Michael Brown

[Daywolf]

no really, do you think making gay marriage legal in any way forces or requires any church to perform gay wedding ceremonies?
No they aren't forced to, they just get hit with lawsuits. You know, there are militant homosexuals. It's not all of them, even far from it, but they are there. Courts have been inundated with it. And it's not just "the church", this goes against individuals and small businesses, no matter what they personally believe, simply because they choose not to render services "we reserve the right to refuse service". But totally different issue, something for your research time, indeed. Unless you are a militant of course and already know this but just overlooking it :rolleyes: ..not saying you are. Returning to topic...

[iruinedyourday]

No they aren't forced to, they just get hit with lawsuits. You know, there are militant homosexuals. It's not all of them, even far from it, but they are there. Courts have been inundated with it. And it's not just "the church", this goes against individuals and small businesses, no matter what they personally believe, simply because they choose not to render services "we reserve the right to refuse service". But totally different issue, something for your research time, indeed. Unless you are a militant of course and already know this but just overlooking it :rolleyes: ..not saying you are. Returning to topic...

not true at all. not one bit of this is true.

One gay couple in England tried to sue their church. But that's it. You lie in like every post lol

Churches in america retain the right to discriminate against whomever they please.

[Aviann]

Guys, white cop shot black guy in America. Let's totally call it and focus on racism instead of making an actual fucking difference in the world besides looting and throwing handmade explosives at people with guns.

Merica.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Churches in america retain the right to discriminate against whomever they please.

If this were true the right wouldn't be so up in arms about it.

[Aviann]

Also, fuck you Kagafaggot, for no god damn reason at all besides you're a faggot cross-dresser.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Also, fuck you Snakebites faggot, for no god damn reason at all besides you pick the dumbest shit piercings.

Right back at ya boi.

[Aviann]

Right back at ya boi.

I never wore a dress. One up, faggot.

[Aviann]

Post more pics of yourself so we can make fun of them without being threatened for being banned. That would make everyone's day.

[iruinedyourday]

If this were true the right wouldn't be so up in arms about it.

No it is absolutely true. The right is up in arms against it because they agree with the church on wanting to discriminate cus they batso cray cray

[Aviann]

I don't understand if you gents are agreeing with the right as "I believe this cop should be dead because he was my sister's cousin's nephew." Or if you are agreeing with "It's against the law to assault a cop with a gun, and it is even worse to expect him not to use said gun."

Now I am against government all together. I really just wish we can dig ditches and grow corn for each other, but to be honest, most of you would end up with a fucking slug in your skull. What I agree with is handling your fucking shit without having to rob a fucking gas station for a couple of fucking snickers bars and causing riots across the state because the cop that stopped you from attacking him was fucking white.

This is pathetic that its even a fucking issue with the bullshit that is going on in the world. I guess fucking poverty is dignity these days, considering nobody wants to know the truth about the world around them.

What the fuck will happen when America is jeopardized? Nothing, because the media will portray the best interest for the moneys of the ones controlling the cameras.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Post more pics of yourself.

Implying I've ever posted a single one.

[Aviann]

Implying I've ever posted a single one.

Just post your best one so we can compare it to our worst.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

NTY

[Daywolf]

not true at all. not one bit of this is true.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/22/New-Mexico-Court-Christian-Photographer-Cannot-Refuse-Gay-Marriage-Ceremony-Next-Stop-U-S-Supreme-Court

2 minutes of searching google. I figure eventually you will run out of stuff to pull out of your ass :o

[iruinedyourday]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/22/New-Mexico-Court-Christian-Photographer-Cannot-Refuse-Gay-Marriage-Ceremony-Next-Stop-U-S-Supreme-Court

2 minutes of searching google. I figure eventually you will run out of stuff to pull out of your ass :o

Neither of those are churches, they are businesses, which are NOT allowed to discriminate in the united states.

[Patriam1066]

Freedom of speech not freedom from the consequences of that speech. The Mozilla guy got what he deserved, don't oppose the masses unless you want to get burned. Isn't that kind of the point of this whole St. Louis thing?


Yet you ignore the fact that many of these groups are doing everything in their power to directly oppress the groups that they are intolerant against. Stopping oppression is not being intolerant, it's stopping oppression.

He deserved to lose his job because he had an opinion that was different from the majority? How do you not understand the flaw in this? Democracy doesn't exist if we have simple mob rule genius.

The majority of Russians support Putin annexing Crimea and "Novorussiya," I guess the people that already live there and those who will die as a consequence should've had a more popular argument.

"Love truth, but pardon error." - Voltaire

And what you view as oppression isn't relevant, except in your head. You realize everyone has a different view on the subject? So let's all fight, violently, against what we think is evil in the world. Instead of having debates and civil discourse and making the best decision based upon reason, let's just shame and attack those who dare to have the audacity to espouse a different viewpoint than "the masses." Oh, and by the way, the "masses" re-elected Bush in '04 and Obama in '12...

Doesn't really speak to their expertise in governance.

[iruinedyourday]

Democracy doesn't exist if we have simple mob rule genius.

Lmao its simply called Majority rule you moron.

[Daywolf]

Neither of those are churches, they are businesses, which are NOT allowed to discriminate in the united states.
They're not your slaves, bitch. Freakin libtards. Yep, militant homosexual, eh? Figured, the way you go on. Dance down Hollywood nekid and humping one another. Then go screw with people and their children that don't really want to be around it, forcing them to bow to your lifestyle. Militant homosexuals. Disgusting.

Note: and not speaking of all gay people. Only such militants that force their crap into other peoples faces. No respect for other people what so ever. They don't refuse service to gay people, only to being forced to participate in their lifestyle. Don't trust them, ever.

[iruinedyourday]

They're not your slaves, bitch. Freakin libtards. Yep, militant homosexual, eh? Figured, the way you go on. Dance down Hollywood nekid and humping one another. Then go screw with people and their children that don't really want to be around it, forcing them to bow to your lifestyle. Militant homosexuals. Disgusting.

Note: and not speaking of all gay people. Only such militants that force their crap into other peoples faces. No respect for other people what so ever. They don't refuse service to gay people, only to being forced to participate in their lifestyle. Don't trust them, ever.

rofl you got some very real mental problems.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

They're not your slaves, bitch. Freakin libtards. Yep, militant homosexual, eh? Figured, the way you go on. Dance down Hollywood nekid and humping one another. Then go screw with people and their children that don't really want to be around it, forcing them to bow to your lifestyle. Militant homosexuals. Disgusting.

Note: and not speaking of all gay people. Only such militants that force their crap into other peoples faces. No respect for other people what so ever. They don't refuse service to gay people, only to being forced to participate in their lifestyle. Don't trust them, ever.

wut

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

He deserved to lose his job because he had an opinion that was different from the majority? How do you not understand the flaw in this? Democracy doesn't exist if we have simple mob rule genius.

The majority of Russians support Putin annexing Crimea and "Novorussiya," I guess the people that already live there and those who will die as a consequence should've had a more popular argument.

"Love truth, but pardon error." - Voltaire

And what you view as oppression isn't relevant, except in your head. You realize everyone has a different view on the subject? So let's all fight, violently, against what we think is evil in the world. Instead of having debates and civil discourse and making the best decision based upon reason, let's just shame and attack those who dare to have the audacity to espouse a different viewpoint than "the masses." Oh, and by the way, the "masses" re-elected Bush in '04 and Obama in '12...

Doesn't really speak to their expertise in governance.

So you were a Sterling supporter I take it?

[Eliseus]

What? The gay rights are the majority of people now? Obviously people who support this aren't keeping up with any politics right now. The reason the mozilla guy was ousted wasn't out of "the majority". It was out of fear. Look what the government is doing to anyone right now that opposes gay rights. On top of the media blitzes trying to portray being gay as something we should accept. That being said, it is by far not the majority, and is quiet frustrating watching Obama destroy the consitituation to give them something just to despite republicans. Basically make a big deal out of something that is nothing.

I now understand why everyone here thinks you are a fucking regard pedobob. You don't do any research on anything you say and you speak like you are some sort of god and that we should all listen when you speak. Any normal person though knows you are full of shit and just straight up stupid.

[G13]

So you were a Sterling supporter I take it?

I'm sorry was Sterling a politician

Oh wait. He was a private citizen who had his property taken away from by a bunch of fascists hiding behind race

[iruinedyourday]

What? The gay rights are the majority of people now? Obviously people who support this aren't keeping up with any politics right now. The reason the mozilla guy was ousted wasn't out of "the majority". It was out of fear. Look what the government is doing to anyone right now that opposes gay rights. On top of the media blitzes trying to portray being gay as something we should accept. That being said, it is by far not the majority, and is quiet frustrating watching Obama destroy the consitituation to give them something just to despite republicans. Basically make a big deal out of something that is nothing.

I now understand why everyone here thinks you are a fucking regard pedobob. You don't do any research on anything you say and you speak like you are some sort of god and that we should all listen when you speak. Any normal person though knows you are full of shit and just straight up stupid.

I heard that rogen makes this game just so he can RMT

[Eliseus]

I heard that rogen makes this game just so he can RMT

Cool?

[iruinedyourday]

Cool?

yea and aliens are actually running the world secretly in skin suits.

[Eliseus]

yea and aliens are actually running the world secretly in skin suits.

Nice!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

What? The gay rights are the majority of people now? Obviously people who support this aren't keeping up with any politics right now. The reason the mozilla guy was ousted wasn't out of "the majority". It was out of fear. Look what the government is doing to anyone right now that opposes gay rights. On top of the media blitzes trying to portray being gay as something we should accept.
Are you implying that being a homosexual is unacceptable?
That being said, it is by far not the majority, and is quiet frustrating watching Obama destroy the consitituation to give them something just to despite republicans. Basically make a big deal out of something that is nothing.
Basic human rights are "nothing"?

[Eliseus]

Are you implying that being a homosexual is unacceptable?

Basic human rights are "nothing"?

Basic human rights? Since forever, being with the opposite sex has been the only thing. Reproducing has been the only thing. There has never been basic human rights implied for gay rights. Reread my earlier posts where you claim you were confused and it all makes sense. Do I think it is unacceptable to be gay? Absolutely and unequivocally. We live in a country though that gives gays the right to obtain the rights they have and I 100% full understand and accept that, but the way gays go about it and the BS they spew is absurd and retarded. If you want to fuck another dude or fuck a chick, that's fine. Don't argue scientific fact that doesn't exist or guilt everyone into accepting you but at the same time try and take away everyone else's rights.

[iruinedyourday]

Basic human rights? Since forever, being with the opposite sex has been the only thing. Reproducing has been the only thing. There has never been basic human rights implied for gay rights. Reread my earlier posts where you claim you were confused and it all makes sense. Do I think it is unacceptable to be gay? Absolutely and unequivocally. We live in a country though that gives gays the right to obtain the rights they have and I 100% full understand and accept that, but the way gays go about it and the BS they spew is absurd and retarded. If you want to fuck another dude or fuck a chick, that's fine. Don't argue scientific fact that doesn't exist or guilt everyone into accepting you but at the same time try and take away everyone else's rights.

http://i.imgur.com/CSDG2ua.gif

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Basic human rights?
Yes.
Since forever, being with the opposite sex has been the only thing.
This is not correct. Rome, Egypt, Ancient Asia... Please learn a bit of history.
Reproducing has been the only thing.
This is also incorrect. Population control is a thing.
There has never been basic human rights implied for gay rights.
Tell that to the KKK, WBBC, The third reich, ISIS (the whole middle east in fact), China, Russia, Korea, most of Afriac/South America... should I continue?
Reread my earlier posts where you claim you were confused and it all makes sense. Do I think it is unacceptable to be gay? Absolutely and unequivocally.
Why?
We live in a country though that gives gays the right to obtain the rights they have and I 100% full understand and accept that, but the way gays go about it and the BS they spew is absurd and retarded. If you want to fuck another dude or fuck a chick, that's fine.
These sentences are contradictory.
Don't argue scientific fact that doesn't exist or guilt everyone into accepting you...
Do you mean the genetic link towards sexual preference?
Do you mean homo/bi-sexuality that happens in nature across all sexually reproducing species?
Chemical stimuli during gestation that can effect sexuality?
Higher % of homosexual individuals in any population that has an unbalanced female/male ratio?
but at the same time try and take away everyone else's rights.
I'm very interested in hearing about this list of rights that are being "taken away".

Good stuff. Either you're trolling or you're Ken Ham. Please answer every point of shut the fuck up. :cool:

[Eliseus]

Rome and ancient Egypt only did it to either show dominance or just because they wanted to fuck something, anything, not because it was socially accepted to be gay.

Most the countries, if not all, have severe punishments for being gay, and even in countries like china that limit the amount of children, still aren't pro-gay which you imply.

The sentences are t contradictory.

That isn't scientific fact that you are born that way, you even prove it yourself by concluding with it being and environmental issue.

The list of rights taken away, are you a joking? You can't be this dumb.

Oh and to quote you. Either you are trolling or just straight up stupid. Thank you though because you do bring me back to reality a bit and realize there are really just straight up dumb people in the world.

[iruinedyourday]

The list of rights taken away, are you a joking? You can't be this dumb.


No please, we appreciate you expecting us to not be dumb enough to comprehend how insane your list is, but we want to see how much of a lunatic you really are.

By all means, go on.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Rome and ancient Egypt only did it to either show dominance or just because they wanted to fuck something, anything, not because it was socially accepted to be gay.
English clearly isn't your first language, either that or you're a good representation of what the good ol' USA school system produces on a yearly basis.

You said "Since forever, being with the opposite sex has been the only thing." implying it didn't exist until recently, I provided you an example of over 5000 years ago where it happened, something your reply seems to agree with before you said something about social acceptability. Also interesting that you seem to know the reason 5000 year old civilizations had sex with what they had.


Most the countries, if not all, have severe punishments for being gay, and even in countries like china that limit the amount of children, still aren't pro-gay which you imply.
That's not what I implied at all. Again, your reading comprehension is terrible.
The sentences are t(oo) contradictory.
I agree
That isn't scientific fact that you are born that way,
Yes, the same way gravity isn't scientific fact. :rolleyes:
you even prove it yourself by concluding with it being and environmental issue.
So many things wrong here. First, concluding? It was my third of four examples, that's not a conclusion, learn English. Secondly hormones during gestation is one of many ways sexual preference can have a variance. Lastly, you are implying that a change during gestation does not change how you are born, I want you to think about that for a while then please realize that your line of thinking is not thinking at all.
The list of rights taken away, are you a joking? You can't be this dumb.
I didn't think you could provide any examples, thank you for confirming my theory.
Oh and to quote you. Either you are trolling or just straight up stupid. Thank you though because you do bring me back to reality a bit and realize there are really just straight up dumb people in the world.
I have a feeling you were looking in the mirror while typing that drivel.

