Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 151 of 201 FirstFirst ... 51101141149150151152153161 ... LastLast
Results 2,251 to 2,265 of 3008
  1. #2251
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,609
    Canadian researchers finding evidence that marijuana helps stave off the rona

  2. #2252
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,207
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    If that is true then take it to court and defend your rights. You can say whatever you want but it is only true if proven so go ahead and do so. So if the entire country is acting illegally show it. If one small area is show it but realize that is an extreme/small sample.

    You can push views you want. You can't just start breaking the rules in place, putting others at risk, ignoring others in society and so on to push your views without being called out for it.
    1) when your views are the same as our constitutions and the views that our founding fathers built this country on..... its an essential right. Have the government take you to court.

    2) When companies like facebook, youtube, and twitter are openly saying they are going to delete anti lockdown content- and the government is good with that.... RED FLAGS SHOULD GO UP IN EVERYONES EYES regardless of where you are on this.

    3) Sanctuary cities protect illegal immigrants who have broken the rules and allow them to be set free after violent crimes. Victims of these crimes are not allowed to sue the city for allowing the illegals to stay without coming into the country legally. (BTW- the illegals are not following any constitutional right)

  3. #2253
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    8,867

  4. #2254
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26,147
    Quote Originally Posted by likemystylez View Post
    2) When companies like facebook, youtube, and twitter are openly saying they are going to delete anti lockdown content- and the government is good with that.... RED FLAGS SHOULD GO UP IN EVERYONES EYES regardless of where you are on this.
    This is the universes way of telling you your ignorance poses a threat to our existence - literally

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

    but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

  5. #2255
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I don't think it is that surprising, I think a large majority of people are in a similar spot. That's why I don't get why people feel the need to defend certain extremes or push narratives about the extremes and so on and often engage with you.

    That is being pushed to defend extreme actions but it does not excuse them nor is it necessarily true given all the background info (looks like she went out of her way to profit/make it political and defy the orders and judge in open manner, not try and help crowds breaking order and disrupting other businesses etc. which is more than just going to work to feed children). She is a great example of the problems/extremists and was used to try and gain sympathy still because she played to emotions about feeding kids in a speech. The reality is those were words and her actions tell a completely different and more extreme story which is a major issue it isn't her wanting to feed kids people bash it is ALL the other ACTIONS and so on taken throughout that's the problem you are focused on the political narrative. If I say I don't want my grandma to die and punch someone in the face for not wearing a mask my bad action isn't justified because others are sympathetic of old people catching this possibly. It's an excuse for my wrongdoing.
    I understand what you're saying, her making money off of this is of little relevance to what she was standing up for and her reasoning for it. Let's assume her motive was to make money from her gofundme account and for political recognition, it doesn't automatically mean that her reasoning (to feed her kids) ISN'T true. This would be an extenuating circumstance in my book.

    I mean, sure... "feeding your kids" does get at peoples heart strings. Nevertheless, I don't doubt that was her motive and it's a damn good one. A prom on the other hand, that isn't on the same level of providing food and a shelter for your kids.
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  6. #2256
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    Many of them expect them government to bail them out. To some extent, I agree because they were/are forced out of business not because they want to... but they are shut down when they don't even need to be, that's the problem.

    It's easy to tell someone they are a selfish prick who just wants to earn a buck when you aren't an investor/owner of something you've poured your entire life into.
    yup.... at some point being selfish shouldnt be seen as a horrible thing. Its completely a foreseeable thing when you are crushing the lives of so many people. Expecting people to just go the rest of their lives without even looking for some sort of sustainable solution.

    and honestly- most of the people saying they want to get back to work and open up. Most of those selfish people are showing far more consideration and empathy for the potential victims of Covid 19.... then the people who want to stay locked down are showing for all of the people being hurt by this lock down. (Its just kinda like- "some businesses arent going to survive, oh well thats what we gotta do")

  7. #2257
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,609
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    This is not proving anything to be unlawful it is a bunch of random one off experiences you are describing nothing related to the law/constitution lol.

    The example given was someone actually getting fined and so on. Just because some people go overboard and call to tattle on others doesn't mean state orders aren't legitimate. I shouldn't even have to go on lol this is ridiculous Chronz.
    it is totally related. u have cops broadcasting to their cohorts not to enforce the draconian measures, plenty know its bs. how large? idk but I doubt u do either. a cop showed up to a decently sized protest saying hes there "to tell everyone they're in violation of state order, that being said, have a good day" and walked away to thunderous applause. they opened up the beach (sorta) because people stopped listening to unlawful orders. I stopped by recently, its only a matter of time before the rules there are completely ignored save for a few. at least I hope so.

    u missed the point. its about the message given by those who are supposed to uphold the measures, plenty are saying f no. why? cuz constitution. tho I think a cop recently lost his job for doing so.

  8. #2258
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    This is the universes way of telling you your ignorance poses a threat to our existence - literally

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    truth doesn't hide from criticism. it stands tall on it's own. lies however, they require complete censorship.

    think of it this way, what YouTube deleted a few months back, holds true today so it's no longer censored like before. free yourself from ur mental shackles and welcome all arguments. dont be such a Sheeple that u need big brother to protect u from critical thinking

  9. #2259
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by likemystylez View Post
    1) when your views are the same as our constitutions and the views that our founding fathers built this country on..... its an essential right. Have the government take you to court.

    2) When companies like facebook, youtube, and twitter are openly saying they are going to delete anti lockdown content- and the government is good with that.... RED FLAGS SHOULD GO UP IN EVERYONES EYES regardless of where you are on this.

