting a taste of your own medicine hurts at some level.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks.
So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely.
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism.
We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters.
I'm not excusing anyone here for anything.
Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane.
Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks.
So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely.
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism.
We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters.
I'm not excusing anyone here for anything.
Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane.
Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally.
Did you read his claims and arguments? Serious question. I feel like your eyes glazed over during a skim read and you chose to characterize it as excuses. Or like you privilege your own and others assertions and think everybody else should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Frankly, I'm left wondering if you understood his claims rather than insert your own interpretations in place of them.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks.
So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely.
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism.
We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters.
I'm not excusing anyone here for anything.
Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane.
Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally.
Did you read his claims and arguments? Serious question. I feel like your eyes glazed over during a skit read and you chose to characterize it as excuses. Or like you privilege your own and others assertions and think everybody else should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Frankly, I'm left wondering if you understood his claims rather than insert your own interpretations in place of them.
I read it. I addressed it to the best of my ability. He's putting forth no evidence or really any argument other than a tweet and claiming antifa is violent. The anitfa thing is something that most of us arguing with him admit and have presented evidence *for* him. We've also argued that it's nowhere near the same as what is happening at these neo-nazi and white supremacist rallies, specifically the one in Charlottesville. I'm asking for his argument, while presenting my own as well.
On August 16 2017 12:17 Sermokala wrote:... Australia is a white elephant of gun control. The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in and you can still relatively easily get a new gun. ...
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks.
So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely.
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism.
We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters.
I'm not excusing anyone here for anything.
Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane.
Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally.
Did you read his claims and arguments? Serious question. I feel like your eyes glazed over during a skim read and you chose to characterize it as excuses. Or like you privilege your own and others assertions and think everybody else should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Frankly, I'm left wondering if you understood his claims rather than insert your own interpretations in place of them.
I asked Introvert for evidence of Antifa violence to support his claims. I then demonstrated what that evidence would look like with a stack of links showing Nazi violence in Virginia. I also provided good, neutral summaries of the violence in Virginia. The reports were decisive: the Nazis did it. Only hardcore racist websites said Antifa did anything. He then replied that I was one the most ignored posters for good reason and that I should go read previous, unidentified posts where he posts winning arguments.
Your response here is comparably lame. We are reading your arguments. The arguments have some smug insult combined with zero linked evidence. Your words are not enough. Cite a non-racist source to support the both sides violence claims. And then pony up the evidence and make the links between Antifa and the Left/Dems.
EDIT: it could be that this isn't an argument where evidence matters. This could just be a flavor of "the left is bad due to some strawman I posted", and details of Virginia are irrelevant to the discussion. Yeah, now that I think about it Matt Walsh was for sure just posting conservative butthurt about him having voted for and supporting a President that equivocates for Nazis. Walsh was just looking for a way to make the Left into badguys instead of himself.
On August 16 2017 12:17 Sermokala wrote:... Australia is a white elephant of gun control. The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in and you can still relatively easily get a new gun. ...
It's not like we need posters in this thread to verify who was more violent. These people called reporters already confirmed that the Nazis and kkk were mostly armed and the counter protesters were not. You just need to watch videos of the event or see the language surround it. This whole both sides argument is new blaming the NAACP or claims all civil racketeering gets protesters are members of the Black Panthers.
On August 16 2017 12:17 Sermokala wrote:... Australia is a white elephant of gun control. The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in and you can still relatively easily get a new gun. ...
Speaking as an Australian, citation needed.
You want a citation on an opinion?
"The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in"
Should be easy to show some numbers on the number of sold guns compared to the number of guns turned in.
"you can still relatively easily get a new gun"
Should be easy to show how easy it is to get a new gun.
On August 16 2017 12:17 Sermokala wrote:... Australia is a white elephant of gun control. The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in and you can still relatively easily get a new gun. ...
Speaking as an Australian, citation needed.
You want a citation on an opinion?
"The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in"
Should be easy to show some numbers on the number of sold guns compared to the number of guns turned in.
"you can still relatively easily get a new gun"
Should be easy to show how easy it is to get a new gun.
On August 16 2017 12:17 Sermokala wrote:... Australia is a white elephant of gun control. The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in and you can still relatively easily get a new gun. ...
Speaking as an Australian, citation needed.
You want a citation on an opinion?
"The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in"
Should be easy to show some numbers on the number of sold guns compared to the number of guns turned in.
"you can still relatively easily get a new gun"
Should be easy to show how easy it is to get a new gun.
You want me to do a pair of google searches on basic statistics and then another one to get the complete process on how to get a gun and end up as saying "yep thats relatively easy"?
...yes?
If you think that the majority of guns were not turned in, your opinion must have formed from some sources. And if you think it's easy to get a new gun, you must have created that impression from somewhere (like a video, documentary, report, etc.).
On August 16 2017 12:17 Sermokala wrote:... Australia is a white elephant of gun control. The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in and you can still relatively easily get a new gun. ...
Speaking as an Australian, citation needed.
You want a citation on an opinion?
You say that as if it's crazy to want a source or evidence for why you have a certain opinion.
On August 16 2017 12:17 Sermokala wrote:... Australia is a white elephant of gun control. The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in and you can still relatively easily get a new gun. ...
Speaking as an Australian, citation needed.
You want a citation on an opinion?
Well, either it's relatively easy to get a gun in Australia or it's not. My knowledge indicates that it's not easy, especially in comparison to the US, and that shootings and gun-related fatalities are rare (not nonexistent, but rare) in Australia since the gun control measures brought in after the Port Arthur massacre in '96.
To be clear, you can be licensed to own a gun, and it's probably possble to acquire one illicitly easily enough if one moves in those circles, but the rate of gun-related deaths has gone way down (although not vanished by any means). See Wikipedia for some data.
If you have a source of information indicating that that is not the case, then I'd like to see it.
On August 16 2017 12:17 Sermokala wrote:... Australia is a white elephant of gun control. The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in and you can still relatively easily get a new gun. ...
Speaking as an Australian, citation needed.
You want a citation on an opinion?
"The majority of guns that people had didn't get turned in"
Should be easy to show some numbers on the number of sold guns compared to the number of guns turned in.
"you can still relatively easily get a new gun"
Should be easy to show how easy it is to get a new gun.
You want me to do a pair of google searches on basic statistics and then another one to get the complete process on how to get a gun and end up as saying "yep thats relatively easy"?
That's how a discussion works..? You don't get to state "opinions" (sidenote, you stated them as facts, not opinion) without backing it somehow. I immediately googled after i've read your statement and decided that you have no clue on the topic so i didn't bother to engage.
Took me less than a minute to find all the data you need.
edit:
@above, on top, guns are heavily regulated even if you have a license.
I just don't understand how it doesn't fall under the generally acceptable "its common knowedge" rule we useualy follow. I updated the post with a couple sources.
We state opinions all the time without backing as facts.
On August 16 2017 12:57 Sermokala wrote: I just don't understand how it doesn't fall under the generally acceptable "its common knowedge" rule we useualy follow. I updated the post with a couple sources.
We state opinions all the time without backing as facts.
Because it goes contrary to common knowledge.
For example, your source on how easy it is to get a weapon? Completely missing the point. What you linked is the application form if you have a license.
EPT