[Eliseus]

Just because you can tell some their reading comprehension as bad, doesn't make you right. How come whenever you get stuck in your fail corner you try and derail whatever predicament you have gotten yourself into into some English/grammar argument. Is that the only scapegoat you can use to try and show there may be some intelligence in your brain? You absolutely know what people mean most the time, yet try to use it as a way to escape when you fail. For example, your first response to my previous response. You know exactly what I meant, yet try and use it to save face. I could go through the millions of posts you use and do the same thing, fortunately, I won't.

[Eliseus]

Also typing from a phone sucks.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Just because you can tell some their reading comprehension as bad, doesn't make you right. How come whenever you get stuck in your fail corner you try and derail whatever predicament you have gotten yourself into into some English/grammar argument. Is that the only scapegoat you can use to try and show there may be some intelligence in your brain? You absolutely know what people mean most the time, yet try to use it as a way to escape when you fail. For example, your first response to my previous response. You know exactly what I meant, yet try and use it to save face. I could go through the millions of posts you use and do the same thing, fortunately, I won't.

Again you make a claim and aren't backing it up. I've even explained my interpretation of your post. Others have made the same conclusions that I have. Back up your stance with facts of fuck off.

[Ratstomper]

That's one of the flaws with the two party system. Balls to the wall or nothing instead of simple option 3. For example.


Gay marriage bans are wrong no matter what way you look at it, however at the same token, forcing priests to perform marriages against the will of their belief system is also wrong. If any of these lawmakers had a lick of sense, they'd allow the individual churches to decide whether or not they would allow same-sex marriages. The issue is the politicians who have money in it one way or the other so either side has much less gain if you make that sweet middle ground.

You'll have to be more specific but either way banning any kind of weapon should be considered unconstitutional (You should be able to purchase a rocket launcher, AAA gun, Tanks, Planes etc.) and gun-free zones absolutely don't work. This is coming from a social progressive who has never owned/fired a gun mind you. ;)

I know next to nothing about the nuances of casino issues since I don't gamble but am not anti-gambling. I do know from experience with the casinos (I think Trump?) recently wanted to set up in Western Mass, that it should be up to the individual districts and by extension the local voter populace, to decide whether or not they want to allow it, no different than deciding about an amusement park, movie theater, shopping mall etc..

So who of those is being oppressive and who is being oppressed?

I would agree with those points personally, but the guy down the street who doesn't agree has just as much say in matters as we do.

[Patriam1066]

Lmao its simply called Majority rule you moron.

No it isn't. Majority rule is when an informed populace makes decisions based on facts. In 2004, the media made a bull shit "swift boat" controversy... Karl Rove destroyed John Kerry without a fight. In 2012, the same thing was done to Romney, or do you forget "the War on women"? Which is precisely my point, ass holes like you guys hijack the discourse and make it about bull shit, and as a result the entire country loses. Congratulations

[Misto]

The last few pages of this thread have been about gay rights.

Which means I can only assume Michael Brown tried to put his penis in the white officer's ass.

[Rhambuk]

The last few pages of this thread have been about gay rights.

Which means I can only assume Michael Brown tried to put his penis in the white officer's ass.

Id've shot him too if he tried to rape me in the back of my own car

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Id've shot him too if he tried to rape me in the back of my own car

Me too, but that didn't happen and is not what we are talking about.

[Dragonsblood1987]

he attacked a cop, which is why he was shot. this whole fiasco is just black people being racist a usual.


some lady with big fake nails and a red weave was saying its systemic racism, genocide, and apartheid. i guess maury wasnt on tv that day and she got bored.

[Lictor]

Big words for average Maury viewer

[Dragonsblood1987]

Big words for average Maury viewer

well al sharpton was spotted, so she was probably prompted to use big words that arent relevant. probably got a crash course in pronunciation, too.

[Daywolf]

wutWut what? You actually need to read those links and think about it. Put yourself into the situation, lets say the KKK were havin a wedding party. You are a wedding photographer and they want to hire you. But you understand that at this KKK wedding, everyone is going to wear the hoods, they will be burning a cross, doing speeches, doing whatever KKK does. You refuse on religious or moral grounds whatever, they raise a lawsuit against you, they get a judge to rule in their favor which too works for the KKK. Worse thing is, the KKK could have just went and hired someone else, but maybe in fact picked you because they knew you would object so they could sue you, or at least get someone like you to be required to be at one of their rallies... er I mean weddings working for them. But to sue you penniless nonetheless.

See it's not good enough that they are able to have weddings, but they (militant homosexuals) need to force you into it as well, to participate in it even if it goes against your race, color or religion. It's basically turning the discrimination laws against you, what protects you doesn't protect you any longer, only them by rule of insane judge.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

What are you on and can I have some?

[iruinedyourday]

Wut what? You actually need to read those links and think about it. Put yourself into the situation, lets say the KKK were havin a wedding party. You are a wedding photographer and they want to hire you. But you understand that at this KKK wedding, everyone is going to wear the hoods, they will be burning a cross, doing speeches, doing whatever KKK does. You refuse on religious or moral grounds whatever, they raise a lawsuit against you, they get a judge to rule in their favor which too works for the KKK. Worse thing is, the KKK could have just went and hired someone else, but maybe in fact picked you because they knew you would object so they could sue you, or at least get someone like you to be required to be at one of their rallies... er I mean weddings working for them. But to sue you penniless nonetheless.

See it's not good enough that they are able to have weddings, but they (militant homosexuals) need to force you into it as well, to participate in it even if it goes against your race, color or religion. It's basically turning the discrimination laws against you, what protects you doesn't protect you any longer, only them by rule of insane judge.

Its called freedom, welcome to america dip shit.

http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery-for-discrimination/

[Daywolf]

Me too, but that didn't happen and is not what we are talking about.
An assault, sure that is what we are talking about. He assaulted the cop and ran when he didn't get the upper hand. Then charged back at him with intent to most likely murder the cop. So he got shot down like a mad dog, exactly what I would have done, probably what most anyone would do.

[iruinedyourday]

An assault, sure that is what we are talking about. He assaulted the cop and ran when he didn't get the upper hand. Then charged back at him with intent to most likely murder the cop. So he got shot down like a mad dog, exactly what I would have done, probably what most anyone would do.

you would have assaulted the cop?

PS you don't know that he assaulted the cop, you just take a white cops word over a black persons. Scumbag.

[Daywolf]

Its called freedom, welcome to america dip shit.Shine up your jackboots lately? That's America, dumbass.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Its called freedom, welcome to america dip shit.

That's not freedom; it's a policy that allows private citizens to use the law as a cudgel to force their beliefs on others.

[iruinedyourday]

That's not freedom; it's a policy that allows private citizens to use the law as a cudgel to force their beliefs on others.

No, it is a law that prevents businesses from discriminating against others because of either of their beliefs...

Its just that the road goes both ways, you cant have one thing with out the other.

It is called mother fucking freedom.

[Frieza_Prexus]

No, it is a law that prevents businesses from discriminating against others because of either of their beliefs...

Its just that the road goes both ways, you cant have one thing with out the other.

It is called mother fucking freedom.

Yet, such law forces individuals to conduct speech and personal support of something they might find abhorrent. This is compelled speech, and it is completely contrary to the very notion of free speech.

Whatever the intent behind these laws might be, they are inevitably used as a bludgeon to silence dissent delegitimize political opponents.

[myriverse]

Yet, such law forces individuals to conduct speech and personal support of something they might find abhorrent. This is compelled speech, and it is completely contrary to the very notion of free speech.

Whatever the intent behind these laws might be, they are inevitably used as a bludgeon to silence dissent delegitimize political opponents.
Wrong.

You're very free to find something abhorrent.

You're not free to act on that, because they destroys freedom.

[myriverse]

they=that

[Glenzig]

Wrong.

You're very free to find something abhorrent.

You're not free to act on that, because they destroys freedom.

But what is defined as "acting on that"?

[Frieza_Prexus]

You're not free to act on that, because they destroys freedom.

Define "destroys freedom".

Compelling a person to silence or speech is violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court clearly established this in Wooley v. Maynard and expanded it in Hurley (stating that protection against compelled speech "applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid").

The actual law aside, this discussion is also about what makes good policy. It is bad policy to have a law where people can forum shop until they find someone they disagree with and sue them over that mere difference of opinion all because they want to silence dissent. The abusiveness of such a system is blindingly obvious. Good policy is about preventing harm. A merchant refusing service does no harm. It is exactly as if the customer had never found that vendor in the first place. Yet, with these laws in place the merchant is forced to engage in activity and speech that he finds objectionable. These policies create harm and remove rights.

Compelled speech is unjust and contrary to the deepest constitutional, moral, and ethical principles of America.

[iruinedyourday]

Define "destroys freedom".

Compelling a person to silence or speech is violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court clearly established this in Wooley v. Maynard and expanded it in Hurley (stating that protection against compelled speech "applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid").

The actual law aside, this discussion is also about what makes good policy. It is bad policy to have a law where people can forum shop until they find someone they disagree with and sue them over that mere difference of opinion all because they want to silence dissent. The abusiveness of such a system is blindingly obvious. Good policy is about preventing harm. A merchant refusing service does no harm. It is exactly as if the customer had never found that vendor in the first place. Yet, with these laws in place the merchant is forced to engage in activity and speech that he finds objectionable. These policies create harm and remove rights.

Compelled speech is unjust and contrary to the deepest constitutional, moral, and ethical principles of America.

Its not like these are new laws. And we have a very successful track record with lawsuits in the united states over basic freedoms. Its proven to both be an efficient and a fair system.

Gays being able to exorcise their rights the say way their non gay friends do, is not all of the sudden exploiting the system.

Someone who thinks that they're loosing their freedom because they want to be a racist prick to a customer because of the color of the customers skin or sexual orientation, I am happy are shut down in a court and forced to, make a cake.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Its not like these are new laws.

Many of these laws are quite new, and the discussion is partly about whether or not more should be created.

Gays being able to exorcise their rights the say way their non gay friends do, is not all of the sudden exploiting the system.

No one is preventing anyone from doing anything. The groups in question are absolutely free to pursue their own desires just as the merchants should be free to pursue their own desires. I find it interesting that the Colorado bakery has since shut down as a result of the law suit. If the goal of the suit was to acquire cake and prevent harm, it failed since the supplier in question was shuttered. How has the closure done anything for the plaintiff's "harm"?

Someone who thinks that they're loosing their freedom because they want to be a racist prick

The freedom of association is a deeply rooted part of American constitutional jurisprudence. Compelling speech is absolutely the loss of a right.

to a customer because of the color of the customers skin or sexual orientation

Race is a constitutionally protected class. Sexual orientation is not a protected class and is, therefore, not subject to strict scrutiny. It instead receives rational basis review. The legal standards on discrimination between race and orientation are extremely high. The two cannot be used interchangeably when talking about American legal policy.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

you would have assaulted the cop?

PS you don't know that he assaulted the cop, you just take a white cops word over a black persons. Scumbag.
Why are you bringing race into this again?
Yet, such law forces individuals to conduct speech and personal support of something they might find abhorrent. This is compelled speech, and it is completely contrary to the very notion of free speech.

Whatever the intent behind these laws might be, they are inevitably used as a bludgeon to silence dissent delegitimize political opponents.
Incorrect. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from the consequences of your words.
Race is a constitutionally protected class. Sexual orientation is not a protected class and is, therefore, not subject to strict scrutiny. It instead receives rational basis review. The legal standards on discrimination between race and orientation are extremely high. The two cannot be used interchangeably when talking about American legal policy.

This is simply not true. Kill a black man because he's black: Hate crime. Kill a gay man because he's gay: Hate crime.

[Glenzig]

This is simply not true. Kill a black man because he's black: Hate crime. Kill a gay man because he's gay: Hate crime.

Hmmm...

This here is why religion is a disease and these "people" should be wiped out the same way rabid animals are destroyed before they can cause more damage.

Hate crime?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Incorrect. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from the consequences of your words.

I never said it was. Free speech is, however, free from government reprisal. That's the whole reason we HAVE the first amendment. That is the very definition of free speech. If people want to picket a bakery because they were denied service, that is their right. People may certainly take private action to bring forth consequence, but using the law to do so is another matter entirely and allowing such a thing is the essence of poor policy.

This is simply not true. Kill a black man because he's black: Hate crime. Kill a gay man because he's gay: Hate crime.

Without commenting on the propriety, legal or otherwise, of hate crime laws, I am talking specifically about the standards used when parsing discrimination by the Supreme Court. Some specific laws may treat race and orientation as the same for the purpose of that specific law. However, Constitutional law regards the two differently and there is a massive gulf between the two from a legal standpoint.

[iruinedyourday]

Many of these laws are quite new, and the discussion is partly about whether or not more should be created.

No one is preventing anyone from doing anything. The groups in question are absolutely free to pursue their own desires just as the merchants should be free to pursue their own desires. I find it interesting that the Colorado bakery has since shut down as a result of the law suit. If the goal of the suit was to acquire cake and prevent harm, it failed since the supplier in question was shuttered. How has the closure done anything for the plaintiff's "harm"?

The freedom of association is a deeply rooted part of American constitutional jurisprudence. Compelling speech is absolutely the loss of a right.

Race is a constitutionally protected class. Sexual orientation is not a protected class and is, therefore, not subject to strict scrutiny. It instead receives rational basis review. The legal standards on discrimination between race and orientation are extremely high. The two cannot be used interchangeably when talking about American legal policy.

To be honest, I don't even know where you stand. Or what it is you're looking for.

But if you think a merchant can discriminate, you're wrong. They cant. They'll loose bro. If you think that's Nazi fascism, then you just being cray cray.

If some bigot lost their bakery because they were being shitty to customers am I supposed to fucking qq over that? I could give a fuck. Same way I would if a bakery shut down because it didn't clean up its kitchen and was filthy. Its just another shitty business that failed because its owners were idiots.

Hey this is america, some business's can say 'i hate gays' and they'll get thousands of Christians to come to their restaurant & petition to have a chick fil a holiday. Some others will say fuck that business and stop using their product.

[Patriam1066]

Incorrect. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from the consequences of your words.



Why would you want people to be fearful of attack if they speak their mind?

A democracy cannot survive when you attack someone for having a different opinion than yourself. Why can't you connect the dots between what you're saying and what people in ISIS or in the IRGC say? You think there should be consequences for people possessing a contrary opinion to yourself? You better hope that people in power never have the ability to turn that against you.......

