POLITICS THREAD

[Rohen_Tahir]

My fellow players™, what are your thoughts on the gas price situation?

[technokek]

I have a bicycle....

[dirk_mcblade]

The environmentalists are getting what they want.

[MrStonedOne]

We let ourselves get dependant on a royal monarchy and also a dictator for our way of life and we could end it if we just banned exports isolating our prices from the world market but we can't ban exports because our refineries can't even refine the type of oil we extract from the ground so we have to sell it to other countries and buy the type of oil we can refine and waste gas shipping all of that around the world, also the type of oil we can refine is more useful for making lubricating oils and less fuels so we also end up having to import refined fuels while also sorta refining some of them ourselves. its all stupid and technically obama's fault because somebody pointed out how useful it would be to refine our own oils if russia goes full war back in the obama administration and nothing got done but actually you can say that about trump and bush and biden and clinton and probably also bush.

[san7890]

nft

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Luckily I'm a degenerate who only ever drives to work and back home, so I fill up like once every month and a half on average.

[RaveRadbury]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi1KebO4bzc

[chocolate_bickie]

It's a liquid, not a gas.

[Rohen_Tahir]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi1KebO4bzc

You have a point

[Super Aggro Crag]

too high

[Farquaar]

too high

[Bawhoppennn]

TY Rohen for making this thread

As for gas prices, it's really an interesting situation, considering our reliance on the liberal trade institutions across the planet for basically all product these days, and how volatile this actually can be:

We let ourselves get dependant on a royal monarchy and also a dictator for our way of life and we could end it if we just banned exports isolating our prices from the world market but we can't ban exports because our refineries can't even refine the type of oil we extract from the ground so we have to sell it to other countries and buy the type of oil we can refine and waste gas shipping all of that around the world, also the type of oil we can refine is more useful for making lubricating oils and less fuels so we also end up having to import refined fuels while also sorta refining some of them ourselves. its all stupid and technically obama's fault because somebody pointed out how useful it would be to refine our own oils if russia goes full war back in the obama administration and nothing got done but actually you can say that about trump and bush and biden and clinton and probably also bush.

MSO is correct about many things here:
I think the most practical solution now is to do what Macron & Co. are pushing for, being a negotiated end to the conflict in Ukraine, ending the violence and restoring trade relations. We can then use this as a major lesson on why we can't rely on trade with unstable personalistic regimes (I'd be willing to say Putin's regime is personalistic rather than bottom-up clientelist), so we can begin a planned transition period to avoiding that dependency relation in future. Not to even mention the ethical concerns here, particularly also for other countries like KSA, and their role in Yemen. I do think it's clear that this present moment shows the current system is untenable long-term, so it will hopefully be a jolt enough to lurch out some reforms.
Ironically, it's long been the argument that trade dependency is what prevents war. But when it comes to the West quickly blocking Russian oil imports after their role in Ukraine began, and that trade relation breaking down, then being followed by apparent US brinkmanship against the Russians with weapons aid and other policies, kinda shows that this theory has some major holes in it...

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this? Additionally, I wonder how this will impact the midterms. Before this, it looked like an apparent Republican surge would happen, though that may not be as certain now. Without regards to my personal opinions, I still believe the Rs will have it, but maybe to a lesser degree than before. Abortion is a very strong issue to a lot of people, but so is the economy, inflation, and gas prices, which the public largely blame on the Democrats. Whether or not the blame is justified, I believe that this is going to be the main decider during the midterms.

Okay anyways there's some politics talk, hopefully without it being too overdone, or personal or anything

[san7890]

Sorry I had to yawn and I lost my place reading

[Bawhoppennn]

Sorry I had to yawn and I lost my place reading

It's okay I don't know if I know what I'm talking about either entirely

[Itseasytosee2me]

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this? Additionally, I wonder how this will impact the midterms. Before this, it looked like an apparent Republican surge would happen, though that may not be as certain now. Without regards to my personal opinions, I still believe the Rs will have it, but maybe to a lesser degree than before. Abortion is a very strong issue to a lot of people, but so is the economy, inflation, and gas prices, which the public largely blame on the Democrats. Whether or not the blame is justified, I believe that this is going to be the main decider during the midterms.

Quite honestly, the Roe v. Wade decision is a huge fuck up on the supreme courts behalf. Independent from your personal beliefs on ethics, its really just a shitty decision.

Many states have laws that protect the right to abortion, so its not a banning of abortion by any means. Further, the states that do and don't protect abortion are spread pretty evenly about the USA, meaning border hopping to get an abortion is going to become both extremely accessible and prevalent.

As we all know, politicians are scum sucking concession makers who compromise their morals constantly in order to grow their power, justifying their disregard of personal ethics with the idea that if they can get into power, they can push their agenda which they see as good. (Unless of course, we are talking about the truly evil bastards who are just in it for the money and power. (Looking at the guy who switched what political party he was running for because of trends that show that the dominant political party in office tended to alternate))

That being said, I have no idea what possessed the court to make such a radical yet somewhat inconsequential move, the only thing I can think of is that they are repaying some debt, or trying to curry favor with someone.

Politics are fun! get rid of labels and dichotomies, they make politics simpler and more boring.

[nianjiilical]

im canadian

[Itseasytosee2me]

im canadian

How do you feel about Extreme intoxication bill that is very likely to become a law passed in Canada by 2023?

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this? Additionally, I wonder how this will impact the midterms. Before this, it looked like an apparent Republican surge would happen, though that may not be as certain now. Without regards to my personal opinions, I still believe the Rs will have it, but maybe to a lesser degree than before. Abortion is a very strong issue to a lot of people, but so is the economy, inflation, and gas prices, which the public largely blame on the Democrats. Whether or not the blame is justified, I believe that this is going to be the main decider during the midterms.

Quite honestly, the Roe v. Wade decision is a huge fuck up on the supreme courts behalf. Independent from your personal beliefs on ethics, its really just a shitty decision.

Many states have laws that protect the right to abortion, so its not a banning of abortion by any means. Further, the states that do and don't protect abortion are spread pretty evenly about the USA, meaning border hopping to get an abortion is going to become both extremely accessible and prevalent.

As we all know, politicians are scum sucking concession makers who compromise their morals constantly in order to grow their power, justifying their disregard of personal ethics with the idea that if they can get into power, they can push their agenda which they see as good. (Unless of course, we are talking about the truly evil bastards who are just in it for the money and power. (Looking at the guy who switched what political party he was running for because of trends that show that the dominant political party in office tended to alternate))

That being said, I have no idea what possessed the court to make such a radical yet somewhat inconsequential move, the only thing I can think of is that they are repaying some debt, or trying to curry favor with someone.

Politics are fun! get rid of labels and dichotomies, they make politics simpler and more boring.

If you bothered to read the decision, it's because the original decision, Roe v Wade, was basically judicial activist lawmaking, and the right to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (and the federal government for that matter) never had the authority or jurisdiction over the issue of abortion in the first place. It was frankly a gross abuse of power that they decided Roe the way they did, especially when you consider that judges are appointed, not elected. Or do you really want a bunch of un-elected judges with effectively zero accountability creating your laws for you, just because you happened to agree with this one?

Maybe you should read what the Court says regarding it's decision before deciding to give your opinion on the matter, especially when accusing them of being unethical or of doing misconduct.

[CandyClown]

I think we could fix inflation if we made every dollar worth ¢50.

[chocolate_bickie]

Does this mean Medbay can't remove Xeno larvas anymore?

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Does this mean Medbay can't remove Xeno larvas anymore?

Hahahahaha, this is definitely impacting my next MD or Chaplain shift, I have to do this now. You're a fucking genius.

[dirk_mcblade]

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this? Additionally, I wonder how this will impact the midterms. Before this, it looked like an apparent Republican surge would happen, though that may not be as certain now. Without regards to my personal opinions, I still believe the Rs will have it, but maybe to a lesser degree than before. Abortion is a very strong issue to a lot of people, but so is the economy, inflation, and gas prices, which the public largely blame on the Democrats. Whether or not the blame is justified, I believe that this is going to be the main decider during the midterms.

