*Prompter Thread* (NO personal attacks, NO trolling)

[kydmb99]

I think cazzienumbers was mocking justink

[thebridge15]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

I guess the joke didn't land.

It's smart. It's a smart line, and a smart crowd will appreciate it. And, I'm not gonna dumb it down for some bonehead mass audience!

like I said, I don't think they're gonna be worried about the smart crowd. maybe the smart crowd will come up with that argument on their own. everyone else they can just trot pence out there and have him say "we cannot afford to put our families at risk from radical islamic terrorism! we cannot put the safety of our nation in jeopardy to appease the feelings of some coastal liberal elites"

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by thebridge15

like I said, I don't think they're gonna be worried about the smart crowd. maybe the smart crowd will come up with that argument on their own. everyone else they can just trot pence out there and have him say "we cannot afford to put our families at risk from radical islamic terrorism! we cannot put the safety of our nation in jeopardy to appease the feelings of some coastal liberal elites"

Smart people wouldn't be making the argument I made in my original post. My original post was a joke.

A joke that obviously didn't land.

[thebridge15]

not a good look for the populace then

[justink]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Question for all the "muh DICTATOR TRUMP!" people, how do you feel about the fact that FDR was elected 4 times?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Can't wait for that argument in 6 years.

are you seriously JUST now learning this?

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

Well it constitutional when FDR ran for 4 terms. It would now violate the 22nd amendment, which was brought about BECAUSE of FDR. So anyone who makes that argument in 6 years is a dumb person, almost as dumb as someone just now realizing that FDR served four terms.

this.

[Climb2safety]

Senate healthcare plan reveal day.

As I recall, the number of pages is a major issue with Obamacare. What's the over/under on pages this needs to be to be a success?

[thebridge15]

well carly fiorina was going to make the tax code 3 pages, so somewhere around that should be more than enough for healthcare

[smokew11]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

NRA - We need to carry firearms to protect ourselves from the government!

*Man carrying firearm unjustifiably killed by the government

NRA - I got nothing

here's the interesting part of that. A man recently shot members of government he deems to be tyranical (you could argue that taking insurance from 23 million people and giving tax credits to just the rich does fall under tyrannical)

I don't condone what he did at all, and I think the "guns to protect from the government" is completely outdated because in this day and age there's no chance for a militia to organize against the gov't. I just think it's an interesting angle to the conversation

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by smokew11

here's the interesting part of that. A man recently shot members of government he deems to be tyranical (you could argue that taking insurance from 23 million people and giving tax credits to just the rich does fall under tyrannical)

I don't condone what he did at all, and I think the "guns to protect from the government" is completely outdated because in this day and age there's no chance for a militia to organize against the gov't. I just think it's an interesting angle to the conversation

Rand Paul agreed with Judge Nap on the general premise you're going off of

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/...w&ref_url=http

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by smokew11

here's the interesting part of that. A man recently shot members of government he deems to be tyranical (you could argue that taking insurance from 23 million people and giving tax credits to just the rich does fall under tyrannical)

I don't condone what he did at all, and I think the "guns to protect from the government" is completely outdated because in this day and age there's no chance for a militia to organize against the gov't. I just think it's an interesting angle to the conversation

Actually, to the bold, this is a sticking point of the few diehard 2A people I know. They actually believe that if armed citizens had to, they could band together to take down the military, if need be.

Please note that I do not personally subscribe to this and think it's absolutely absurd, but it's an argument I've heard on more than one occasion.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by smokew11

here's the interesting part of that. A man recently shot members of government he deems to be tyranical (you could argue that taking insurance from 23 million people and giving tax credits to just the rich does fall under tyrannical)

I don't condone what he did at all, and I think the "guns to protect from the government" is completely outdated because in this day and age there's no chance for a militia to organize against the gov't. I just think it's an interesting angle to the conversation

Kind of lost me with your subtle hint at sympathy for the guy

[smokew11]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

Rand Paul agreed with Judge Nap on the general premise you're going off of

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/...w&ref_url=http

yeah I saw that, but it was from 2016

I wonder what all the Republicans that use that reasoning for the 2nd amendment would say when it's used for that reason? They could say the guy is crazy, maybe he is, but he used his 2nd amendment right the exact way the 2nd amendment has been so loudly defended, by people in here as well. I didn't see anyone in here who's defended the 2nd amendment that way condoning what this guy did

and THAT is why its an outdated reason/use of the amendment

[thebridge15]

12 thousand upvotes on the_donald for trump proposing that immigrants can't receive financial assistance for 5 years

you know, something that is already a law

[smokew11]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

Actually, to the bold, this is a sticking point of the few diehard 2A people I know. They actually believe that if armed citizens had to, they could band together to take down the military, if need be.

Please note that I do not personally subscribe to this and think it's absolutely absurd, but it's an argument I've heard on more than one occasion.

yeah I dont think that could ever, ever happen today

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Kind of lost me with your subtle hint at sympathy for the guy

i see what you're saying, but I was pointing out that tyranical is subjective

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

Actually, to the bold, this is a sticking point of the few diehard 2A people I know. They actually believe that if armed citizens had to, they could band together to take down the military, if need be.

Please note that I do not personally subscribe to this and think it's absolutely absurd, but it's an argument I've heard on more than one occasion.

I don't think many people believe US citizens could win a war against the US military. I do think people believe armed citizens would make it much more difficult for a hypothetical tyrannical government. Ultimately, it truly is the only defense free people have.

I'm not one of these people who thinks that's likely to happen with the United States but history has certainly shown it can happen anywhere.

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

Actually, to the bold, this is a sticking point of the few diehard 2A people I know. They actually believe that if armed citizens had to, they could band together to take down the military, if need be.