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I saw this while I was out and wanted to make a special breakdown for the plethora of wrongs in this post.

lets say the KKK were havin a wedding party.
Ok so we have established that in this situation that the client is a hate group. Go on...
You are a wedding photographer and they want to hire you.
They would not. Ever. However let's say for the sake of argument that they somehow don't know that the photographer is a homosexual.
But you understand that at this KKK wedding, everyone is going to wear the hoods, they will be burning a cross, doing speeches, doing whatever KKK does.
We've already established that they are a hate group, this part is redundant.
You refuse on religious or moral grounds whatever
This would never happen. In reality the photographer would realize what's up, notify the client that they were gay and the client not wanting to be shunned from their own organization would go find another photographer, every, single, time.
they raise a lawsuit against you, they get a judge to rule in their favor which too works for the KKK.
Are you saying that ruling in favor works for the KKK (this should go unsaid) or that the Judge is a member of the KKK? If it's the former, this part of your post is senseless, if it's the latter then you are simply wrong because it's illegal for a judge to be associated in any way with a special interest group such as the KKK.
Worse thing is, the KKK could have just went and hired someone else, but maybe in fact picked you because they knew you would object so they could sue you, or at least get someone like you to be required to be at one of their rallies... er I mean weddings working for them. But to sue you penniless nonetheless.
They would have considering the entire context of your example is ass-backwards wrong in nearly every conceivable way.

Now we get to the (by some miracle) even dumber shit...
See it's not good enough that they are able to have weddings
Actually they aren't and therein lies the problem.
but they (militant homosexuals)
Define "Militant" please.
need to force you into it as well
Force you into what? They want to have sex with you even though you are heterosexual? They want to convert you? No. Even the faggiest flaming faggot does not want you to be gay, they want to be accepted as a human being. No more, no less.
to participate in it even if it goes against your race, color or religion.
Participate in what again? Wait, being born into a certain race (color? lol) determines a value/belief system? Are you insane?

Religion? If your faith pushes you to treat other human beings as less than human, it's a bad/immoral faith. If you willingly go along with such a faith you are either misled or simply a terrible person, there's no way around either.
It's basically turning the discrimination laws against you, what protects you doesn't protect you any longer, only them by rule of insane judge.
This end part doesn't even make sense from a language standpoint so I can't even address it.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Hmmm...



Hate crime?

Yes. I believe "takes one to know one" is accurate. Never said I wasn't a black pot. ;)

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I never said it was. Free speech is, however, free from government reprisal. That's the whole reason we HAVE the first amendment. That is the very definition of free speech. If people want to picket a bakery because they were denied service, that is their right. People may certainly take private action to bring forth consequence, but using the law to do so is another matter entirely and allowing such a thing is the essence of poor policy.

I get what you are trying to say here. I think it's simply a matter of opinion as I believe that it's equally discriminatory for a business run by a homosexual to refuse a KKK member service (let's assume they aren't demonstrating or harassing anyone) as a "good christian" would be to refuse a homosexual couple (and no, holding hands with your partner is not flaunting a lifestyle this isn't a response to you but the thread in general).

Without commenting on the propriety, legal or otherwise, of hate crime laws, I am talking specifically about the standards used when parsing discrimination by the Supreme Court. Some specific laws may treat race and orientation as the same for the purpose of that specific law. However, Constitutional law regards the two differently and there is a massive gulf between the two from a legal standpoint.

Ah I see you mean in a strict overall sense of the law. I'd close by simply saying that that's why the constitution has the ability to be amended to change with the times and that "massive gulf" needs closed as if it never existed in the first place.

[Glenzig]

Yes. I believe "takes one to know one" is accurate. Never said I wasn't a black pot. ;)

So you know your a bigot against religion, Muslims especially, but that's ok because you know you're wrong?

[Frieza_Prexus]

I don't even know where you stand. Or what it is you're looking for.

You stated, in no uncertain terms, that private citizens should be forced to engage in speech they find objectionable. I am posting to state that such a thing is not only bad policy, but that it is contrary to every constitutional, moral, and ethical standard that defines America.

But if you think a merchant can discriminate, you're wrong. They cant. They'll loose bro. If you think that's Nazi fascism, then you just being cray cray.

Merchants absolutely can discriminate. We do it all the time. Appearance, actions, finances, sexual orientation, etc. It happens all the time, and it is completely legal. If a gay person just wants a hamburger and is denied service because of that, yes it makes the merchant an asshole. But it is legal. Also, please do not make the Nazi comparison and put those words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything of the such, and would appreciate it if I did not have a Godwin'd thread attributed to me.

If some bigot lost their bakery because they were being shitty to customers am I supposed to fucking qq over that? I could give a fuck.

The outrage isn't because a business failed. It's because people were able to use the law as a weapon thereby setting an extremely poor precedent. Think about the consequences when you allow private citizens to use the law to silence dissenting speech. It is absolutely chilling.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

So you know your a bigot against religion, Muslims especially, but that's ok because you know you're wrong?

I don't think "right" or "wrong" are good words to qualify here. I'd like to think that when looking at facts/statistics I'm justified in my stance. I'm only bigoted against Abrahamic peoples and the south and thugs (of all colors/creeds) because I'm realistic. Let's try not to concentrate on the buzzwords though. :)

[mtb tripper]

I don't think "right" or "wrong" are good words to qualify here. I'd like to think that when looking at facts/statistics I'm justified in my stance. I'm only bigoted against Abrahamic peoples and the south and thugs (of all colors/creeds) because I'm realistic. Let's try not to concentrate on the buzzwords though. :)

you deserve to be eternally raped in an artificial hell

[iruinedyourday]

You stated, in no uncertain terms, that private citizens should be forced to engage in speech they find objectionable. I am posting to state that such a thing is not only bad policy, but that it is contrary to every constitutional, moral, and ethical standard that defines America.

The outrage isn't because a business failed. It's because people were able to use the law as a weapon thereby setting an extremely poor precedent. Think about the consequences when you allow private citizens to use the law to silence dissenting speech. It is absolutely chilling.

I'm sorry I just don't know what you mean in the fist paragraph. I think you are inserting some of your fears into something I said earlier.

second I have no fear that if someone was trying to use the laws for evil purposes that courts would be able to make sure every thing was on the up and up and that the sky isn't falling.

If you are worried about freedom, you should focus your energy on corrupt militaristic police.

[Glenzig]

I don't think "right" or "wrong" are good words to qualify here. I'd like to think that when looking at facts/statistics I'm justified in my stance. I'm only bigoted against Abrahamic peoples and the south and thugs (of all colors/creeds) because I'm realistic. Let's try not to concentrate on the buzzwords though. :)

People can find "facts" and "statistics" for any form of bigotry though. If people didn't feel justified in their hate they wouldn't continue hating. I mean someone could justify only being bigoted against Mexicans because "they took our herbs", but that's just not a justification to hate an entire race of people.

[Frieza_Prexus]

I'm sorry I just don't know what you mean in the fist paragraph. I think you are inserting some of your fears into something I said earlier.

Look, I know you're trolling me with the internet equivalent of a "sphincter say's what?", but I'll bite anyways.

You said that it is a good idea to force people engage in private actions they find objectionable. EX: make a cake and support a wedding you find morally wrong. This is called "compelled speech," and it is grossly unconstitutional. You called this "freedom." I am here because that is anything but freedom. It's a bad idea through and through and it cuts against our deepest legal traditions.

[mtb tripper]

I'll bite anyways.

[Eliseus]

I don't think "right" or "wrong" are good words to qualify here. I'd like to think that when looking at facts/statistics I'm justified in my stance. I'm only bigoted against Abrahamic peoples and the south and thugs (of all colors/creeds) because I'm realistic. Let's try not to concentrate on the buzzwords though. :)

You don't have any facts. You claim to you refute peoples points, but you don't, then claim you are right without giving any reasons, then tell people to shut up unless they prove something they already did prove, or just think you are dumb. You then claim that several people are on your side, but they aren't.

[Patriam1066]

I don't think "right" or "wrong" are good words to qualify here. I'd like to think that when looking at facts/statistics I'm justified in my stance. I'm only bigoted against Abrahamic peoples and the south and thugs (of all colors/creeds) because I'm realistic. Let's try not to concentrate on the buzzwords though. :)

You hate abrahamic people, the south, and thugs?

So your prototypical evil is T.I. or Ludacris?

[Patriam1066]

I don't think "right" or "wrong" are good words to qualify here. I'd like to think that when looking at facts/statistics I'm justified in my stance. I'm only bigoted against Abrahamic peoples and the south and thugs (of all colors/creeds) because I'm realistic. Let's try not to concentrate on the buzzwords though. :)

Oh and you're against bigotry but pro bigotry, makes a ton of sense.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

you deserve to be eternally raped in an artificial hell
If I were to be honest I'd say that I care about Glenzig, Rellapse and even Alarti/Tiggles' opinion of me more than I care about yours you drugged up hippy.
People can find "facts" and "statistics" for any form of bigotry though. If people didn't feel justified in their hate they wouldn't continue hating. I mean someone could justify only being bigoted against Mexicans because "they took our herbs", but that's just not a justification to hate an entire race of people.

Hate the sin not the sinner. This translates to Hate the group not the individuals within the group (hey look, whitey and cops fit that description... So does Hate the religion not the individual practitioners. Hate the race, not individuals of the race. ;)

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You don't have any facts. You claim to you refute peoples points, but you don't, then claim you are right without giving any reasons, then tell people to shut up unless they prove something they already did prove, or just think you are dumb. You then claim that several people are on your side, but they aren't.

In English please?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You hate abrahamic people, the south, and thugs?

So your prototypical evil is T.I. or Ludacris?
Texas Instruments?
Oh and you're against bigotry but pro bigotry, makes a ton of sense.

Fight fire with fire. It's kind of like when the US joined WWII to end it.

[Patriam1066]

Texas Instruments?


Fight fire with fire. It's kind of like when the US joined WWII to end it.

The US joined WWII because of Pearl Harbor numbnutz, and you don't know T.I.? Dat ***** from ATL? Shyit

[iruinedyourday]

Look, I know you're trolling me with the internet equivalent of a "sphincter say's what?", but I'll bite anyways.

You said that it is a good idea to force people engage in private actions they find objectionable. EX: make a cake and support a wedding you find morally wrong. This is called "compelled speech," and it is grossly unconstitutional. You called this "freedom." I am here because that is anything but freedom. It's a bad idea through and through and it cuts against our deepest legal traditions.

heh nah, I'm not trying to bate you.

I think you are misconstruing what it is that I was saying which is fine but let me try to clarify, the laws are designed so that if you're a business vs a church, you are not allowed to discriminate. Sure people do it often, but no its not legal and I am all for that. Churches can play the freedom of religion card, and that's fine, that's why were all here in the first place. But a business cannot.

Obviously some situations will come up, and be totally bullshit sure.. but in general it seems that ALL of those situations revolve around a black person or a gay, or a minority group having their rights stripped from them, as opposed to some christian that hates a group of people and they feel oppressed because they want to discriminate freely. O

[iruinedyourday]

Texas Instruments?

No he thinks that rapper T.I. and Ludacris are thugs. Which is pretty racist...

[Patriam1066]

No he thinks that rapper T.I. and Ludacris are thugs. Which is pretty racist...

Haha they call themselves thugs, and you didn't pick up on the fact that all of those comments were me being facetious? lol

[Frieza_Prexus]

but no its not legal

There are (as of my last off-the-cuff count) three jurisdictions where the law "allows" compelled speech as it happened in the bakery case: Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington State. There is still a massive constitutional issue with those laws, and they have yet to go before the Supreme Court. Yes, it is still extremely legal in the vast majority of the U.S. and sexual orientation is not a federally protected class for situations such as this.

minority group having their rights stripped from them

Denial of service is not stripping rights. You have no right to be guaranteed service by private individuals. This is deeply entrenched in our law; contract law is rife with situations that forbid specific performance of a contract because it would amount to compelled speech or involuntary servitude.

In the case of the bakery, there were dozens of alternatives. The couple lost nothing by being denied service. Their feelings were hurt, and that's it. In fact, the end result of the case was exactly the same as if they had been refused service without suing or had never found the bakery. The bakery closed down without giving them a cake!

[Toofliss]

To be honest, I don't even know where you stand. Or what it is you're looking for.

But if you think a merchant can discriminate, you're wrong. They cant. They'll loose bro. If you think that's Nazi fascism, then you just being cray cray.

If some bigot lost their bakery because they were being shitty to customers am I supposed to fucking qq over that? I could give a fuck. Same way I would if a bakery shut down because it didn't clean up its kitchen and was filthy. Its just another shitty business that failed because its owners were idiots.

Hey this is america, some business's can say 'i hate gays' and they'll get thousands of Christians to come to their restaurant & petition to have a chick fil a holiday. Some others will say fuck that business and stop using their product.

I think you've missed the point here. Should you QQ that a bakery closed down, one that was refusing to bake cake's for homosexual marriages? No, that's nonsense.

What I think is equally as crazy is the government forcing me to do something I disagree with. Especially if I'm not receiving tax free status, government funding, etc.

Should you QQ at the government forcing someone to do something against their beliefs? Absolutely. I can only imagine the outrage if/when the pendulum swings the other way. Do you think government would force an atheist to bake me a cake that says "Jesus is the one and only Savior"? Can you imagine the outrage?

He should have his right to say, "no thanks, that's really not something I would like to do". At which point I should shop/find someone else to vote for with my dollars.

[iruinedyourday]

There are (as of my last off-the-cuff count) three jurisdictions where the law "allows" compelled speech as it happened in the bakery case: Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington State. There is still a massive constitutional issue with those laws, and they have yet to go before the Supreme Court. Yes, it is still extremely legal in the vast majority of the U.S. and sexual orientation is not a federally protected class for situations such as this.

Denial of service is not stripping rights. You have no right to be guaranteed service by private individuals. This is deeply entrenched in our law; contract law is rife with situations that forbid specific performance of a contract because it would amount to compelled speech or involuntary servitude.

In the case of the bakery, there were dozens of alternatives. The couple lost nothing by being denied service. Their feelings were hurt, and that's it. In fact, the end result of the case was exactly the same as if they had been refused service without suing or had never found the bakery. The bakery closed down without giving them a cake!

I dono man I cant just go on and on with you about this.. if you think it sucks for the white Christians that they got a taste of what its like to have a bunch of people treat them like shit because of their faith or something they think they fundamentally cant change the maybe they might know what it feels like to be gay. Fuck em... Good beats evil.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

I still don't really know what you're talking about with compelled speech ill admit, you have to be more clear. But I think you're wasting your energy fighting for shit that doesn't need fighting for. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Eliseus]

In English please?

lawls

[Glenzig]

If I were to be honest I'd say that I care about Glenzig, Rellapse and even Alarti/Tiggles' opinion of me more than I care about yours you drugged up hippy.


Hate the sin not the sinner. This translates to Hate the group not the individuals within the group (hey look, whitey and cops fit that description... So does Hate the religion not the individual practitioners. Hate the race, not individuals of the race. ;)

The only thing this post explains is that you have no ability to form a reasonable coherent thought.

[Aviann]

Massive retardism.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

The only thing this post explains is that you have no ability to form a reasonable coherent thought.