    3) Sanctuary cities protect illegal immigrants who have broken the rules and allow them to be set free after violent crimes. Victims of these crimes are not allowed to sue the city for allowing the illegals to stay without coming into the country legally. (BTW- the illegals are not following any constitutional right)
    1. This doesn't make sense. You have to prove that's the case by taking them to court, the government implemented the orders and YOU are making the claim it's unconstitutional without any proof.

    2. I don't even know how this came up or is relevant to anything being said

    3. Again this is another irrelevant point unrelated to this topic/conversation, I have no idea where you are going with any of this other than to say "no, I don't have anything to back up my claims in reality but what about all this other BS"

  10. #2260
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    If that is true then take it to court and defend your rights. You can say whatever you want but it is only true if proven so go ahead and do so. So if the entire country is acting illegally show it. If one small area is show it but realize that is an extreme/small sample.

    You can push views you want. You can't just start breaking the rules in place, putting others at risk, ignoring others in society and so on to push your views without being called out for it.
    There are lots of laws/supreme court precedents that are/were unconstitutional. Some have been corrected (slavery, sufferage, etc...) others are on the table (marijuana) and some may never be tried in court (the Federal Reserve). Just because a court hasn't ruled that something infringes on a person's rights (unconstitutional) doesn't mean it ISN'T really unconstitutional.

    Another perfect example is Bush and his Patriot Act. That was a tremendous piece of propaganda which ultimately obliterated our civil liberties. We aren't ever getting those back. But those who realize this and are fighting (peacefully) to hold onto them are often mislabeled as "extreme right".
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  11. #2261
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    I understand what you're saying, her making money off of this is of little relevance to what she was standing up for and her reasoning for it. Let's assume her motive was to make money from her gofundme account and for political recognition, it doesn't automatically mean that her reasoning (to feed her kids) ISN'T true. This would be an extenuating circumstance in my book.

    I mean, sure... "feeding your kids" does get at peoples heart strings. Nevertheless, I don't doubt that was her motive and it's a damn good one. A prom on the other hand, that isn't on the same level of providing food and a shelter for your kids.
    Whether or not the feeding your kids aspect is true all of the others stuff is much more than that and a major issue. You are choosing to believe and run with the narrative that helps push your political beliefs but either way everything else is the actual issue with this story and what can't be ignored or propped up (the how it was handled overall, not just profiting but the making a show/tearing up orders and the crowds affecting those nearby and not practicing safe procedures and so on). I don't know 100% either way if $ or family or politics and so on are for sure the reasoning but what they did cover was the way it was handled clearly political, gaining money, breaking orders, tearing them up and creating/not breaking up crowds affecting those nearby and so on based on. Also it covered how she had been eligible for the loan as well, why not take advantage of that if it's a key issue? Anyways though my point isn't I know her intent (it's kinda that you don't either though), it is that I can see all the actions and so on were bad either way.

  12. #2262
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    This is the universes way of telling you your ignorance poses a threat to our existence - literally

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    your ignorance of the concept of freedom of speech is disgusting man..... the right to question the government is something you dont want to take away from people. And again- the lock down is also jeopardizing peoples lives.

    Have you always lived in Canada? or are you an American who moved there?

  13. #2263
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    it is totally related. u have cops broadcasting to their cohorts not to enforce the draconian measures, plenty know its bs. how large? idk but I doubt u do either. a cop showed up to a decently sized protest saying hes there "to tell everyone they're in violation of state order, that being said, have a good day" and walked away to thunderous applause. they opened up the beach (sorta) because people stopped listening to unlawful orders. I stopped by recently, its only a matter of time before the rules there are completely ignored save for a few. at least I hope so.

    u missed the point. its about the message given by those who are supposed to uphold the measures, plenty are saying f no. why? cuz constitution. tho I think a cop recently lost his job for doing so.
    I have seen cops kill people unjustly, are we saying cops are the end all be all? Lolz cmon. You aren't even giving actual data even if we were to use cops as a barometer again it is just your examples nothing more/real.

    Some people breaking the law or acting bad doesn't justify everyone else doing it. You are just trying to use any story you can to justify your beliefs not actually explain how it's unlawful

  14. #2264
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,207
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    1. This doesn't make sense. You have to prove that's the case by taking them to court, the government implemented the orders and YOU are making the claim it's unconstitutional without any proof.

    2. I don't even know how this came up or is relevant to anything being said

    3. Again this is another irrelevant point unrelated to this topic/conversation, I have no idea where you are going with any of this other than to say "no, I don't have anything to back up my claims in reality but what about all this other BS"
    rights are being infringed on by a government who is in place to make our lives easier. Not sure how you dont believe that. Its obvious to anyone that we do not have all the freedom that we did 3 months ago- im not sure how that needs to be proven???? I thought even the people in favor of the lock down believed that to be true

  15. #2265
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    There are lots of laws/supreme court precedents that are/were unconstitutional. Some have been corrected (slavery, sufferage, etc...) others are on the table (marijuana) and some may never be tried in court (the Federal Reserve). Just because a court hasn't ruled that something infringes on a person's rights (unconstitutional) doesn't mean it ISN'T really unconstitutional.

    Another perfect example is Bush and his Patriot Act. That was a tremendous piece of propaganda which ultimately obliterated our civil liberties. We aren't ever getting those back. But those who realize this and are fighting (peacefully) to hold onto them are often mislabeled as "extreme right".
    I never said you couldn't argue that these are, you need to provide proof though and just defending bad actions by saying the words is not proof. So provide the actual evidence all these orders are unconstitutional and then explain why that can't be done right now by those objecting if that is the case.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •