This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ
Pages: 1 ... 186187188 189190 ... 256
5611
« on: March 02, 2015, 01:11:52 AM »
There are a whole fucking lot more reasons you shouldn't be able to stand the big bang theory
5612
« on: March 02, 2015, 01:07:14 AM »
5613
« on: March 02, 2015, 01:06:21 AM »
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/city-missouri-suing-citizens-voted-ban-red-light-cameras/St. Charles County, MO — St. Peters, O’Fallon, Lake St. Louis, and a councilman from O’Fallon have filed a lawsuit against their OWN CITIZENS.
In November of last year, the citizens of St. Charles County democratically expressed their anger with the use of red light cameras in their town. Seventy-three percent of those who went to the polls approved a measure to ban red light cameras.
However, the fat cat bureaucrats, apparently afraid of losing the money generated from the rights-violating red light cameras, don’t like that vote. They are now taking action to punish the citizens for trying to undermine their perceived authority.
“Seventy-three percent of the voters pass a ban on red light cameras so what these cities are doing are suing 73 percent of the voters in St. Charles County, within their own cities. They’re suing their own residents,” said St. Charles County Councilman Joe Brazil.
In true Orwellian fashion, the cities are claiming that the measure, which was passed by voters, is unconstitutional.
The attorney representing the cities in the lawsuit said the county’s legal authority is cut and dry.
“The state can dictate what cities are authorized to do or prohibit the cities from doing things. There’s nothing in the Missouri Constitution that provides the county to do the same thing,” said attorney John Young.
In other words, politicians can mandate that the citizens be extorted by removing due process and sending them tickets in the mail. However, if the citizens try and stop this act of extortion, it is “unconstitutional” and their consent is no longer needed.
On Tuesday, FOX 2 News in St. Louis, looked into the cost of this ridiculous suit. They reported that St. Peters could pay between $500,000 and $750,000 and the cost to St. Charles County government could be up to $150,000.
But where would this money come from? Simple, it would come from the very people they are attempting to sue!
It is estimated that the lawsuit could take years to resolve in the courts. And so continues the ridiculous and vicious cycle of the state.
5614
« on: March 02, 2015, 01:02:42 AM »
I feel stupid for not getting the joke
Read the English portion of the note at the bottom.
5615
« on: March 02, 2015, 12:53:32 AM »
5616
« on: March 01, 2015, 11:37:04 PM »
"Gubbermint is bad"
But is seriously is. Government in it's modern form is no more ethical than the mafia, and I am 100% happy to elaborate on that if you'd like.
Uhm.... eh, how about tomorrow? I'm tired. I cannot guarantee a rational or well typed out reply back if you do.
Sure, I'll make a thread.
5617
« on: March 01, 2015, 11:34:41 PM »
"Gubbermint is bad"
But is seriously is. Government in it's modern form is no more ethical than the mafia, and I am 100% happy to elaborate on that if you'd like.
5618
« on: March 01, 2015, 11:31:24 PM »
So is smoking, so is alcoholism, so is cocaine usage and marijuana.
But reasonable people advocate for the legalization of these activities. Why?
Because you have no right to dictate what I do with my body any more than I have the right to dictate what you do with yours.
I understand what you're saying, and I understand your first post to me a few posts above, but you're comparing things you put into your body, to a disease that can spread from a simple cough or sneeze.
I think the comparison is a bit different, right?
Hardly. A vaccine goes into your body just like any drug. Also like choosing to vaccinate or not, drug usage does impact those around you. If I start tweaking, or get ripped, and I decide to go outside, I could very well do something stupid and get myself or others hurt. If I drive drunk, I am putting lives at risk. EDIT: If i'm not clear here, I'm not actively advocating legalization of drunk driving. It is, however, an inevitability when alcohol is publicly available.
5619
« on: March 01, 2015, 11:27:18 PM »
Americans are so "muh freedomz" that it is cancerous. It's a terrible excuse for quite a lot things in our country.
You're right, we'd all be so much happier with a gun pointed to your head telling you how to live your life. Let me guess, you're also a Christian, right? Need that structure to keep yourself from shitting your pants and killing people? Collectivism is a fucking cancer. Anyone who fails to respect the rights and dignity of the individual is dysfunctional at best and a threat to his fellow man at worst.
5620
« on: March 01, 2015, 11:21:38 PM »
lol fucking California.
Getting closer and closer to 1984 level of government control.
Of course you don't like it. You're one of the fucks who is part of the problem.
Because I believe in freedom of the body?
The government should have zero authority in saying you MUST put something inside your body. That just seems crazy to me. And if you deny my child entrance to the public schools that I pay for? You're not getting my tax dollars.
Because you play up the "freedom of the body" bullshit when what you're really doing is promoting a public health risk and putting your child at risk of catching a disease we should be rid of by now if it weren't for people like you.
I'd love to know what makes you think you, or any other person, has the right to dictate what goes into another person's body, especially considering you are a supporter of abortion rights.
If you do not believe in bodily autonomy, I'm interested in knowing on what grounds you see abortion as justified.
It's a public health issue, not a freedom issue. These people are a danger to those who cannot be vaccinated. I'm not speaking metaphorically.
So is smoking, so is alcoholism, so is cocaine usage and marijuana. But reasonable people advocate for the legalization of these activities. Why? Because you have no right to dictate what I do with my body any more than I have the right to dictate what you do with yours.
5621
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:59:14 PM »
lol fucking California.
Getting closer and closer to 1984 level of government control.
Of course you don't like it. You're one of the fucks who is part of the problem.
Because I believe in freedom of the body?
The government should have zero authority in saying you MUST put something inside your body. That just seems crazy to me. And if you deny my child entrance to the public schools that I pay for? You're not getting my tax dollars.
Because you play up the "freedom of the body" bullshit when what you're really doing is promoting a public health risk and putting your child at risk of catching a disease we should be rid of by now if it weren't for people like you.
I'd love to know what makes you think you, or any other person, has the right to dictate what goes into another person's body, especially considering you are a supporter of abortion rights. If you do not believe in bodily autonomy, I'm interested in knowing on what grounds you see abortion as justified.
5622
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:51:51 PM »
lol fucking California.
Getting closer and closer to 1984 level of government control.
Of course you don't like it. You're one of the fucks who is part of the problem.
Took your own bait, did you?
5623
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:31:37 PM »
lol fucking California.
Getting closer and closer to 1984 level of government control.
Max please don't bump your own thread
5624
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:22:04 PM »
Public schools are terrible anyway, but it's a shame that this essentially means many parents will be forced to give up their children's right to bodily autonomy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, fuck California.
Eh, I disagree really.
Measles was declared completely gone in our country at some date (I'm too lazy to look it up) but is now coming back because (some) parents are listening to some former playboy bunny who got her degree on Google.
I won't argue that vaccines prevent illness. Given a choice I'll take a vaccine any day. That said, I don't think the state has any business telling people what they can, cannot, or, much worse, must, put into their bodies. Much like I do not believe circumcision should be legal without the patient's informed consent, I do not think anyone has any business fucking with another person's body. The only reason I'm not up in arms throwing molotovs is that this is for public schools, which the state runs anyway. However, I think the state already has too much control over education, and there should be more readily available alternatives to state-run education. Homeschooling and private school are not sufficiently accessible to poor families.
5625
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:11:25 PM »
Public schools are terrible anyway, but it's a shame that this essentially means many parents will be forced to give up their children's right to bodily autonomy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, fuck California.
5626
« on: March 01, 2015, 07:04:10 PM »
But door
Us young folk dislike the "old white guy gun nut 'LIBURALS GONNA TAKE MUH RIFLES so buy these commemorative 1911's for every war on a plaque'" NRA and would rather start anew with a less retarded advocacy outfit.
But who?
TrussingRustingLemyM16A4LizerdFloorDoor.
no I mean who will replace the NRA
I don't know. It's just a dream, really.
I mean all the new generation has brought us, movement-wise, are the Open Carry faggots who are actually HURTING gun rights.
5627
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:51:49 PM »
But door
Us young folk dislike the "old white guy gun nut 'LIBURALS GONNA TAKE MUH RIFLES so buy these commemorative 1911's for every war on a plaque'" NRA and would rather start anew with a less retarded advocacy outfit.
But who?
TrussingRustingLemyM16A4LizerdFloorDoor.
no I mean who will replace the NRA
5628
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:48:40 PM »
But door
Us young folk dislike the "old white guy gun nut 'LIBURALS GONNA TAKE MUH RIFLES so buy these commemorative 1911's for every war on a plaque'" NRA and would rather start anew with a less retarded advocacy outfit.
But who?
5629
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:22:49 PM »
Sorry to see you go.
Something something discussion value something something good riddance something something we can't be the problem it must be you.
5630
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:21:01 PM »
Gang violence is really not as widespread as white people seem to think it is. Even so, it's more a cultural problem than something you can solve by throwing money at it.
5631
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:17:59 PM »
I don't like them, I think they're manipulative people who take an honest good intent and morph it into something more. I'd love it if you'd explain what the hell you're going on about.
My guess is she's talking about how it essentially shills for for arms manufacturers at times. Which instead of acting as a voice for people who enjoy their 2A rights is acting as another corporate lobbying firm.
They do much more voicing than shilling. Although I'll be the first to admit they're far too quick to leave importers and foreign manufacturers out in the cold. They're the best we've got though and I see it as something that can be solved from the inside if a new, more socially conscious generation of shooters can come into the NRA.
5632
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:10:53 PM »
They also bully congressmen and bribe others, thus helping with corruption. If I've missed some story about the NRA bribing congressmen, I'd absolutely love to know about it. Links, please. They also said armed guards are the solution to schools after 20 children got slaughtered. They're not entirely wrong, although a more reasonable solution would be to unfuck our mental healthcare system. I don't like them, I think they're manipulative people who take an honest good intent and morph it into something more. I'd love it if you'd explain what the hell you're going on about.
5633
« on: March 01, 2015, 05:19:50 PM »
I would say I'm for tighter restriction on gun control
Are you saying you want limits placed on gun control, or are you saying you want tighter gun control?
Tighter control, or at least background checks and common sense.
I just dislike the NRA mainly since they're just pigs influencing the government.
Oh god, please no "NRA evil gun lobby" shit. NRA is funded entirely by donations and membership fees, mostly the latter. The NRA represents Americans who want their rights protected, and the NRA is the most powerful method they have of doing that. Do I think the NRA is perfect? No, I think they try too hard to appeal to old fudds and they're not doing enough outreach to younger shooters, who are more into milsurp, ARs and tacticool bullshit than "muh heritage" and hunting. They also show favoritism for American gun manufacturers like Ruger and don't do enough to fight restrictions on imports. However, the NRA, thanks to it's sheer size, does more than any other group to protect the 2A rights of Americans.
5634
« on: March 01, 2015, 04:16:35 PM »
I would say I'm for tighter restriction on gun control
Are you saying you want limits placed on gun control, or are you saying you want tighter gun control?
I believe she meant tighter control, which inherently doesn't have to be a bad thing, especially since the NRA considers background checks and waiting periods to be super leftist attacks on constitutional freedom...
I suppose this comes down to whether you think it's okay for the state to impose limits on access to force while not following those rules itself. I think Bongistani gun control is, at least in the smallest of ways, less hypocritical than gun control in the States. People don't have reasonable access to firearms there (I mean, you can get them, but you're effectively neutered), but neither do most cops. Still very hypocritical in that many cops do still have access. Ultimately nobody is for getting rid of guns, they just want to make sure only the state has access to guns, which I personally see as far more dangerous than just giving everybody a gun.
5635
« on: March 01, 2015, 04:00:57 PM »
I would say I'm for tighter restriction on gun control
Are you saying you want limits placed on gun control, or are you saying you want tighter gun control?
5636
« on: March 01, 2015, 03:26:47 PM »
Here's the easy version:
No, the OP doesn't literally have a question written in it.
When you post a discussion thread on a forum, you are implied to be asking the rest of the forum to respond with their opinion on the subject.
"I forgot this was a thing", "I don't care", "Wow what the fuck" and so on are all valid opinions on the subject.
If you did not intend to ask the forum to respond with their opinion, what you are doing is either blogging or spamming, and you should either get a blog or stop spamming, respectively.
You sound really upset about something really unimportant.
5637
« on: March 01, 2015, 12:31:07 PM »
GG is united by a desire for better more ethical journalistic standards within the gaming industry.
why not just all journalism?
You really think a bunch of nerds on twitter can confront the entire corporate media propaganda machine?
5638
« on: March 01, 2015, 02:36:37 AM »
This gamergate shit is still a thing?
Read KiA more.
Just sayin being more informed doesn't hurt.
Wait, I thought KiA was mocking the gamergate stuff, similar to Tumblr in Action
Naw, its mocking Kotaku in the way TiA is mocking Tumblr.
I know fuck-all about gamergate. Isn't Kotaku the source of all this?
A writer at Kotaku, yes, and they have been at the center of the opposition from the start.
5639
« on: February 28, 2015, 07:23:35 PM »
>fucking nerds actually know the differences between camo types
holy fuck lol
>he thinks he's /fa/ >doesn't even know his camos get a load of this guy
5640
« on: February 28, 2015, 06:45:47 PM »
Uhh... Door... I think that's CADPAT.
>CADPAT >browns come on, MARPAT is closer.
Pages: 1 ... 186187188 189190 ... 256
|
Show Posts