Yeahok.gif

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

It's not fun when your opponents can't even form coherent arguments. Pick it up slackers.

[Frieza_Prexus]

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Notice that sexual orientation is NOT listed as a protected class of the civil rights act. You repeatedly mention that this is "illegal" without giving any citation. It is NOT illegal in the vast majority of the U.S., and the laws in Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington are arguably (quite strongly) unconstitutional.

I still don't really know what you're talking about with compelled speech ill admit, you have to be more clear.

Speech is not just what comes out of your mouth. It's what you do, it's the dollars you spend, it's the actions you take, the votes you cast, and the things you do NOT say or do. Compelled speech is where the government forces an individual to engage in a form of speech. Baking a cake for a celebration is speech, and if you find that celebration objectionable yet are forced to "speak in support" of it, that is compelled speech.

This isn't about "white Christians" as you put it. (Put the race card away please.) it's about the precedent that it sets. Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

Spent dollars are speech, voting is speech, and NOT donating to a particular cause is speech. The policies you're cheering on would allow the government to tell you what to do with your dollars, votes, and anything else.

That is incredibly chilling.

[Aviann]

It's not fun when your opponents can't even form coherent arguments. Pick it up slackers.

Maybe if someone makes a comparison with a traumatic moment in your life, you will better understand the point being made... Here we go.

Remember in high school when nobody talked to you and you sat in the corner alone for lunch everyday?

Well it's probably because you are a wannabe bronie, you wear dresses, and you are straight up fucking weird. Also in most cases, even if you are defending equality, you still shit up your posts with a lack of respect and a know-it-all attitude.

Why would anyone want to hold conversation or argument with you for longer than a page or two, like, ever? lol

[iruinedyourday]

Notice that sexual orientation is NOT listed as a protected class of the civil rights act. You repeatedly mention that this is "illegal" without giving any citation. It is NOT illegal in the vast majority of the U.S., and the laws in Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington are arguably (quite strongly) unconstitutional.



Speech is not just what comes out of your mouth. It's what you do, it's the dollars you spend, it's the actions you take, the votes you cast, and the things you do NOT say or do. Compelled speech is where the government forces an individual to engage in a form of speech. Baking a cake for a celebration is speech, and if you find that celebration objectionable yet are forced to "speak in support" of it, that is compelled speech.

This isn't about "white Christians" as you put it. (Put the race card away please.) it's about the precedent that it sets. Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

Spent dollars are speech, voting is speech, and NOT donating to a particular cause is speech. The policies you're cheering on would allow the government to tell you what to do with your dollars, votes, and anything else.

That is incredibly chilling.

I'm sure someone said the same thig about being forces to allow blacks to use the same bathrooms as whites 40 years ago.

Basically your just trying to imagine a world where civil rights is not constantly moving forward for a free and equal place for all people.

Hate to break it to you but your just an old man in a new world.

In other words you trippin if you think that any of that is negative. if your looking for chilling shit look to the police department in ferguson. You got a lot worse shit happening there.

[Ephirith]

Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

But they already do that with race. You literally have to bake that cake for a black, even if you don't want to. Forcing them to bake that cake for a homo isn't setting some wild new precedent, it's just adding a protected class to a precedent that already exists.

Just face it Frieza, you're going to have to live in a world where we treat homos like human beings.

[capco]

Can we just talk about cakes from now on?

[Frieza_Prexus]

I'm sure someone said the same thig about being forces to allow blacks to use the same bathrooms as whites 40 years ago.

Basically your just trying to imagine a world where civil rights is not constantly moving forward for a free and equal place for all people.

Hate to break it to you but your just an old man in a new world.

In other words you trippin if you think that any of that is negative. if your looking for chilling shit look to the police department in ferguson. You got a lot worse shit happening there.

You are still completely missing the point. This is not about civil rights for gays, or any other group. This is about freedom of association. The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Being a specific color is not equivalent to practicing a specific action. They are entirely different. Your continued attempts to compare the two are growing old. They are not the same.

I cannot help but notice you have completely ignored the idea of compelled speech when I explained it to you. I take it by your omission, which is a form of speech, that you are telling me that you are fine with the government telling people how to vote, or which charities they should donate to, or which businesses they should not shop at? If this sounds dystopian that's because it is. You are literally defining a police state.

You're okay with it, and that scares the hell out of me.

[Ephirith]

The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

Do you think it would be okay for him to refuse service to an interracial couple because he disagrees with interracial marriage? You could make the same argument-- he did not refuse service because the groom was black. He refused service because he doesn't think blacks should marry whites. His only issue was the class + the celebration, not necessarily the class itself, right?

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

[iruinedyourday]

You are still completely missing the point. This is not about civil rights for gays, or any other group. This is about freedom of association. The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Being a specific color is not equivalent to practicing a specific action. They are entirely different. Your continued attempts to compare the two are growing old. They are not the same.

I cannot help but notice you have completely ignored the idea of compelled speech when I explained it to you. I take it by your omission, which is a form of speech, that you are telling me that you are fine with the government telling people how to vote, or which charities they should donate to, or which businesses they should not shop at? If this sounds dystopian that's because it is. You are literally defining a police state.

You're okay with it, and that scares the hell out of me.

look man, nobody shut down the fucking baker, they closed down becuse the community boycotted them for being assholes.

Be an asshole, you loose your business... its fucking capitalism... were going around in fricken' circles here dude.

Like my EC thread I'm sure there are a couple racist homaphobes that wont buy my spells but whatever, idc.

Also dude, your compelled speech shit that Ive asked you like 3 times to explain more clearly, I don't understand the words that are comin out of your mouth.

The only thing you should take from my omission is that I have no clue what the hell you're talking about and I don't care enough to try to google it to figure it out.

Seriously ask yourself, after our conversation do you really think I'm ok with the government telling people how to vote? I mean ffs if that's where we are after all this then we have REALLY BEEN wasting our time and we should end this immediately.

[Toofliss]

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

Do you think it would be okay for him to refuse service to an interracial couple because he disagrees with interracial marriage? You could make the same argument-- he did not refuse service because the groom was black. He refused service because he doesn't think blacks should marry whites. His only issue was the class + the celebration, not necessarily the class itself, right?

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

Do you think he would have refused to bake them a birthday cake for someone? He didn't have an issue with the person, but he did not want to support gay marriage.

If I went into a copy center owned by a gay man/woman and proceeded to request that they make up 500 signs that said "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and the clerk refused to make them -- would you then be ok with him being forced to have the signs printed up for me?

You can't discriminate after all and you can be forced to print up whatever I ask(make) you to do. I think it's a scary idea that they could be compelled to do it.

[iruinedyourday]

Do you think he would have refused to bake them a birthday cake for someone? He didn't have an issue with the person, but he did not want to support gay marriage.

If I went into a copy center owned by a gay man/woman and proceeded to request that they make up 500 signs that said "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and the clerk refused to make them -- would you then be ok with him being forced to have the signs printed up for me?

You can't discriminate after all and you can be forced to print up whatever I ask(make) you to do. I think it's a scary idea that they could be compelled to do it.

guys, reality called and said the rights of Americans are under WAY more duress in Ferguson than at the fucking stupid bakery and the imaginary Kinkos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbR824FKpU

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Maybe if someone makes a comparison with a traumatic moment in your life, you will better understand the point being made... Here we go.

Remember in high school when nobody talked to you and you sat in the corner alone for lunch everyday?

Well it's probably because you are a wannabe bronie, you wear dresses, and you are straight up fucking weird. Also in most cases, even if you are defending equality, you still shit up your posts with a lack of respect and a know-it-all attitude.

Why would anyone want to hold conversation or argument with you for longer than a page or two, like, ever? lol

Sounds like you have another issue. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Projection)

look man, nobody shut down the fucking baker, they closed down becuse the community boycotted them for being assholes.

Be an asshole, you loose your business... its fucking capitalism... were going around in fricken' circles here dude.

Like my EC thread I'm sure there are a couple racist homaphobes that wont buy my spells but whatever, idc.

Also dude, your compelled speech shit that Ive asked you like 3 times to explain more clearly, I don't understand the words that are comin out of your mouth.

The only thing you should take from my omission is that I have no clue what the hell you're talking about and I don't care enough to try to google it to figure it out.

Seriously ask yourself, after our conversation do you really think I'm ok with the government telling people how to vote? I mean ffs if that's where we are after all this then we have REALLY BEEN wasting our time and we should end this immediately.

You don't care enough to type "compelled speech" into google but you care enough to write several paragraphs about why you don't care about typing "compelled speech" into google. Good job. :rolleyes:

[radditsu]

Shut up you white idiots.

[iruinedyourday]

You don't care enough to type "compelled speech" into google but you care enough to write several paragraphs about why you don't care about typing "compelled speech" into google. Good job. :rolleyes:

If someone is screaming at me about something without trying to explain it to me while simultaneously chastising me about it and saying I want the government to force people what to vote for - over a conversation about civil rights, all while I ask him to be more clear... then yea I don't feel compelled to try to understand the a-hole on my own.

good for you for trying to be a douche bag enemy of everyone, yet again kaga.

[Eliseus]

As more news come to light in this case, this guy definitely deserved to be shot. I would actually think there was something wrong with the cop if he didn't shoot.

PS, pedobob is still full of shit and stupid.

[iruinedyourday]

I have little doubt that any of you that are happy the cops shot someone will ever change your position, no matter what happens.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

Should the baker be forced to make a cake for a man celebrating his infidelity?

Laws are force and they should only be used when necessary. Anti-miscegenation laws existed, and the general political climate created a situation that was absolutely untenable for minorities, and so the law stepped in. The consequence of that law is that people lost the right to refuse service on the basis of a protected class. Imagine that there was no racism in the 60's. Imagine if only 1 out of 10,000 merchants would not provide services to any of the protected classes. Would the civil rights act be necessary? Laws are about striking a balance. Unpopular speech must be protected the most precisely because it is unpopular. It is only when that unpopular speech causes real problems whose harm is greater than the harm of eliminating that speech should the law be passed.

Additionally, we're not talking about vital services such as food, housing, and medicine which is largely what drove the conversations vis a vis denial of service because the institutions denying the service were often the only providers available effectively shutting minorities out of those essentials. We're talking about non-essentials like wedding photography and cakes. This is a huge difference in scale, and law and policy are unwieldy tools. Unintended consequences are always afoot, and the hammer doesn't need to be pulled out because a few people are denied cakes.

Morally, most people would believe it's wrong to refuse service on the basis of interracial marriage, and it is also illegal. Anti-miscegenation today is a legal, moral, and ethical aberration. Refusing service to a gay marriage (or celebration of infidelity, or an abortion, or whatever hotbutton issue), however, is not a moral or ethical aberration in our time and place. It is a moral norm. Therein lies the difference.

if someone is screaming at me about something without trying to explain it to me while simultaneously chastising me about it and saying I want the government to force people what to vote for - over a conversation about civil rights, all while I ask him to be more clear

I've explained it to you several times. You want to talk about government policy and the incredibly nuanced field of constitutional law, yet you can't even bother to do five minutes of cursory research? I've done more than my part to break the concept down for you. If you can't understand the idea that speech is more than words, then you have no business discussing politics much less the practice of constitutional law.

[Ephirith]

Do you think he would have refused to bake them a birthday cake for someone? He didn't have an issue with the person, but he did not want to support gay marriage.

If I went into a copy center owned by a gay man/woman and proceeded to request that they make up 500 signs that said "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and the clerk refused to make them -- would you then be ok with him being forced to have the signs printed up for me?

You can't discriminate after all and you can be forced to print up whatever I ask(make) you to do. I think it's a scary idea that they could be compelled to do it.

I would be okay forcing them to print those signs if it were required by the Civil Rights Act, but I doubt refusal in this circumstance would be discrimination on basis of religion. The copy center finds the speech being printed objectionable, not the religious status of the client.

Turning away a customer because they are Christian = Illegal

Turning away a customer because they want you to print Christian-themed signs you find offensive = Not Illegal.

In the case of the bakery cake, you are turning away the customer specifically because they are gay. Here's why:

When you're making hundreds of other cakes for hundreds of other couples, I don't think it would be difficult to prove that they were being denied because of their status as gays.

The copy center, on the other hand, is not making hundreds of other aggressive, offensive signs for hundreds of other clients. They'd likely also refuse to make signs that say "****** faggots burn in hell" or "All white people should be fucked in their puckered assholes". And they would probably be within the law to do so.

[iruinedyourday]

I've explained it to you several times. You want to talk about government policy and the incredibly nuanced field of constitutional law, yet you can't even bother to do five minutes of cursory research? I've done more than my part to break the concept down for you. If you can't understand the idea that speech is more than words, then you have no business discussing politics much less the practice of constitutional law.

I admitted ignorance on the subject anyway, I've lost interest, good luck to you in all your future endevors!

also this is what all cops should have and a chief should loose his job if it turns out the cameras were 'in a box' when a shooting takes place.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244

[Toofliss]

I would be okay forcing them to print those signs if it were required by the Civil Rights Act, but I doubt refusal in this circumstance would be discrimination on basis of religion. The copy center finds the speech being printed objectionable, not the religious status of the client.

Turning away a customer because they are Christian = Illegal

Turning away a customer because they want you to print Christian-themed signs you find offensive = Not Illegal.

In the case of the bakery cake, you are turning away the customer specifically because they are gay. Here's why:

When you're making hundreds of other cakes for hundreds of other couples, I don't think it would be difficult to prove that they were being denied because of their status as gays.

The copy center, on the other hand, is not making hundreds of other aggressive, offensive signs for hundreds of other clients. They'd likely also refuse to make signs that say "****** faggots burn in hell" or "All white people should be fucked in their puckered assholes". And they would probably be within the law to do so.

You're trying to make a connection that isn't there. I'm not refusing to bake the cake because the person is gay. I'm refusing to bake the cake that celebrates something I don't condone. Just as the Kinkos is not refusing because of my faith, but rather the message - I would refuse because of the content of the message (celebration of gay marriage).

Don't get me wrong, I think it's ridiculous in both cases. Neither scenario should be compelled/forced to do it.

[Eliseus]

I have little doubt that any of you that are happy the cops shot someone will ever change your position, no matter what happens.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of cops, I find them more useless than helpful, I'm more satisfied that the claims towards racism are false and that the guy that wasn't as innocent as portrayed which resulted in so many people doing ridiculous things actually deserved what he had coming. I think it might have to do with so many people now looking like idiots that gets my jollies off? I don't know exactly, but yeah.

[Toofliss]

I have little doubt that any of you that are happy the cops shot someone will ever change your position, no matter what happens.

I have little doubt that your mind was made up a long time ago about what happened. Hold judgement and wait for all the facts to come out.

[radditsu]

I have little doubt that any of you that are happy the cops shot someone will ever change your position, no matter what happens.

I get police officering is difficult. Seeing idiocy and human decay every day has to have a toll. But you take an oath to protect people. Shooting tear gas into crowds is not protection.

Why on earth would you side with someone who takes your money and shoots nerve agents into crowds of protestors. Who 50 years ago were shooting fire hozes and sicking dogs on people. Who will shoot your animals out of expediency. Who will shove fingers up your rectum because you didnt give him "respect". Who use body armor and assault rifles to deliver warrants to nonviolent individuals. Who do not have correct training to use these assault rifles. I learned more about guns handling/ safetyfrom my drunk dad than any class these guys have been in. 90% of these "classes" are getting drunk at the shooting range and fucking off on taxpayer money.


I fucking revel when i get an email search request on my desk for the crooked shit these fuckers do. I hate their bro culture. I hate their fucking inhumanity. I hate the fucking inability to use/embrace technology outside of stuff that makes bigger holes in someones face.

[Ephirith]

Should the baker be forced to make a cake for a man celebrating his infidelity?

My input in this began under the hypothetical context that homosexuality became a protected class. It currently is not, so no, I do not believe the baker should be forced by law to bake the cake.

Adulterers aren't a protected class either, so the baker would have every right to refuse. Until homosexuals are given the same legal status as blacks, Christians, Italians, and all those other groups, then bakers can and should refuse to bake all the cakes they want.

I was merely using miscegenation as an example of why this wouldn't be some groundbreaking new precedent; it would simply be an extension.

Laws are force and they should only be used when necessary. Anti-miscegenation laws existed, and the general political climate created a situation that was absolutely untenable for minorities, and so the law stepped in. The consequence of that law is that people lost the right to refuse service on the basis of a protected class. Imagine that there was no racism in the 60's. Imagine if only 1 out of 10,000 merchants would not provide services to any of the protected classes. Would the civil rights act be necessary? Laws are about striking a balance. Unpopular speech must be protected the most precisely because it is unpopular. It is only when that unpopular speech causes real problems whose harm is greater than the harm of eliminating that speech should the law be passed.

Additionally, we're not talking about vital services such as food, housing, and medicine which is largely what drove the conversations vis a vis denial of service because the institutions denying the service were often the only providers available effectively shutting minorities out of those essentials. We're talking about non-essentials like wedding photography and cakes. This is a huge difference in scale, and law and policy are unwieldy tools. Unintended consequences are always afoot, and the hammer doesn't need to be pulled out because a few people are denied cakes.

Morally, most people would believe it's wrong to refuse service on the basis of interracial marriage, and it is also illegal. Anti-miscegenation today is a legal, moral, and ethical aberration. Refusing service to a gay marriage (or celebration of infidelity, or an abortion, or whatever hotbutton issue), however, is not a moral or ethical aberration in our time and place. It is a moral norm. Therein lies the difference.


In a democracy we don't decide whether to trample or protect people's rights based on the number or proportion of people being oppressed/liberated. That's perhaps the fundamental reason the supreme court exists; to prevent a legislative majority from persecuting minorities in a way that is unconstitutional.

Personally, I don't think homosexuals should be a protected class, and Christians/Jews/Muslims/Pastafarians should not be forced to provide marriage ceremonies for them. (Although religious unions should also have absolutely zero legal status).

But from a devil's advocate standpoint, my point is that:

1. It's clear the baker denied service because of their gayness.

2. If being a faerie were a protected status, this denial of service would be illegal.

3. Making homosexuality a protected status would not be a radical new precedent in civil rights legislation and freedom of associations. All those same concepts are already in play with race and religion.

[Pokesan]

why isn't sexual orientation a protected class?

and why shouldn't it be?

personally I'm against gay marriage in all its forms exclusively for tax reasons, because i am an amoral monster - HERITAGE, not hate

kill whitey

[Pokesan]

Personally, I don't think homosexuals should be a protected class, and Christians/Jews/Muslims/Pastafarians should not be forced to provide marriage ceremonies for them. (Although religious unions should also have absolutely zero legal status).



hi, you posted while I was typing

NO GODDAMN CHURCH IN THE GODDAMN UNITED STATES OF GODDAMN AMERICA IS BEING FORCED TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONIES. MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL INSTITUTION, THE WEDDING IS JUST A GODDAMN PARTY, sir.

you know you can get married downtown at the courthouse right? it's really good

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

If someone is screaming at me about something without trying to explain it to me while simultaneously chastising me about it and saying I want the government to force people what to vote for - over a conversation about civil rights, all while I ask him to be more clear... then yea I don't feel compelled to try to understand the a-hole on my own.

good for you for trying to be a douche bag enemy of everyone, yet again kaga.

The problem with this is that he did try to dumb it down for you... twice. It's not his fault that you don't get it.

[radditsu]

Sad thing is there are a ton of officers i like as human beings. But when you have to do email scouring for people you know personally and know the inappropriate shit they say/do it just makes my outlook on the whole profession lessened.



I mean how many times can you cheat on your wife? I find the way lie detectors are employed is skeevy as shit.(the questions after are the agitation agent guys, its meant to invoke a confession) I find investigation tactics hilariously old world.


But i do see all the people who beat their wives. The ignorance of criminals... the suicides and the murders. I get how easy it would be to treat others as inhuman.


Thats why I fix computers and will die in the first wave.

[iruinedyourday]

I have little doubt that your mind was made up a long time ago about what happened. Hold judgement and wait for all the facts to come out.

My judgment is only against people who like to discriminate on these forums and militarized police.

As for the kid, I find it pretty fishy that an 18 year old would try to turn around and try to hulk smash someone shooting at him... but if it turns out he did, that that doesn't change my stance either way.

Militarized police is bad.

[iruinedyourday]

The problem with this is that he did try to dumb it down for you... twice. It's not his fault that you don't get it.

well maybe I am dumb then Jesus ffs. I cant wait for me to realize what a waste of time this hell hole is and get the fuck out of here.

[Pokesan]

well maybe I am dumb then Jesus ffs. I cant wait for me to realize what a waste of time this hell hole is and get the fuck out of here.

I told you this days ago !

you're my forums hero for keeping up this long, gunga din

[iruinedyourday]

I told you this days ago !

you're my forums hero for keeping up this long, gunga din

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161611

[Eliseus]

Where do draw the line? Is it at gay marriage? Is it after polygamy is accepted? Is it after bestiality is accepted? Is it after it's ok to have sex with your children? Is it after you can be a pedo? After you kill someone and have sex with their bodies being ok?

There are things that have been morally wrong, since forever, it doesn't matter if you can find cases here and there where someone may of done something. It has been morally wrong as long as history can tell. Now all the sudden its not? So where do you draw the line?

Even evolution (assuming if you are gay you don't believe in God even though some of them claim to. God must of just got confused when creating you right?) is against gays, being gay doesn't help the survival of the species to live on, unless they know something we don't and are currently in the process of trying to reproduce with each other.

Basically you are screwed. You can get the ok to fuck one another all you want, still doesn't make it right, or accepted and shouldn't have to be accepted by anyone, especially privately owned companies or religions.

And actually, RELIGION IS BEING FORCED INTO ACCEPTING IT. Wether it's a religious owned institute (for example, hobby lobby) or not is irrelevant. Religious people are having to turn away from their core values because of examples like the mozzila firefox guy. For example, gay people came out and said "he could of just apologized and gave in rather than standing up for his beliefs and he would still have his job". So yes, it is being forced upon religious people because there is no longer the freedom from it that we should have, sure your church doesn't have to accept them, but it is encroached into everyone daily lives now. Can't walk down the street now being proud to be against gay marriage because of your beliefs without fear of losing a job etc (discrimination towards gays? lol, look how the tables have turned).

[radditsu]

Human beings can marry human beings. Your religion doesnt matter.

[Pokesan]

Why should religion be involved in the workplace? Why should a church be operating a business? Why do you think the slippery slope argument is not childish nonsense?

Brb I'm gonna marry a stapler guys

[Lune]

Sad thing is there are a ton of officers i like as human beings. But when you have to do email scouring for people you know personally and know the inappropriate shit they say/do it just makes my outlook on the whole profession lessened.

Once upon a time I was trying to become a police officer. I had made it to the final rounds of interviews when they tried to surreptitiously investigate my facebook profile by adding me as a friend on a fake female account. (In some states police departments are forbidden by law from requiring you to submit your facebook information during hiring process). It was completely obvious because I was applying out of state, and the girl was from that same city.

So I logged onto my fake facebook profile that I used to stalk women and troll people, and sent the police profile a friend request. It accepted, and it only had a few dozen friends and no posts, so I sent it a few pictures of penises.

Too bad I didn't get the job, I'm such a clever investergater

[radditsu]

I dont like faith based alchahol /substance abuse programs. But my taxes pay for them. I dont like buying more military hardware x16 than any other country. But here we are. I pay taxes cause im a goddamn American. And americans pay their fucking taxes.

[iruinedyourday]

Where do draw the line? Is it at gay marriage? Is it after polygamy is accepted? Is it after bestiality is accepted? Is it after it's ok to have sex with your children? Is it after you can be a pedo? After you kill someone and have sex with their bodies being ok?

Hmm I wonder if I'm gonna get slaughtered in here for this one but...

well if what you are doing is manipulating or forcing someone to be taken advantage of then most psychologists agree that is where you legally draw the line.

polygamy is bad because despite what the victims of that manipulation say they are unhappy - like someone who is in an abusive relationship, once free'd from the emotional prison they are in they are able to look at the prison that they were in and either cope with it or not. So its generally considered not ok legally, but who knows what science will figure out in the future, maybe you'll be able to clone your wife and have 8 wife clones and we'll have civil rights debates about the merit of a clones emotions or feelings in 2145.

As far as having sex with a dead body, most psychologists would agree that that's just not healty. And if that is what you're after you should probably find someone to talk to and youll be able to get the help you need. Otherwise they might go around...

oh who the hell am I kiding, yall think im some lunatic raving maniac.. but at least I'm a liberal.

oh also if a gay is taking advantage of someone and forcing them to have sex with them then that's rape so that's why it doesn't apply to them. If your boy is manipulated into fucking some other man and your child is 18 and not gay, then you probably fucked him up pretty good raising him and have only yourself to blame.

[radditsu]

Once upon a time I was trying to become a police officer. I had made it to the final rounds of interviews when they tried to surreptitiously investigate my facebook profile by adding me as a friend on a fake female account. (In some states police departments are forbidden by law from requiring you to submit your facebook information during hiring process). It was completely obvious because I was applying out of state, and the girl was from that same city.

So I logged onto my fake facebook profile that I used to stalk women and troll people, and sent the police profile a friend request. It accepted, and it only had a few dozen friends and no posts, so I sent it a few pictures of penises.

Too bad I didn't get the job, I'm such a clever investergater

I get asked to set this shit up all the time. Mostly for child pornographer/fucker busts. I generally state my business and show them how to make a fake email and google image search. Then state my lack of time to continue further. It feels a bit entrappy to me. Like, I dont buy snacks when I go shopping. My wife does. But if they are in the house i will eat them. I would never been in a position to gain 19lbs on potato xhips if they were still in the fucking store. How many people would be in a position to fuck a child? It seems like after you get caught fucking a child. You should not have child fucking in your face on facebook.


But fuck child pornographers.

[radditsu]

I know its not LEGAL entrapment. Because that is super narrow. But it violated my sense of ethics.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Where do draw the line? Is it at gay marriage? Is it after polygamy is accepted? Is it after bestiality is accepted? Is it after it's ok to have sex with your children? Is it after you can be a pedo? After you kill someone and have sex with their bodies being ok?
You forgot consentual adult incest which comes after polyamory.
There are things that have been morally wrong, since forever, it doesn't matter if you can find cases here and there where someone may of done something. It has been morally wrong as long as history can tell. Now all the sudden its not? So where do you draw the line?
That is an extraordinary claim, can you provide some extraordinary evidence for it? You get bonus points if you can find it from a non-abrahamic source.
Even evolution (assuming if you are gay you don't believe in God even though some of them claim to. God must of just got confused when creating you right?) is against gays, being gay doesn't help the survival of the species to live on, unless they know something we don't and are currently in the process of trying to reproduce with each other.
This has been addressed in the thread (twice) population control mechanism.
Basically you are screwed. You can get the ok to fuck one another all you want, still doesn't make it right, or accepted and shouldn't have to be accepted by anyone, especially privately owned companies or religions.
So you are arguing against treating these humans like... humans? You keep throwing around the word "accepting/accepted". Be more specific.
And actually, RELIGION IS BEING FORCED INTO ACCEPTING IT. Wether it's a religious owned institute (for example, hobby lobby) or not is irrelevant. Religious people are having to turn away from their core values because of examples like the mozzila firefox guy. For example, gay people came out and said "he could of just apologized and gave in rather than standing up for his beliefs and he would still have his job".
So you are anti-free market now?
So yes, it is being forced upon religious people because there is no longer the freedom from it that we should have,
Freedom from... gay people? Might as well ask for freedom from blacks, you'll sound just as bad. Here let me help you. I'll fix up the rest of your post in the next quote for context.
sure your church doesn't have to accept blacks, but it is encroached into everyone daily lives now. Can't walk down the street now being proud to be against interracial marriage because of your beliefs without fear of losing a job etc (discrimination towards blacks? lol, look how the tables have turned).
See? ;)
Hmm I wonder if I'm gonna get slaughtered again in here for this one but...
FTFY
well if what you are doing is manipulating or forcing someone to be taken advantage of then most psychologists agree that is where you legally draw the line.
Who's being manipulated? Who's being forced into anything? Do you not understand the concept of consenting adults?
polygamy is bad because despite what the victims of that manipulation say they are unhappy - like someone who is in an abusive relationship, once free'd from the emotional prison they are in they are able to look at the prison that they were in and either cope with it or not. So its generally considered not ok legally,
Your own words destroy you. I reiterate. Do you not understand the concept of consenting adults?
but who knows what science will figure out in the future, maybe you'll be able to clone your wife and have 8 wife clones and we'll have civil rights debates about the merit of a clones emotions or feelings in 2145.
What... you know what, forget this one.
As far as having sex with a dead body, most psychologists would agree that that's just not healty. And if that is what you're after you should probably find someone to talk to and youll be able to get the help you need. Otherwise they might go around...
I don't necessarily disagree with this section but that last part. wat.
oh who the hell am I kiding, yall think im some lunatic raving maniac..
Nope, just ignorant.
but at least I'm a liberal.
yeahok.gif
oh also if a gay is taking advantage of someone and forcing them to have sex with them then that's rape so that's why it doesn't apply to them. If your boy is manipulated into fucking some other man and your child is 18 and not gay, then you probably fucked him up pretty good raising him and have only yourself to blame.
What is this I don't even...???

You've also never defined a "militant" homosexual.

[iruinedyourday]

Im gonna try to not go to RnF ever again guys! wish me luck! But hopefully Ill just have to have faith that you said a bunch of positive things instead of the evil ass ignorant shit you do!

Enjoy your foul horrible awful arguments about which one of you are the worst person ever!

[Juryiel]

Where do draw the line?


People who ask this always seem to not get it. You don't draw hard lines meant to never be changed. You use the context of a given society to draw lines intended to benefit that society. When that society changes, you redraw the lines as needed. Slippery slope arguments are useless as a result. Also, enjoy these maps of legal status of gay marriage and polygamy around the world. Let me know how slippery that slope looks after that.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/12/01/1225963/695751-gay-marriage-world-map.gif

http://x3.fjcdn.com/comments/Now+the+really+interesting+thing+about+this+is+tha t+if+_1ef653421caaf1b0d79bd50bae677ce9.jpg

[Eliseus]

race != sexual orientation. The way though you make it sound, goes back to what I POINT OUT TO YOU 10000 times, if you are born that way, THEN I GUESS WE ALSO SHOULDN'T JUDGE PEDOS ETC... Which I find strongly odd that you aren't in agreement with since you are one.

[Gaffin 7.0]

You forgot consentual adult incest which comes after polyamory.

That is an extraordinary claim, can you provide some extraordinary evidence for it? You get bonus points if you can find it from a non-abrahamic source.

This has been addressed in the thread (twice) population control mechanism.

So you are arguing against treating these humans like... humans? You keep throwing around the word "accepting/accepted". Be more specific.

So you are anti-free market now?

Freedom from... gay people? Might as well ask for freedom from blacks, you'll sound just as bad. Here let me help you. I'll fix up the rest of your post in the next quote for context.

See? ;)

FTFY

Who's being manipulated? Who's being forced into anything? Do you not understand the concept of consenting adults?

Your own words destroy you. I reiterate. Do you not understand the concept of consenting adults?

What... you know what, forget this one.

I don't necessarily disagree with this section but that last part. wat.

Nope, just ignorant.

yeahok.gif

What is this I don't even...???

You've also never defined a "militant" homosexual.

didnt read

[Eliseus]

That map isn't accurate, I know for a fact because I played ff14 with a gay man from Australia that is perfectly content with how gays are in Australia. They don't recognize gay marriage, but they recognize stuff like living with another man and crap when it comes to w/e there tax equivalent crap is. He also finds it amusing how many gay people are up in arms in the US.

[Eliseus]

Basically stopped reading your map after seeing it wasn't accurate just seeing that alone.

[Pokesan]

Gay is a perfectly okay choice to make, if you're only okay with the gay if they can't help it, you're reducing the whole thing to a dog peeing on the carpet.

Im gonna try to not go to RnF ever again guys! wish me luck! But hopefully Ill just have to have faith that you said a bunch of positive things instead of the evil ass ignorant shit you do!

Enjoy your foul horrible awful arguments about which one of you are the worst person ever!

This though. Same. Stay strong for me and I'll stay strong for you.

[Juryiel]

Basically stopped reading your map after seeing it wasn't accurate just seeing that alone.

The map is not for you even though it's in response to you.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

race != sexual orientation. The way though you make it sound, goes back to what I POINT OUT TO YOU 10000 times, if you are born that way, THEN I GUESS WE ALSO SHOULDN'T JUDGE PEDOS ETC... Which I find strongly odd that you aren't in agreement with since you are one.
Why do you keep comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? Outside of the Catholic and NAMBLA, homosexual relationships are two or more consenting adults. Pedophilia lacks the key consent part.
Basically stopped reading your map after seeing it wasn't accurate just seeing that alone.
Enlighten the class as to which parts aren't accurate instead of just saying it's wrong.

[Juryiel]

Enlighten the class as to which parts aren't accurate instead of just saying it's wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the map. For Australia it says 'other type of blah blah" not gay marriage. He just didn't read it.

The map is not for him since his mind is made up, it's to help people on the fence see logic regarding slippery slopes.

[Arteker]

Where do draw the line? Is it at gay marriage? Is it after polygamy is accepted? Is it after bestiality is accepted? Is it after it's ok to have sex with your children? Is it after you can be a pedo? After you kill someone and have sex with their bodies being ok?

There are things that have been morally wrong, since forever, it doesn't matter if you can find cases here and there where someone may of done something. It has been morally wrong as long as history can tell. Now all the sudden its not? So where do you draw the line?

Even evolution (assuming if you are gay you don't believe in God even though some of them claim to. God must of just got confused when creating you right?) is against gays, being gay doesn't help the survival of the species to live on, unless they know something we don't and are currently in the process of trying to reproduce with each other.

Basically you are screwed. You can get the ok to fuck one another all you want, still doesn't make it right, or accepted and shouldn't have to be accepted by anyone, especially privately owned companies or religions.

And actually, RELIGION IS BEING FORCED INTO ACCEPTING IT. Wether it's a religious owned institute (for example, hobby lobby) or not is irrelevant. Religious people are having to turn away from their core values because of examples like the mozzila firefox guy. For example, gay people came out and said "he could of just apologized and gave in rather than standing up for his beliefs and he would still have his job". So yes, it is being forced upon religious people because there is no longer the freedom from it that we should have, sure your church doesn't have to accept them, but it is encroached into everyone daily lives now. Can't walk down the street now being proud to be against gay marriage because of your beliefs without fear of losing a job etc (discrimination towards gays? lol, look how the tables have turned).

Bestiality is allready legal in some states

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Bestiality is already legal in some states

Woah woah woah, since there's already enough misunderstanding in this thread... Be extremely careful with the context of your words. There's a difference between something being made legal and something never having been considered explicitly illegal in the first place.

[Gaffin 7.0]

god just shut up and shoot yourself dawg

[Eliseus]

Woah woah woah, since there's already enough misunderstanding in this thread... Be extremely careful with the context of your words. There's a difference between something being made legal and something never having been considered explicitly illegal in the first place.

You misinterpret/misunderstand comparisons, while getting made when someone doesn't understand you or tell you your comments are dumb. Hypocrisy at it's best.

[Gaffin 7.0]

im just kidding dont do that

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You misinterpret/misunderstand comparisons, while getting made when someone doesn't understand you or tell you your comments are dumb. Hypocrisy at it's best.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you being bad at English doesn't make me a hypocrite.

[Eliseus]

Sorry to burst your bubble but you being bad at English doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Super bad

[Sidelle]

Anyone else disturbed about the governor of Missouri calling for the "vigorous prosecution" of the police officer before the evidence was even presented to the grand jury? He's a lawyer and former state attorney general so what he did was inexcusable.

Also, sounds like that cop was assaulted badly enough that his eye socket was fractured.

[dhew]

You can prosecute all you want...it's the prosecution's job to do that. Nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, if you vigorously prosecute, and the jury still finds someone "not guilty", that's good...mistrial less likely, bad publicity can always be deferred to the fact that the prosecuting attorney did everything they could, but evidence still didn't support the case.

[radditsu]

Anyone else disturbed about the governor of Missouri calling for the "vigorous prosecution" of the police officer before the evidence was even presented to the grand jury? He's a lawyer and former state attorney general so what he did was inexcusable.

Also, sounds like that cop was assaulted badly enough that his eye socket was fractured.

Examine the meaning of prosecution.

[dhew]

If he said vigorously execute, well, thats different...

[Sidelle]

No. What I'm saying is he has no business making biased statements like that before the grand jury was even convened. I can see him maybe using the words "vigorously investigate" or something like that but he didn't.

He isn't the prosecutor in this case. He's the governor. He's supposed to try and calm things down while remaining neutral and unbiased, not make it worse by pandering to the rioting mob and all but condemning the cop before the evidence is out.

Governor Jay Nixon (full lengtb) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY9kS-0l7OM)

[Glenzig]

No. What I'm saying is he has no business making biased statements like that before the grand jury was even convened. I can see him maybe using the words "vigorously investigate" or something like that but he didn't.

He isn't the prosecutor in this case. He's the governor. He's supposed to try and calm things down while remaining neutral and unbiased, not make it worse by pandering to the rioting mob and all but condemning the cop before the evidence is out.

Governor Jay Nixon (full lengtb) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY9kS-0l7OM)

Pretty sure that's exactly what he was told to do.

[Arclyte]

It's easier to throw Joe Policeman under the bus

[Patriam1066]

Anyone else disturbed about the governor of Missouri calling for the "vigorous prosecution" of the police officer before the evidence was even presented to the grand jury? He's a lawyer and former state attorney general so what he did was inexcusable.

Also, sounds like that cop was assaulted badly enough that his eye socket was fractured.

You can't prosecute without an indictment. If there is no evidence, and for all we know there may or may not be, there is no indictment. How any of you disagree with Sidelle on this is beyond me. We are a nation of laws, and people have the presumption of innocence. Assuming that this case will require a prosecution denies Darren Wilson that presumption.

I'm moving to Canada you people scare me.

I read an earlier post of yours about taxes and the military Radditsu. You'd be surprised how many of us "conservatives" (I consider myself a fiscally conservative independent) agree with you on that. I've written 15 letters to my senators and congressmen about the F-35 program being the biggest waste in the history of the US, but unfortunately Lockheed contracted work for the program to 45 states, so barring a dramatic change in course, we'll continue spending trillions on unnecessary (and ineffective) military procurements.

[Eliseus]

I think his judgement was good and bad. I think it was good to show immediate action being taken, and to maybe show some kind of support for all the black people calling everyone racist. I think it was bad though, like you said sidelle making all these prejudgments before anything, and making himself look like a huge tool.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Hoping that Michael Brown fad is over too.

[radditsu]

You can't prosecute without an indictment. If there is no evidence, and for all we know there may or may not be, there is no indictment. How any of you disagree with Sidelle on this is beyond me. We are a nation of laws, and people have the presumption of innocence. Assuming that this case will require a prosecution denies Darren Wilson that presumption.

I'm moving to Canada you people scare me.

I read an earlier post of yours about taxes and the military Radditsu. You'd be surprised how many of us "conservatives" (I consider myself a fiscally conservative independent) agree with you on that. I've written 15 letters to my senators and congressmen about the F-35 program being the biggest waste in the history of the US, but unfortunately Lockheed contracted work for the program to 45 states, so barring a dramatic change in course, we'll continue spending trillions on unnecessary (and ineffective) military procurements.

Fiscially conservative independent sounds a ton like libertarian without the crazy people. I like libertarians without the crazy people. Its too bad that party is signified by crazy people. I get along with conservatives that do not push "values" upon others and can speak without quoting fox news /ultra right dogma.

Example) We need to save money. We can combine 4 departments and condense foot stamp/welfare programs. It gives people the choice of needs and can save overhead.


Why on earth are examples like this not a point the right makes? Instead they mouth breathe about Mexicans taking shitty jobs and ruminating about how they can make their buddy at mcdonalds and goldman sachs 10 nillion more a year.


Work
On
Real
Problems.



Fucked up thing is i see right leaning leaders in my area get shit done. Its nuts how efficient a right leaning local government can get shit done when they dont have to cumface over social issues.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Fiscially conservative independent sounds a ton like libertarian without the crazy people. I like libertarians without the crazy people. Its too bad that party is signified by crazy people. I get along with conservatives that do not push "values" upon others and can speak without quoting fox news /ultra right dogma.

Example) We need to save money. We can combine 4 departments and condense foot stamp/welfare programs. It gives people the choice of needs and can save overhead.


Why on earth are examples like this not a point the right makes? Instead they mouth breathe about Mexicans taking shitty jobs and ruminating about how they can make their buddy at mcdonalds and goldman sachs 10 nillion more a year.


Work
On
Real
Problems.



Fucked up thing is i see right leaning leaders in my area get shit done. Its nuts how efficient a right leaning local government can get shit done when they dont have to cumface over social issues.

http://i.imgur.com/jvB7WBR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RTCJroZ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5X1iqwm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/j1eIYYI.jpg

Let's be fair though, the dems do it too.

http://i.imgur.com/j6E74ed.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KLJ7ME8.jpg

[Eliseus]

I was hoping when I didn't see a post of yours for a few hours that you were finally gone. Sad day D:

[Lune]

If libertarians were in charge we'd still be putting lead in our gasoline.

[Champion_Standing]

If the media and politicans focused on real issues it would cause all sorts of problems. Just stick to the usual "social issues" that the people who are being elected can't even change.

Shit, people still buy into the "She/He wants to BAN abortion!" Well sorry guys, your state rep cannot ban abortion.

[Ahldagor]

This thread is a paragon of how ignorant people are in every situation.

[Patriam1066]

Fiscially conservative independent sounds a ton like libertarian without the crazy people. I like libertarians without the crazy people. Its too bad that party is signified by crazy people. I get along with conservatives that do not push "values" upon others and can speak without quoting fox news /ultra right dogma.

Example) We need to save money. We can combine 4 departments and condense foot stamp/welfare programs. It gives people the choice of needs and can save overhead.


Why on earth are examples like this not a point the right makes? Instead they mouth breathe about Mexicans taking shitty jobs and ruminating about how they can make their buddy at mcdonalds and goldman sachs 10 nillion more a year.


Work
On
Real
Problems.



Fucked up thing is i see right leaning leaders in my area get shit done. Its nuts how efficient a right leaning local government can get shit done when they dont have to cumface over social issues.

I think if our education system focused on vocational training / providing job skills instead of creating well rounded students who can't do shit without further education, we could save a ton on welfare. If you train an EMT in high school, that person graduates and can immediately make $12-18 an hour, save a bit, take paramedic classes, make $24 an hour... And eventually pursue whatever career path they like. Teach a man to fish.

I used to be a libertarian, i loved Ayn Rand when I was younger. Then I realized there was a lot out there on the conservative side between neocon and anarcho-capitalist. Libertarian seemed attractive after Bush, but isn't really a feasible solution to anything. Govt has a role to play

And yeah. I could give a shit about social issues. Don't get me wrong, I'm from Iran and very religious. But I grew up in a place that enforced social values. The streets of Esfahan were littered with used syringes for all that was worth... Live and let live

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Watching people jizzing all over this audio tape today.

[Whirled]

I was hoping when I didn't see a post of yours for a few hours that you were finally gone. Sad day D:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/18965-black-cop-kills-unarmed-white-youth-media-and-feds-silent

:steps away from another possible can of worms

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/18965-black-cop-kills-unarmed-white-youth-media-and-feds-silent

:steps away from another possible can of worms

Nope. Never happened. It's physically impossible for a black cop to kill a white male. Article was clearly doctored. Cops are certainly evil but this one is black so he's obviously an angel.

[MrSparkle001]

How many people thought the officer was automatically innocent? More and more people are starting to think that it's a real possibility as more evidence is revealed but I don't know anyone who automatically presumed the officer was innocent without hearing any evidence.

I'm sure there were people who did though, especially other cops.

It's still quite possible he was not justified in using deadly force although that's becoming less and less likely.

We saw this coming in August by the way.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Both the police and the neighborhood they are policing in this case are riddled with scumbags.... any reason to not make every officer wear a lapel cam? I remember reading research saying that it reduced police use of force 60% overall and complaints against police 90% or something.

[Sidelle]

Well, now that the violent & retarded agitators are starting their shit in the wake of the grand jury's decision I'm just hopeful that innocent & peaceful protestors & business owners trying to protect their property don't get hurt or killed -- not to mention law enforcement personnel.

So here we go again...

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

N words N wording about?

Color (lol) me surprised.

[Sidelle]

Well, I'm completely disgusted by all the scumbaggery going on. These people have no fucking shame. I hope they all die screaming in the fires they're setting.

[Aviann]

Well, now that the violent & retarded agitators are starting their shit in the wake of the grand jury's decision I'm just hopeful that innocent & peaceful protestors & business owners trying to protect their property don't get hurt or killed -- not to mention law enforcement personnel.

So here we go again...

I highly doubt the owners of those cars set them on fire themselves, lol... Or that ambulance had its lights on in the parking lot of that gas station because they needed to bypass traffic for their smokes.

I'm lacking understanding behind why these fucking people are fighting each other and not the problem. Its a different form of oppression in its way and theyre feeding the fire.

[Aviann]

Hurricane Katrina coming to a Ferguson, Missouri near you.

[Nuktari]

http://media0.giphy.com/media/LGzrggUppEBdm/200.gif

[toolshed]

Fuck the militarization of the police. Police with no badge, no name tags, military weapons and rolling down the street with a fucking tank.

How can any libertarian or conservative support this? I thought they were against "big government"?

[Aviann]

Fuck the militarization of the police. Police with no badge, no name tags, military weapons and rolling down the street with a fucking tank.

How can any libertarian or conservative support this? I thought they were against "big government"?

We are also against setting random vehicles on fire during a protest. Just sayin'

[Aviann]

When someone is trialed for charges against them, found not guilty through evidence, and people start thrashing their own fucking city about... I'd say it isn't big government that is the root of the problem. Had that happened down here, there would be boarded windows with a few shotguns to each house, loaded and eager to please the mother fuckers behind the trigger who see someone fucking with their shit before the police ever arrive. Same story, different career. The police in Ferguson are there for protection, not intimidation... And apparently they fucking need it with all the terrorizing they are doing to themselves.

[Sidelle]

I highly doubt the owners of those cars set them on fire themselves, lol... Or that ambulance had its lights on in the parking lot of that gas station because they needed to bypass traffic for their smokes.

I'm lacking understanding behind why these fucking people are fighting each other and not the problem. Its a different form of oppression in its way and theyre feeding the fire.
Just like back in August most of the violence & looting was caused by outside agitators coming in from out of town. It's like a job for these assholes. They don't give a shit about Michael Brown dying. Their main objective is to instigate mob violence by riling up the locals to advance their own political agenda. They're loving this shit. "Divide & conquer" has been an effective strategy all through the ages, has it not?

Makes me fucking mad that the majority of people are so blind or just refuse to see what's right in front of them.
Fuck the militarization of the police. Police with no badge, no name tags, military weapons and rolling down the street with a fucking tank.

How can any libertarian or conservative support this? I thought they were against "big government"?
I definitely don't support big government or the militarization of police (this is one of my worst nightmares -- the police state). See my comments above where I mention the political agenda of these fucking asshole scumbag agitators.

[vaylorie]

Throwing bricks at police, looting, burning down buildings (3 or so thus far), burning vehicles, shooting, shutting down interstates, etc.

It's been 2 hours since they announced the decision. I live in St. Louis and most of these people that have been protesting aren't from Ferguson.

Blow yourself. Bring in the tanks for these morons.

[Bazia]

Throwing bricks at police, looting, burning down buildings (3 or so thus far), burning vehicles, shooting, shutting down interstates, etc.

It's been 2 hours since they announced the decision. I live in St. Louis and most of these people that have been protesting aren't from Ferguson.

Blow yourself. Bring in the tanks for these morons.

http://theclemreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/keeping-it-real.jpg

[Aviann]

https://i.imgflip.com/b58p7.jpg

[Supreme]

https://i.imgflip.com/b58p7.jpg

Thank you Captain Hindsight!

[Lune]

If you take it upon yourselves to rough up store clerks and then get in fisticuffs with police officers, you just might get shot. It's really not that fucking hard, just don't be an ape.

I'd rather see ten more Michael Browns than one more Kyle Dinkheller. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-ycSkoYfc)

Discussion about police restraint should stem from the murder of an innocent person in a non-threatening setting, not from this ghetto-monkey bullshit.

[Cecily]

I had a store clerk rough me up before.

[baalzy]

I'd rather see ten more Michael Browns than one more Kyle Dinkheller. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-ycSkoYfc)



I wonder how many more potential Brannans are in the making out there as we continue invading countries we have no business being in while simultaneously cutting veterans access to mental health care.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Can Dillon Tailor's case get talked about now?

[Vyal]

Its amazing not one single person actually blamed this on the thing that actually is to blame..
And fuck I hate to say it but
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608024746508026490&pid=15.1&P=0
...
Think about it, dudes stoned needs blunts so he robs the store stoned gets caught by the clerk his BP goes up, goes into a rage end up going for a cops gun and gets shot.

Butterfly effect..
And not one person is blaming pot, it's monkey this or black person that. Racist shit but this could have happen to anyone who was high enough or drunk enough. A stupid stoner mistake turned into a country wide riot of the racists.

[drdrakes]

Not enough pot in the world to convince me to punch a cop and try to take his gun. Acid, sure, but not pot.

[Dillian]

Its amazing not one single person actually blamed this on the thing that actually is to blame..
And fuck I hate to say it but
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608024746508026490&pid=15.1&P=0
...
Think about it, dudes stoned needs blunts so he robs the store stoned gets caught by the clerk his BP goes up, goes into a rage end up going for a cops gun and gets shot.

Butterfly effect..
And not one person is blaming pot, it's monkey this or black person that. Racist shit but this could have happen to anyone who was high enough or drunk enough. A stupid stoner mistake turned into a country wide riot of the racists.
People rob and do stupid shit on alcohol also. People will rob people over a bottle of wild turkey

[Dillian]

also auction tracker is the best p99 auction tracker in the world.

[NegaStoat]

A dude was live streaming when shit was going down from his phone. He had over 80,000 viewers when this gem happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWpnRAMpQ40

I fucking laughed so hard.

[vaylorie]

This is awesome. *****z be stealin'

A dude was live streaming when shit was going down from his phone. He had over 80,000 viewers when this gem happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWpnRAMpQ40

I fucking laughed so hard.

[MrSparkle001]

A dude was live streaming when shit was going down from his phone. He had over 80,000 viewers when this gem happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWpnRAMpQ40

I fucking laughed so hard.

Lol yeah I saw that. Shit was the best poetic justice.

[MrSparkle001]

http://i.imgur.com/15Uljr3.png

I recorded this fun snippet last night too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0GnAakzSBM

http://i.imgur.com/99dDV3q.jpg

I think there was at least a dozen arsons, multiple gunshot victims, looting everywhere, and a lot of it was from out-of-state thugs.

[Sidelle]

I wonder exactly how many innocent Ferguson residents are now unemployed because of all this pointless riot bullshit.

[Sidelle]

http://img1.m.owned.com/media/images/2/8/9/7/28970/1964974_540.png

[Duckwalk]

When someone is trialed for charges against them, found not guilty through evidence, and people start thrashing their own fucking city about... I'd say it isn't big government that is the root of the problem. Had that happened down here, there would be boarded windows with a few shotguns to each house, loaded and eager to please the mother fuckers behind the trigger who see someone fucking with their shit before the police ever arrive. Same story, different career. The police in Ferguson are there for protection, not intimidation... And apparently they fucking need it with all the terrorizing they are doing to themselves.

You're a complete fucking idiot and should never speak again. Grand Jurys are not triers of fact. They exist to soley to determine if there is probable cause which is a very low standard of proof, often cited as a "fair chance" an action or at most 51%.

Officer Wilson may very well be innocent but the decision should have been made by a jury of his peers, not golfing buddies of the DA.

The citizens of Furgeson were robbed of due proceeds rights.

[feanan]

Mad much?

Grand jury heard a lot more evidence and eyewitness testimony than anyone in this thread.

[Portasaurus]

Grand jury heard a lot more evidence and eyewitness testimony than anyone in this thread.

That's kind of exactly the problem.

A lot of other cases get the public eye. Doing it behind closed doors like this is a GREAT WAY to fuel the rage and conspiracy theories.

"Good job, idiots" is really all I have to say today.

[Duckwalk]

It is very rare for prosecutors fail to secure indictments. But you're right, the Grand Jury did hear a lot more evidence than the public.

However, because the burden of proof is so low and the are more than enough public allegations / evidence to support such a burden they would basically need to be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt or at clear and convincingly that no wrong doing occured which is very unlikely.

Much more likely is the fact that the DAs office has a vested interest in not prosecuting local police whom they work closely with or the grand jury, technically drawn from a pool of registered voters (but most often the DAs golfing buddies) disn't want to indict a police officer.

See recent Houston Chronicle investigation into this very issue at http://m.chron.com/local/investigations/item/Bulletproof-Part-1-24419.php

[Duckwalk]

That's kind of exactly the problem.

A lot of other cases get the public eye. Doing it behind closed doors like this is a GREAT WAY to fuel the rage and conspiracy theories.

"Good job, idiots" is really all I have to say today.

Exactly. Officer Wilsonmay very well be innocent but he should be found so in a court of law not a back room where only Prosecutor is allowed and in this case he's feeding them potentially exculpatory evidence instead of trying for an indictment.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

"Good job, idiots" is really all I have to say today.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

It is very rare for prosecutors fail to secure indictments. But you're right, the Grand Jury did hear a lot more evidence than the public.

However, because the burden of proof is so low and the are more than enough public allegations / evidence to support such a burden they would basically need to be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt or at clear and convincingly that no wrong doing occured which is very unlikely.

Much more likely is the fact that the DAs office has a vested interest in not prosecuting local police whom they work closely with or the grand jury, technically drawn from a pool of registered voters (but most often the DAs golfing buddies) disn't want to indict a police officer.

See recent Houston Chronicle investigation into this very issue at http://m.chron.com/local/investigations/item/Bulletproof-Part-1-24419.php

Bingo - even in instances where they have hard evidence of wrong doing prosecutors will frequently let the police off the hook on general principle. What did you think this was about, justice?

[Duckwalk]

Bingo - even in instances where they have hard evidence of wrong doing prosecutors will frequently let the police off the hook on general principle. What did you think this was about, justice?

Just pointing out Furgeson citizens have every right to be mad not that I'm encouraging rioting.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Just pointing out Furgeson citizens have every right to be mad not that I'm encouraging rioting.

Its ok man, we can agree.

[Fael]

You're a complete fucking idiot and should never speak again. Grand Jurys are not triers of fact. They exist to soley to determine if there is probable cause which is a very low standard of proof, often cited as a "fair chance" an action or at most 51%.

Officer Wilson may very well be innocent but the decision should have been made by a jury of his peers, not golfing buddies of the DA.

The citizens of Furgeson were robbed of due proceeds rights.

You are a complete fucking idiot actually--not because your wrong, but because you call others idiots without cause. Contrary to the BS you spewed, all juries are triers of fact: they weigh evidence and make a determination of what the facts are; and, in the case of a grand jury, whether those facts provide reasonable grounds for bringing an indictment.

Missouri’s constitution provides that before a grand jury may return an indictment, it must determine that probable cause exists that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it. State v. Eyman, 818 S.W.2d 883, 887 (Mo. App. 1992) “The probable cause for initiating a prosecution is defined in Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d 758, 764 (Mo.App.1975), as ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion, supported by circumstances in evidence sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious man in his belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.’” Perry v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 789 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990) (citing Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d at 764.)

Contrary to what you suggest, the standard is not as high as 51% (preponderance). It is in fact much lower: “The phrase ‘reasonable grounds’ means ‘that under the circumstances an ordinarily careful and prudent person after having made a reasonable inquiry would have believed the facts alleged and that the judicial proceeding was valid.” Perry v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 789 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990) (citing Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d at 764.) “Further, the facts must be considered as the prosecuting party could have reasonably believed them to be under the circumstances at the time. Id.

Your confusion about the 51% standard stems from the two issues before the grand jury: (1) was there reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed, and (2) is the person to be charged more likely than not the person who committed it.

If you had listened to the prosecutor last night, there was never any doubt or question about the second issue.

In summary, take your own medicine and "never speak again."



Dolic

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

You are a complete fucking idiot actually--not because your wrong, but because you call others idiots without cause. Contrary to the BS you spewed, all juries are triers of fact: they weigh evidence and make a determination of what the facts are; and, in the case of a grand jury, whether those facts provide reasonable grounds for bringing an indictment.

Missouri’s constitution provides that before a grand jury may return an indictment, it must determine that probable cause exists that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it. State v. Eyman, 818 S.W.2d 883, 887 (Mo. App. 1992) “The probable cause for initiating a prosecution is defined in Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d 758, 764 (Mo.App.1975), as ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion, supported by circumstances in evidence sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious man in his belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.’” Perry v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 789 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990) (citing Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d at 764.)

Contrary to what you suggest, the standard is not as high as 51% (preponderance). It is in fact much lower: “The phrase ‘reasonable grounds’ means ‘that under the circumstances an ordinarily careful and prudent person after having made a reasonable inquiry would have believed the facts alleged and that the judicial proceeding was valid.” Perry v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 789 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990) (citing Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d at 764.) “Further, the facts must be considered as the prosecuting party could have reasonably believed them to be under the circumstances at the time. Id.

Your confusion about the 51% standard stems from the two issues before the grand jury: (1) was there reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed, and (2) is the person to be charged more likely than not the person who committed it.

If you had listened to the prosecutor last night, there was never any doubt or question about the second issue.

In summary, take your own medicine and "never speak again."



Dolic

Daaaaamn - and Duckwalk is supposedly a lawyer irl how embarrassing.

POPCORN.GIF etc

[BulletCatcher]

Feel the burn Duckwalk. This is why you should not run your mouth about things you know nothing about. Aint that right Hateraid... you fucking wannabe. We could just try Officer Wilson because that's what the masses want... Anyone else want another George Zimmerman thing to occur?

[Portasaurus]

Anyone else want another George Zimmerman thing to occur?

At least with Zimmerman we got a public trial, where everyone was fed the same information at the same time in a digestible fashion over the course of several weeks.

It allowed everyone to better cope with the end result, and you didn't see Florida catch fire that day, did you?