Quite honestly, the Roe v. Wade decision is a huge fuck up on the supreme courts behalf. Independent from your personal beliefs on ethics, its really just a shitty decision.

Many states have laws that protect the right to abortion, so its not a banning of abortion by any means. Further, the states that do and don't protect abortion are spread pretty evenly about the USA, meaning border hopping to get an abortion is going to become both extremely accessible and prevalent.

As we all know, politicians are scum sucking concession makers who compromise their morals constantly in order to grow their power, justifying their disregard of personal ethics with the idea that if they can get into power, they can push their agenda which they see as good. (Unless of course, we are talking about the truly evil bastards who are just in it for the money and power. (Looking at the guy who switched what political party he was running for because of trends that show that the dominant political party in office tended to alternate))

That being said, I have no idea what possessed the court to make such a radical yet somewhat inconsequential move, the only thing I can think of is that they are repaying some debt, or trying to curry favor with someone.

Politics are fun! get rid of labels and dichotomies, they make politics simpler and more boring.

You seem to be looking at this from the perspective of pragmatism but justices are spergs who are only supposed to look at the constitution and the law, consequences be damned. About the closest they get to pragmatism is in choosing which cases they want to hear, but apparently enough of them had an axe to grind with the legal reasoning behind roe v wade that they decided to go for it. They're appointed for life so they have no job insecurity and the only risk is that their personal power gets diluted through expanding the court, but if that happens even one time we're going to see expansions going forward every election and the court will essentially become an arm of the congress/president. I'm not sure if the Democrats will do that when the 2022 election looks bad for them and 2024 could also lose the presidency.

My takeaway is relying on a supreme court ruling and not actual legal code is risky ground for pushing policy. The Democrats had multiple supermajorities with which they could have passed laws codifying abortion rights, but they didn't. The Republicans are opposed to it based on their creed so they never would, but why wouldn't the Democrats take it up and pass a bill?

[Itseasytosee2me]

If you bothered to read the decision, it's because the original decision, Roe v Wade, was basically judicial activist lawmaking, and the right to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (and the federal government for that matter) never had the authority or jurisdiction over the issue of abortion in the first place. It was frankly a gross abuse of power that they decided Roe the way they did, especially when you consider that judges are appointed, not elected. Or do you really want a bunch of un-elected judges with effectively zero accountability creating your laws for you, just because you happened to agree with this one?

Maybe you should read what the Court says regarding it's decision before deciding to give your opinion on the matter, especially when accusing them of being unethical or of doing misconduct.

The decision in question was ruling that laws against abortion were a violation against the 14th amendment's right to privacy. The supreme court has also used the same amendment as an argument to prevent laws against oral sex.
It's irresponsible to claim it has no constitutional basis.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this? Additionally, I wonder how this will impact the midterms. Before this, it looked like an apparent Republican surge would happen, though that may not be as certain now. Without regards to my personal opinions, I still believe the Rs will have it, but maybe to a lesser degree than before. Abortion is a very strong issue to a lot of people, but so is the economy, inflation, and gas prices, which the public largely blame on the Democrats. Whether or not the blame is justified, I believe that this is going to be the main decider during the midterms.

Quite honestly, the Roe v. Wade decision is a huge fuck up on the supreme courts behalf. Independent from your personal beliefs on ethics, its really just a shitty decision.

Many states have laws that protect the right to abortion, so its not a banning of abortion by any means. Further, the states that do and don't protect abortion are spread pretty evenly about the USA, meaning border hopping to get an abortion is going to become both extremely accessible and prevalent.

As we all know, politicians are scum sucking concession makers who compromise their morals constantly in order to grow their power, justifying their disregard of personal ethics with the idea that if they can get into power, they can push their agenda which they see as good. (Unless of course, we are talking about the truly evil bastards who are just in it for the money and power. (Looking at the guy who switched what political party he was running for because of trends that show that the dominant political party in office tended to alternate))

That being said, I have no idea what possessed the court to make such a radical yet somewhat inconsequential move, the only thing I can think of is that they are repaying some debt, or trying to curry favor with someone.

Politics are fun! get rid of labels and dichotomies, they make politics simpler and more boring.

If you bothered to read the decision, it's because the original decision, Roe v Wade, was basically judicial activist lawmaking, and the right to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (and the federal government for that matter) never had the authority or jurisdiction over the issue of abortion in the first place. It was frankly a gross abuse of power that they decided Roe the way they did, especially when you consider that judges are appointed, not elected. Or do you really want a bunch of un-elected judges with effectively zero accountability creating your laws for you, just because you happened to agree with this one?

Maybe you should read what the Court says regarding it's decision before deciding to give your opinion on the matter, especially when accusing them of being unethical or of doing misconduct.

The right for individuals to walk around with guns for shits and giggles is also nowhere in the constitution, but the Supreme Court also just crossed out the second half of that line in the second amendment for shits and giggles. If this was actually remotely truly why they were overturning Roe v Wade they'd have been overturning the Court's previous massive untextual expansions to the second amendment, not expanding them even further days beforehand.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

If you bothered to read the decision, it's because the original decision, Roe v Wade, was basically judicial activist lawmaking, and the right to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (and the federal government for that matter) never had the authority or jurisdiction over the issue of abortion in the first place. It was frankly a gross abuse of power that they decided Roe the way they did, especially when you consider that judges are appointed, not elected. Or do you really want a bunch of un-elected judges with effectively zero accountability creating your laws for you, just because you happened to agree with this one?

Maybe you should read what the Court says regarding it's decision before deciding to give your opinion on the matter, especially when accusing them of being unethical or of doing misconduct.

The decision in question was ruling that laws against abortion were a violation against the 14th amendment's right to privacy. The supreme court has also used the same amendment as an argument to prevent laws against oral sex.
It's irresponsible to claim it has no constitutional basis.

Okay, well, food for thought, maybe it's irresponsible to claim that the right to privacy extends to murdering the unborn.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this? Additionally, I wonder how this will impact the midterms. Before this, it looked like an apparent Republican surge would happen, though that may not be as certain now. Without regards to my personal opinions, I still believe the Rs will have it, but maybe to a lesser degree than before. Abortion is a very strong issue to a lot of people, but so is the economy, inflation, and gas prices, which the public largely blame on the Democrats. Whether or not the blame is justified, I believe that this is going to be the main decider during the midterms.

Quite honestly, the Roe v. Wade decision is a huge fuck up on the supreme courts behalf. Independent from your personal beliefs on ethics, its really just a shitty decision.

Many states have laws that protect the right to abortion, so its not a banning of abortion by any means. Further, the states that do and don't protect abortion are spread pretty evenly about the USA, meaning border hopping to get an abortion is going to become both extremely accessible and prevalent.

As we all know, politicians are scum sucking concession makers who compromise their morals constantly in order to grow their power, justifying their disregard of personal ethics with the idea that if they can get into power, they can push their agenda which they see as good. (Unless of course, we are talking about the truly evil bastards who are just in it for the money and power. (Looking at the guy who switched what political party he was running for because of trends that show that the dominant political party in office tended to alternate))

That being said, I have no idea what possessed the court to make such a radical yet somewhat inconsequential move, the only thing I can think of is that they are repaying some debt, or trying to curry favor with someone.

Politics are fun! get rid of labels and dichotomies, they make politics simpler and more boring.

If you bothered to read the decision, it's because the original decision, Roe v Wade, was basically judicial activist lawmaking, and the right to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (and the federal government for that matter) never had the authority or jurisdiction over the issue of abortion in the first place. It was frankly a gross abuse of power that they decided Roe the way they did, especially when you consider that judges are appointed, not elected. Or do you really want a bunch of un-elected judges with effectively zero accountability creating your laws for you, just because you happened to agree with this one?

Maybe you should read what the Court says regarding it's decision before deciding to give your opinion on the matter, especially when accusing them of being unethical or of doing misconduct.

The right for individuals to walk around with guns for shits and giggles is also nowhere in the constitution, but the Supreme Court also just crossed out the second half of that line in the second amendment for shits and giggles. If this was actually remotely truly why they were overturning Roe v Wade they'd have been overturning the Court's previous massive untextual expansions to the second amendment, not expanding them even further days beforehand.

Except it's literally there in plain and concise text that even a 5 year old could understand? "Shall not be infringed" is pretty fucking clear. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is a line that says "Oh, it can be infringed if they're talking about open-carry though".

[Not-Dorsidarf]

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this? Additionally, I wonder how this will impact the midterms. Before this, it looked like an apparent Republican surge would happen, though that may not be as certain now. Without regards to my personal opinions, I still believe the Rs will have it, but maybe to a lesser degree than before. Abortion is a very strong issue to a lot of people, but so is the economy, inflation, and gas prices, which the public largely blame on the Democrats. Whether or not the blame is justified, I believe that this is going to be the main decider during the midterms.

Quite honestly, the Roe v. Wade decision is a huge fuck up on the supreme courts behalf. Independent from your personal beliefs on ethics, its really just a shitty decision.

Many states have laws that protect the right to abortion, so its not a banning of abortion by any means. Further, the states that do and don't protect abortion are spread pretty evenly about the USA, meaning border hopping to get an abortion is going to become both extremely accessible and prevalent.

As we all know, politicians are scum sucking concession makers who compromise their morals constantly in order to grow their power, justifying their disregard of personal ethics with the idea that if they can get into power, they can push their agenda which they see as good. (Unless of course, we are talking about the truly evil bastards who are just in it for the money and power. (Looking at the guy who switched what political party he was running for because of trends that show that the dominant political party in office tended to alternate))

That being said, I have no idea what possessed the court to make such a radical yet somewhat inconsequential move, the only thing I can think of is that they are repaying some debt, or trying to curry favor with someone.

Politics are fun! get rid of labels and dichotomies, they make politics simpler and more boring.

If you bothered to read the decision, it's because the original decision, Roe v Wade, was basically judicial activist lawmaking, and the right to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (and the federal government for that matter) never had the authority or jurisdiction over the issue of abortion in the first place. It was frankly a gross abuse of power that they decided Roe the way they did, especially when you consider that judges are appointed, not elected. Or do you really want a bunch of un-elected judges with effectively zero accountability creating your laws for you, just because you happened to agree with this one?

Maybe you should read what the Court says regarding it's decision before deciding to give your opinion on the matter, especially when accusing them of being unethical or of doing misconduct.

The right for individuals to walk around with guns for shits and giggles is also nowhere in the constitution, but the Supreme Court also just crossed out the second half of that line in the second amendment for shits and giggles. If this was actually remotely truly why they were overturning Roe v Wade they'd have been overturning the Court's previous massive untextual expansions to the second amendment, not expanding them even further days beforehand.

Except it's literally there in plain and concise text that even a 5 year old could understand? "Shall not be infringed" is pretty fucking clear. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is a line that says "Oh, it can be infringed if they're talking about open-carry though".

And yet the well regulated militia is nowhere to be seen and clearly not necessary to the security of the State because it hasnt existed for like two centuries but the fact that that's the justification for arms rights, not mystical woo about personal freedoms, is swept under the rug under the bonus of not upsetting americans and their expensive toys lmao

[san7890]

i thought this thread was satire

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this? Additionally, I wonder how this will impact the midterms. Before this, it looked like an apparent Republican surge would happen, though that may not be as certain now. Without regards to my personal opinions, I still believe the Rs will have it, but maybe to a lesser degree than before. Abortion is a very strong issue to a lot of people, but so is the economy, inflation, and gas prices, which the public largely blame on the Democrats. Whether or not the blame is justified, I believe that this is going to be the main decider during the midterms.

Quite honestly, the Roe v. Wade decision is a huge fuck up on the supreme courts behalf. Independent from your personal beliefs on ethics, its really just a shitty decision.

Many states have laws that protect the right to abortion, so its not a banning of abortion by any means. Further, the states that do and don't protect abortion are spread pretty evenly about the USA, meaning border hopping to get an abortion is going to become both extremely accessible and prevalent.

As we all know, politicians are scum sucking concession makers who compromise their morals constantly in order to grow their power, justifying their disregard of personal ethics with the idea that if they can get into power, they can push their agenda which they see as good. (Unless of course, we are talking about the truly evil bastards who are just in it for the money and power. (Looking at the guy who switched what political party he was running for because of trends that show that the dominant political party in office tended to alternate))

That being said, I have no idea what possessed the court to make such a radical yet somewhat inconsequential move, the only thing I can think of is that they are repaying some debt, or trying to curry favor with someone.

Politics are fun! get rid of labels and dichotomies, they make politics simpler and more boring.

If you bothered to read the decision, it's because the original decision, Roe v Wade, was basically judicial activist lawmaking, and the right to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (and the federal government for that matter) never had the authority or jurisdiction over the issue of abortion in the first place. It was frankly a gross abuse of power that they decided Roe the way they did, especially when you consider that judges are appointed, not elected. Or do you really want a bunch of un-elected judges with effectively zero accountability creating your laws for you, just because you happened to agree with this one?

Maybe you should read what the Court says regarding it's decision before deciding to give your opinion on the matter, especially when accusing them of being unethical or of doing misconduct.

The right for individuals to walk around with guns for shits and giggles is also nowhere in the constitution, but the Supreme Court also just crossed out the second half of that line in the second amendment for shits and giggles. If this was actually remotely truly why they were overturning Roe v Wade they'd have been overturning the Court's previous massive untextual expansions to the second amendment, not expanding them even further days beforehand.

Except it's literally there in plain and concise text that even a 5 year old could understand? "Shall not be infringed" is pretty fucking clear. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is a line that says "Oh, it can be infringed if they're talking about open-carry though".

And yet the well regulated militia is nowhere to be seen and clearly not necessary to the security of the State because it hasnt existed for like two centuries but the fact that that's the justification for arms rights, not mystical woo about personal freedoms, is swept under the rug under the bonus of not upsetting americans and their expensive toys lmao

You should read district of columbia v. heller sometime. The clause regarding militia is not a restriction on gun rights.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

i thought this thread was satire

It sure started off that way, but someone had to start giving real political opinions.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

snipped for pyramid

You should read district of columbia v. heller sometime. The clause regarding militia is not a restriction on gun rights.

The 2008 case that legally affirmed that "Shall not be infringed" is meaningless and explicitly protects the infringement of the right to bear arms under a variety of circumstances and was, seperately, widely criticized for adding imaginary sections to the amendment about self-defense in its explanation and also used the reasoning "Well several rejected versions of the amendment did include that right therefore the accepted one should be assumed to have it too"?

Thats a surprising one to hear mentioned.

[Stickymayhem]

law isnt real and it isnt a special arcane ritual that binds people to it, law is fake its made up post hoc justifications for whatever those in power want to do

the supreme court are the high priests of the american religious document (the constitution) and their interpretation is based purely on their political motivations

i do not like liberals

[Farquaar]

Rohen Tahir what have you created

How do you feel about Extreme intoxication bill that is very likely to become a law passed in Canada by 2023?

I support the aim (largely aimed at combating domestic violence, which is often linked with alcohol and drug use).

From a constitutional/legal perspective, the proposed amendments seem to be a pretty good way of preserving the effect of section 31.1 of the Criminal Code while also avoiding the constitutional issues raised in the section's previous iterations.

Lastly it makes sense from a layman's point of view. If you voluntarily take a substance that you know will make you lose control, you should be responsible for what you do when that happens.

[oranges]

hey why don't you guys move to a common law system instead.

[Boot]

communists upset at the rule of law more at 11

[Pandarsenic]

law isnt real and it isnt a special arcane ritual that binds people to it, law is fake its made up post hoc justifications for whatever those in power want to do

the supreme court are the high priests of the american religious document (the constitution) and their interpretation is based purely on their political motivations

i do not like liberals

[datorangebottle]

In other political news, Roe v. Wade (and thereby Casey as well) has been overturned- anyone have any thoughts on this?

I'm just glad I live in a state that doesn't have its head buried 15 miles up its own asshole. It has other problems, but at least it doesn't have this one.

[Super Aggro Crag]

how the fuck are liberals against having guns but pro killing babies

now you can get a gun and kill babies even faster, pinhead

[dirk_mcblade]

law isnt real and it isnt a special arcane ritual that binds people to it, law is fake its made up post hoc justifications for whatever those in power want to do

the supreme court are the high priests of the american religious document (the constitution) and their interpretation is based purely on their political motivations

i do not like liberals

I'll take the bait. How do those in power benefit from guns being distributed widely amongst the population? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want to do to consolidate power.

[Bawhoppennn]

law isnt real and it isnt a special arcane ritual that binds people to it, law is fake its made up post hoc justifications for whatever those in power want to do

the supreme court are the high priests of the american religious document (the constitution) and their interpretation is based purely on their political motivations

i do not like liberals

I'll take the bait. How do those in power benefit from guns being distributed widely amongst the population? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want to do to consolidate power.

Oh no you responded to Sticky, what have you unleashed

[Shadowflame909]

>mfw the fed(mins) posters drop the nuke codes and nuke disk right in front of me

You guys bwoink in the dark

[Farquaar]

hey why don't you guys move to a common law system instead.

What did he mean by this

[oranges]

hey why don't you guys move to a common law system instead.

What did he mean by this

[Stickymayhem]

law isnt real and it isnt a special arcane ritual that binds people to it, law is fake its made up post hoc justifications for whatever those in power want to do

the supreme court are the high priests of the american religious document (the constitution) and their interpretation is based purely on their political motivations

i do not like liberals

I'll take the bait. How do those in power benefit from guns being distributed widely amongst the population? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want to do to consolidate power.

100 million disorganized citizens with guns are literally zero danger whatsoever to the most powerful military in the world

The right has always benefitted from armed militias roving around terrorizing minorities like the KKK historically or the Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer/Other retarded christolarpers

The left has basically used guns politically effectively in America one single time, and it was the Black Panthers: guess when the only time the right wing supported gun control was

[dirk_mcblade]

law isnt real and it isnt a special arcane ritual that binds people to it, law is fake its made up post hoc justifications for whatever those in power want to do

the supreme court are the high priests of the american religious document (the constitution) and their interpretation is based purely on their political motivations

i do not like liberals

I'll take the bait. How do those in power benefit from guns being distributed widely amongst the population? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want to do to consolidate power.

100 million disorganized citizens with guns are literally zero danger whatsoever to the most powerful military in the world

The right has always benefitted from armed militias roving around terrorizing minorities like the KKK historically or the Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer/Other retarded christolarpers

The left has basically used guns politically effectively in America one single time, and it was the Black Panthers: guess when the only time the right wing supported gun control was

However, the US military loses to virtually every insurgency type force it fights against.

[Stickymayhem]

law isnt real and it isnt a special arcane ritual that binds people to it, law is fake its made up post hoc justifications for whatever those in power want to do

the supreme court are the high priests of the american religious document (the constitution) and their interpretation is based purely on their political motivations

i do not like liberals

I'll take the bait. How do those in power benefit from guns being distributed widely amongst the population? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want to do to consolidate power.

100 million disorganized citizens with guns are literally zero danger whatsoever to the most powerful military in the world

The right has always benefitted from armed militias roving around terrorizing minorities like the KKK historically or the Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer/Other retarded christolarpers

The left has basically used guns politically effectively in America one single time, and it was the Black Panthers: guess when the only time the right wing supported gun control was

However, the US military loses to virtually every insurgency type force it fights against.

If you want to define losing in some hyper specific way, sure, but they fuck shit up, kill millions and there's no hope for a functional government existing that the US doesn't want in place.

Insurgencies are successful only when the local population has close ties to the insurgents, and American towns have far less social cohesion than an afghanistan village. Most of that insurgent style of social cohesion comes from the right wing, again like the Proud Boys, who will simp for a fascist government every time.

The ones who are organized, and like and use weapons, support the government. The Liberal masses are terrified of guns, and the left wing struggles to organize effective gun ownership and has done so ever since the Black Panthers due to infighting and lack of support from the liberal establishment. Conservative money is always happy to fund fascist groups (see the close ties between republicans and the Jan 6 rioters) but liberals will NEVER support the extremes on their side, so they always lose.

[Stickymayhem]

law isnt real and it isnt a special arcane ritual that binds people to it, law is fake its made up post hoc justifications for whatever those in power want to do

the supreme court are the high priests of the american religious document (the constitution) and their interpretation is based purely on their political motivations

i do not like liberals

I'll take the bait. How do those in power benefit from guns being distributed widely amongst the population? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want to do to consolidate power.

100 million disorganized citizens with guns are literally zero danger whatsoever to the most powerful military in the world

The right has always benefitted from armed militias roving around terrorizing minorities like the KKK historically or the Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer/Other retarded christolarpers

The left has basically used guns politically effectively in America one single time, and it was the Black Panthers: guess when the only time the right wing supported gun control was

However, the US military loses to virtually every insurgency type force it fights against.

#politics-containment

[Capsandi]

Is this the 2hu thread? I'd like to ask what the hell a 2hu is.

[dirk_mcblade]

If you want to define losing in some hyper specific way, sure, but they fuck shit up, kill millions and there's no hope for a functional government existing that the US doesn't want in place.

I don't know if I'd call failing in nearly every strategic goal but taking a giant shit on the way out a specific definition of loss. Seems like there's cheaper ways of shitting up a country than that and each time they fail they weaken the country due to its finances worsening.
Vietnam meanwhile ended up doing okay, and is even quasi friendly with the US today because they have a frenemy situation with the PRC.
There's no doubt there would be a lot of destruction regardless of who wins and this is why I don't think the power structure would want to have such a kill switch in the hands of parties it doesn't directly control. If private ownership of arms is beneficial to the power structure then why don't other countries have the same rights? Are the minorities in the UK that would be terrorized by armed UKIP gangs part of the UK power structure? I think the UK military and the UK government benefits from the option of being able to manhandle its population without having to worry about unlicensed spoon attacks. Otherwise why aren't they distributing weapons?

Insurgencies are successful only when the local population has close ties to the insurgents, and American towns have far less social cohesion than an afghanistan village. Most of that insurgent style of social cohesion comes from the right wing, again like the Proud Boys, who will simp for a fascist government every time.

The ones who are organized, and like and use weapons, support the government. The Liberal masses are terrified of guns, and the left wing struggles to organize effective gun ownership and has done so ever since the Black Panthers due to infighting and lack of support from the liberal establishment. Conservative money is always happy to fund fascist groups (see the close ties between republicans and the Jan 6 rioters) but liberals will NEVER support the extremes on their side, so they always lose.

Liberals though incompetent are also part of the power structure. I can't figure out if they actually viscerally fear guns or if they use it as a political football to rally support for restricting them every election. Either way they don't seem to like them. From a Marxist perspective both parties are close enough to the same thing but this is one of the areas where they differ in policy. Virtually every media outlet seems pissed about it. I don't think they're organized enough that they secretly think the supreme court ruling is a good thing for them. Perhaps intent doesn't matter as much as effect in terms of pushing a political system that leaves everything stunlocked, but then you might as well view the system as an ant colony at that point and that makes analysis of motivations pointless.

[dirk_mcblade]

Is this the 2hu thread? I'd like to ask what the hell a 2hu is.

The 二胡 is a stringed Chinese instrument you racist.