Please note that I do not personally subscribe to this and think it's absolutely absurd, but it's an argument I've heard on more than one occasion.

We didn't win Korea. We didn't win Vietnam. We didn't win Iraq. We didn't win Afghanistan.

Military has a pretty bad record against guerilla warfare over the last 60+ years. I'll put my money on the guerillas.

[TheLastPig]

This is not a power move, Trump is just a dickhead

https://twitter.com/barstoolsports/s...80160242028550

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

We didn't win Korea. We didn't win Vietnam. We didn't win Iraq. We didn't win Afghanistan.

Military has a pretty bad record against guerilla warfare over the last 60+ years. I'll put my money on the guerillas.

Caz, you're unusually irrational today. Still recovering from your cold from a few days ago? Maybe Nyqull has you a little loopy today.

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

Caz, you're unusually irrational today. Still recovering from your cold from a few days ago? Maybe Nyqull has you a little loopy today.

I've been pretty consistent on this issue. One of the few things I agree with Jeepkid on.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

Caz, you're unusually irrational today. Still recovering from your cold from a few days ago? Maybe Nyqull has you a little loopy today.

I mean he's not wrong

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

This is not a power move, Trump is just a dickhead

https://twitter.com/barstoolsports/s...80160242028550

Forget Russia, Obstruction of Justice, or violations of the Emoluments Clause. This is grounds for impeachment

[smokew11]

I agree with Caz until he said he'd put his $ on the guerillas

The big difference is that the US fought a war in those countries, on the guerillas home turf, with little understanding how they organize, recruit, and how to defeat them. On US soil, with current technology, the Patriot Act, etc, I think it would be really difficult to organize anything on a truly large scale. The best bet would be to get groups to rise up in multiple (dozens) of cities at once...but those groups would have to, at some point, work together, have a strategy/goal, etc...and I just find that very difficult or unlikely in 21st century America. We could def see small pockets of people rise up, but nothing comparable to what we see overseas

[mthawk07]

If the citizens of the United States truly tried to rise up against our military, they'd be bringing guns to a tank/airplane/drone/bomb fight. The only hurdle I'd see is ordering our military to kill our own citizens.

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by smokew11

here's the interesting part of that. A man recently shot members of government he deems to be tyranical (you could argue that taking insurance from 23 million people and giving tax credits to just the rich does fall under tyrannical)

I don't condone what he did at all, and I think the "guns to protect from the government" is completely outdated because in this day and age there's no chance for a militia to organize against the gov't. I just think it's an interesting angle to the conversation

No, you could not and that did not happen.

Taxes have been raised and lowered on millions and millions of people throughout the years as well as government benefits been given and taken away.

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

Forget Russia, Obstruction of Justice, or violations of the Emoluments Clause. This is grounds for impeachment

Combine this with the fact that he eats steak with ketchup. Honestly and truly, you'd think that guy grew up poor as fuck.

[smokew11]

Originally Posted by rconverse

No, you could not and that did not happen.

Taxes have been raised and lowered on millions and millions of people throughout the years as well as government benefits been given and taken away.

well it's about to happen. And I;m not talking about the natural ebb and flow of tax decreases and increases

our president campaigned on saying medicaid would not be touched, it needs to be stronger. The current bill has deep medicaid cuts and the reported amount of people that would lose insurance, with the tax benefits of those cuts going to the rich

tyranical is defined as "exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way"...I would say that, if this is the bill, it's very cruel, though not arbitrary. The Republicans didn't have a dart titled "who benefits from tax cuts we gain by taking insurance away from millions?" and throw it at a board, they knew what they were doing.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by mthawk07

If the citizens of the United States truly tried to rise up against our military, they'd be bringing guns to a tank/airplane/drone/bomb fight. The only hurdle I'd see is ordering our military to kill our own citizens.

There would be so much foreign involvment in a modern american civil war. The militia would have plenty of enhanced weapons.

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by smokew11

well it's about to happen. And I;m not talking about the natural ebb and flow of tax decreases and increases

our president campaigned on saying medicaid would not be touched, it needs to be stronger. The current bill has deep medicaid cuts and the reported amount of people that would lose insurance, with the tax benefits of those cuts going to the rich

tyranical is defined as "exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way"...I would say that, if this is the bill, it's very cruel, though not arbitrary. The Republicans didn't have a dart titled "who benefits from tax cuts?" and throw it at a board, they knew what they were doing.

Obama did the same thing. My HC costs went so high that I, literally, by law, have to have an entire different account that is solely for my HC needs when they arrive.

I don't care about any bill. There's no excuse for shooting people that are unarmed.

This is a p insane argument, imo.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by smokew11

well it's about to happen. And I;m not talking about the natural ebb and flow of tax decreases and increases

our president campaigned on saying medicaid would not be touched, it needs to be stronger. The current bill has deep medicaid cuts and the reported amount of people that would lose insurance, with the tax benefits of those cuts going to the rich

tyranical is defined as "exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way"...I would say that, if this is the bill, it's very cruel, though not arbitrary. The Republicans didn't have a dart titled "who benefits from tax cuts we gain by taking insurance away from millions?" and throw it at a board, they knew what they were doing.

Using the IRS to harrass political opponents is tyranny. Cutting a welfare program is not.

This is not a good look for you.

[smokew11]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

There would be so much foreign involvment in a modern american civil war. The militia would have plenty of enhanced weapons.

that's assuming a militia would have the capability of organizing, becoming big enough, and making an alliance with foreign powers before being put down. Modern surveillance would nip this very, very quickly

Also, no American ally would get involved in this for fear of being on the wrong side when its over. You would be talking about taking aid from the Middle East, who would be getting involved just to see America burn