[BulletCatcher]

The process has played out. The forensic examiner's evaluation is set in stone. Darren Wilson will not be tried. Michael Brown acted in a way that resulted in his death. Its a sad story for everyone involved. No winners here today, expect the internet trolls who want to stomp their ignorant conjectures around with even more ignorant ideas that do nothing more than disseminate hysteria.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

The process has played out. The forensic examiner's evaluation is set in stone. Darren Wilson will not be tried. Michael Brown acted in a way that resulted in his death. Its a sad story for everyone involved. No winners here today, expect the internet trolls who want to stomp their ignorant conjectures around with even more ignorant ideas that do nothing more than disseminate hysteria.

Ill seminate your hysteria.

[Duckwalk]

You are a complete fucking idiot actually--not because your wrong, but because you call others idiots without cause. Contrary to the BS you spewed, all juries are triers of fact: they weigh evidence and make a determination of what the facts are; and, in the case of a grand jury, whether those facts provide reasonable grounds for bringing an indictment.

Missouri’s constitution provides that before a grand jury may return an indictment, it must determine that probable cause exists that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it. State v. Eyman, 818 S.W.2d 883, 887 (Mo. App. 1992) “The probable cause for initiating a prosecution is defined in Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d 758, 764 (Mo.App.1975), as ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion, supported by circumstances in evidence sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious man in his belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.’” Perry v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 789 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990) (citing Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d at 764.)

Contrary to what you suggest, the standard is not as high as 51% (preponderance). It is in fact much lower: “The phrase ‘reasonable grounds’ means ‘that under the circumstances an ordinarily careful and prudent person after having made a reasonable inquiry would have believed the facts alleged and that the judicial proceeding was valid.” Perry v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 789 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990) (citing Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d at 764.) “Further, the facts must be considered as the prosecuting party could have reasonably believed them to be under the circumstances at the time. Id.

Your confusion about the 51% standard stems from the two issues before the grand jury: (1) was there reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed, and (2) is the person to be charged more likely than not the person who committed it.

If you had listened to the prosecutor last night, there was never any doubt or question about the second issue.

In summary, take your own medicine and "never speak again."



Dolic

Grand Jurys are not triers of fact to the extent that they can determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt as was suggested by that clown Aviaan when he said, " someone is trialed for charges against them and found not guilty through evidence" LOL.

I don't expect your average P99 R&F mouth breather to understand the difference between a grand jury and petit jury.

Additional, there is no confusion about the different burdens of proof. I clearly stated that it is a very low burden of proof requiring UP TO 51%. Courts disagree on what constitutes probable cause. Some courts cite it as 30%, 40%, or 51%, however number itself is just an attempt to characterize a complex legal concept into laymans terms.

But please continue citing statutes reinforcing my point about the very low burden of proof a grand jury labored under.

[Duckwalk]

And of course there was never any doubt about the second issues, no one is arguing that.

[Fael]

Your reasoning is just very strange to me. What does the burden of proof have to do with whether someone is a trier of fact?

A judge is a trier of fact in equity proceedings when he hears evidence and assigns weight to it. The burden is usually a preponderance of evidence. Same with a jury in civil case.

So he got the standard of proof wrong: Why is that cause to call him a fucking idiot ?

Dolic, esq.

[Duckwalk]

Michael Brown acted in a way that resulted in his death. Its a sad story for everyone involved.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This isn't for the Grand Jury to decide as there is easily enough allegation/evidence publicly available to cast doubt on issues WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEETS THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR AN INDICTMENT.

Obviously, the Grand Jury may have been shown evidence exculpating Officer Wilson which under normal circumstances would never happen as the prosecutor alone basically has sole discretion over that evidence and the potential defendant very little rights but in this case the DA essentially put on a defense case.

Furthermore this basicslly only happens for police officers. If you don't see how this would frustrate people then I don't know what to say to you.

[Duckwalk]

Your reasoning is just very strange to me. What does the burden of proof have to do with whether someone is a trier of fact?

A judge is a trier of fact in equity proceedings when he hears evidence and assigns weight to it. The burden is usually a preponderance of evidence. Same with a jury in civil case.

So he got the standard of proof wrong: Why is that cause to call him a fucking idiot ?

Dolic, esq.

Go back and read his ramblings?

It's not that he got the burden of proof wrong, it's that he competely ignorant of the judicial system, has no clue why people or frustrated yet criticizes their actions regardless.

Contrary to what Aviann stated there was no trial. There was a grand jury inquiry and they are only empowered to determine a very low burden of proof, they are not a trier of fact in so far as a determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Duckwalk]

Also I find Aviann as obnoxious as Altari so maybe I'm quick to rip on him.

R&F needs an edit function.

[Faron]

tldr 50 pages of armchair lawyers. Guy robs. Guy resists arrest. Guy gets shot. Sympathy factor hovering steady around zero. Left media race baiting and inciting riots. Standard dem procedure.

[Duckwalk]

tldr 50 pages of armchair lawyers. Guy robs. Guy resists arrest. Guy gets shot. Sympathy factor hovering steady around zero. Left media race baiting and inciting riots. Standard dem procedure.

Its been a slow work week

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

At least with Zimmerman we got a public trial, where everyone was fed the same information at the same time in a digestible fashion over the course of several weeks.

It allowed everyone to better cope with the end result, and you didn't see Florida catch fire that day, did you?

What the fuck planet do you live on?

Do you have a simple lapse in memory. (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22this%20is%20for%20trayvon%22)

or are you full-blown drinking the kool-aid? (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=trayvon+martin+riot)

[Fael]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This isn't for the Grand Jury to decide as there is easily enough allegation/evidence publicly available to cast doubt on issues WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEETS THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR AN INDICTMENT

See, this is not accurate. You are not thinking about it correctly. Let me see if I can explain:

I think that you would agree that if the only evidence that was available was that Brown attempted to grab his gun, hit him, ran away, then turned back and charged him; there would not be reasonable grounds for a jury showing caution to convict the officer. In such a case, there is not probable cause to believe he committed murder.

The problem here is that there is other evidence in form of witness testimony that he was shot with his hands up, that he was shot in the back, etc.

You seem to think that all the is required is that there be substantial evidence available to support a finding. However that is the standard of review for challenging probable cause; not the standard for the jury to find probable cause.

Here the jury was charged with taking all the evidence in, and assessing the physical evidence; and at least 9 of the 12 found that credible evidence did not support indictment.

You can disagree with that all you want. But that's about the most fair way to determine whether to charge someone.

Dolic

[Portasaurus]

This is what happens when you find a stranger in the alps.

[Duckwalk]

See, this is not accurate. You are not thinking about it correctly. Let me see if I can explain:

I think that you would agree that if the only evidence that was available was that Brown attempted to grab his gun, hit him, ran away, then turned back and charged him; there would not be reasonable grounds for a jury showing caution to convict the officer. In such a case, there is not probable cause to believe he committed murder.

The problem here is that there is other evidence in form of witness testimony that he was shot with his hands up, that he was shot in the back, etc.

You seem to think that all the is required is that there be substantial evidence available to support a finding. However that is the standard of review for challenging probable cause; not the standard for the jury to find probable cause.

Here the jury was charged with taking all the evidence in, and assessing the physical evidence; and at least 9 of the 12 found that credible evidence did not support indictment.

You can disagree with that all you want. But that's about the most fair way to determine whether to charge someone.

Dolic

[Nuktari]

http://media.giphy.com/media/IgLuwAfFTXWEM/giphy.gif

fuck the system, ur all wrong, burn it down.

[Duckwalk]

God damn iPhone.

Witness testimony is available to the Grand Jury. Those eye witness reports are available to the Grand Jury. I think you're missing the point I'm making.

The Prosecutor controls the inquiry and although the Grand Jury can ask to speak to people it's the Prosector who decided which evidence to present.

If this was a private citizen, the indictment would have taken an hour or two as there is easily enough evidence indict based on witness testimony alone. The Grand Jury can literally ask the Prosecutor what to do.

However, this was not the case here. The potential defendant was afforded numerous rights essentially never given out to private citizens. The DA basicslly put on the defenses case for them.

The issue is that a Grand Jury is not adversarial. There is a reason so few police officers are indicted.

[baub]

Guy robs. Guy resists arrest. Guy gets shot. Sympathy factor hovering steady around zero

[Faron]

This would have never happened on red.

[San]

He was a 300lb adult bully that was a criminal not worried about committing a felony. Doesn't bother me what happened.

[Duckwalk]

He was a 300lb adult bully that was a criminal not worried about committing a felony. Doesn't bother me what happened.

It should concern you that there is so much potential for abuse within our criminal justice system. Prosecutorial control over the Grand Jury is just one example of it.

[Duckwalk]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/allegations-of-police-misconduct-rarely-result-in-charges/

[Fael]

If this was a private citizen, the indictment would have taken an hour or two as there is easily enough evidence indict based on witness testimony alone. The Grand Jury can literally ask the Prosecutor what to do. .

It does seem odd, but would you rather have a prosecutor just deciding it himself?

Plus I'm not sure I agree that the officer was treated so differently. First, on the face of it, an armed officer is put into this situation by society. We ask them to stop criminals such as Mr Brown.

Why this matters is that the situation that occurred is not a normal situation. The situation indicates that self defense is a likely factor. The same is true if a private citizen killed a man in his house. The da would not just automatically charge a person, even absent castle doctrine statutes.

Zimmerman is an example of this, and it didn't even occur in the house. It took a few weeks if I recall correctly for the Florida da to bring the charge.

I think it's apples and oranges to compare the above situation to a case where crack is found in the car of a regular citizen, or if a man/woman is stabbed By his significant other, etc etc.

dolic

[Patriam1066]

I have one question about this. Why is this such a big deal but the killings in Chicago aren't. Why does no one care about the white kid (name eludes me but Kaga, if you'd be so kind, remind everyone) shot down by the black cop? Why does no one care about the thousands dying in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine.

I understand outrage, and there is certainly a problem. But why is it so selective? Makes absolutely zero sense to me. This appears to be more an issue of black / liberal outrage being projected throufh michael brown than an actual concern about black lives. If people cared about black lives, they'd be in Chicago trying their damnedest to educate children and give them a chance at something better. I guess it's just easier to blame whitey for everything....

That said I think everyone is wrong in this situation. The grand jury spoke, what can you do. Certainly rioting and looting doesn't make anyone empathize with michael brown or your position, if you claimed to care about him. At the same time, even if michael brown was a complete lunatic, the cop should've used a taser or a night stick instead of killing him. That's just my $.02. Unfortunately, we'll never have an actual discussion about this, because the liberals are more concerned with being professional victims than solving problems, or addressing why an 18 year old black kid KEPT WALKING AT A COP EVEN AS HE WAS FIRING AT HIM. I mean seriously, how enraged do you have to be for your survival instinct to stop working. He was willing to die just to get at the cop. Everyone in this case sucks, and all involved are why I own a gun

[indiscriminate_hater]

This would have never happened on red.

[Lictor]

God damn iPhone.

Witness testimony is available to the Grand Jury. Those eye witness reports are available to the Grand Jury. I think you're missing the point I'm making.

The Prosecutor controls the inquiry and although the Grand Jury can ask to speak to people it's the Prosector who decided which evidence to present.

If this was a private citizen, the indictment would have taken an hour or two as there is easily enough evidence indict based on witness testimony alone. The Grand Jury can literally ask the Prosecutor what to do.

However, this was not the case here. The potential defendant was afforded numerous rights essentially never given out to private citizens. The DA basicslly put on the defenses case for them.

The issue is that a Grand Jury is not adversarial. There is a reason so few police officers are indicted.

This is essentially the problem. It is hard to explain it to someone not familiar with the legal system. Unless MO is vastly diff than texas criminal procedure it is not hard to see why this is the result.

In dallas county (TX) alone last fiscal year, 81 officer involved shootings were brought to a grand jury, only one was indicted.

[Duckwalk]

It does seem odd, but would you rather have a prosecutor just deciding it himself?

Not sure what your talking about. I felt I was pretty clearly referening criminal procedurr rules regarding prosecutorial direction of grand jurys.

It's is not an adversarial mechanism.

Defendants have very few rights.

The Prosecutor decides what evidence to show to Grand Jury with the goal to be nonbiased.

The Grand Jury is actually encouraged to ask the Prosecutor their option or for guidance.

It is very easy to secure indictments should the DA want it, however in this case we have the Grand Jury taking far longer than normal, much more evidence was presented, the defendant was allowed to testify which normally never happens, etc...

[Duckwalk]

Misread your post Dolic, I don't know how to fix it but it's hard to deny its easily manipulatable.

[Faron]

.

[Duckwalk]

https://storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Misread your post Dolic, I don't know how to fix it but it's hard to deny its easily manipulatable.

manipulable was what you were going for to make that red squiggle go away lol. are you sure you even went to college? (your point stands but dude...)

[Duckwalk]

manipulable was what you were going for to make that red squiggle go away lol. are you sure you even went to college? (your point stands but dude...)

Actually they are both correct.

Regardless, congratulations on having nothing more valuable to add to a discussion outside of criticizing someone's phones autocorrect.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I have one question about this. Why is this such a big deal but the killings in Chicago aren't. Why does no one care about the white kid (name eludes me but Kaga, if you'd be so kind, remind everyone) shot down by the black cop? Why does no one care about the thousands dying in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine.

I understand outrage, and there is certainly a problem. But why is it so selective? Makes absolutely zero sense to me. This appears to be more an issue of black / liberal outrage being projected throufh michael brown than an actual concern about black lives. If people cared about black lives, they'd be in Chicago trying their damnedest to educate children and give them a chance at something better. I guess it's just easier to blame whitey for everything....

That said I think everyone is wrong in this situation. The grand jury spoke, what can you do. Certainly rioting and looting doesn't make anyone empathize with michael brown or your position, if you claimed to care about him. At the same time, even if michael brown was a complete lunatic, the cop should've used a taser or a night stick instead of killing him. That's just my $.02. Unfortunately, we'll never have an actual discussion about this, because the liberals are more concerned with being professional victims than solving problems, or addressing why an 18 year old black kid KEPT WALKING AT A COP EVEN AS HE WAS FIRING AT HIM. I mean seriously, how enraged do you have to be for your survival instinct to stop working. He was willing to die just to get at the cop. Everyone in this case sucks, and all involved are why I own a gun
Top of page 45
Can Dillon Tailor's case get talked about now?

[iruinedyourday]

.

white people rioting over stupid shit.

https://storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

yall are stupid racists btw enjoy your thread.

[Faron]

.

[Lictor]

white people rioting over stupid shit.

https://storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

yall are stupid racists btw enjoy your thread.

So what you are saying is I just need a local sports team to win a championship, then induce a riot to get a new tv. Maybe them cowboys will pull off a miracle.

[Portasaurus]

i'm so white I went out and bought a TV last night in ferguson