Kraken

I almost feel like you've never met religious conservatives. It's ironic that people can be Christians and extremely conservative, considering that the ideas of it are to be kind to everyone. It's not really being kind when the same people attempt to say abortion and birth control are unbiblical, despite divorces being legal which more or less were considered to be unheard of before the 20th century. Also could you consider that while both males and females can be abusive, the MRA and MGTOW groups are basically saying they want superiority over women. But nooo let's just worry about masculinity and virginity, which are both meaningless constructs. And you can't say "well you criticize race as being inherent", but last I checked, the government doesn't register if you're a virgin or if you're considered masculine. Here, let me leave some speeches. http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/steinem-testimony-speech-text/ http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/chisholm-for-the-equal-rights-amendment-speech-text/

I find it hilarious to think that this is what you consider to be a fitting response for a serious discussion. It's not hypocritical to be a male feminist, however it would be ironic if you were male and viewed females as superior or inferior. The whole point of feminism is to bring females up to the benefits males have simply for being male. Very few males actually attempt to get partners by being a part of feminism. But despite that, who cares? The discussion of whether a person has a partner or not shouldn't mean anything unless you're actively discussing what your partner is like. And as far as I can tell, we haven't been discussing that with American politics.

No, you actually haven't. Selous has given more sources, but I haven't seen much of yours. Especially when considering that, in the last page of the discussion, you had only 4 sources, despite the lengthy posts you've left. While, yes, I didn't provide any real sources in the last page, I was responding to criticism. Arguably, yes, the last post on the previous page needs sources, but considering the amount of sources I have left previously, (As well as multiple posts) it would be hard not to understand my stance on gun control. Gun related crime is missing the entirety of gun-related incidents. Sure, crime might be down in general, but do we consider this being because we have the largest percentage of population in prison compared to all other countries? Or is it because everyone is worried about getting shot by cops, despite being clearly unarmed? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anyways, all that aside, I want to talk about Universal Basic Income. Considering how some parts of the population blame certain other minorities about "leeching off our generosity" or some other phrase similar to that, instead maybe we should have everyone get paid equally. Despite some racial motivation for it, it would arguably, be a "patch" for capitalism. If you've watched the video, we could have an educated discussion about the implications of having such a system.

I was pointing out the absurdity of it. If you did that with guns, there would be literally nothing that would go without the government over your shoulder.

When you suggest people to "provide evidence" for a response, maybe you should also do that for your own responses. I don't see the point of having posted evidence on multiple occasions pertaining to my point of view, when it is immediately forgotten as soon as the next response comes out. I'm not saying to re-read the thread 7 times a week, but it is horribly ironic that you say I need evidence, then you immediately state your own opinion without evidence. I will admit, me not doing the same myself is ironic, but I wasn't the one demanding evidence in the last response. Also you are heavily reaching implying that people shouldn't be able to own materials that could be turned into weapons. The war on drugs has already stated such things concerning meth. You can't get anything even remotely related to meth or other drug production without having someone breathing down your neck.

So let me get this straight, when the left is going through a government they can't trust, you criticize them, and when they attempt to propose anarchy or do something without government (which would be really difficult), you criticize them for being anarchists. Your view on the left feels as though you've been on Tumblr and followed all the wrong people. But let's talk about the police, yeah? We're not gonna talk about how black people are disproportionately arrested? Of course they'd want less police officers around because then they're less likely to get arrested for something comparatively minor. When a white teen commits a crime, it's viewed as "innocent misguided youth", but when a black teen does it they're viewed as a "menace to society." Also, higher percentage of gun ownership in population tends to lead to higher rates of gun death (go figure.) For frontiersmen it was for hunting, most of the time. But let's talk about Christians. Despite the message of the bible, many out-spoken members often hold the complete opposite view of what was taught in the bible. They usually also tend to be conservative. But let's also talk about those people who wore crowns of bullets and clutched their AR-15s after the Stoneman Douglas shooting and the calls for gun control afterwards.

Okay, let me just debate some parts of this. First off, 3 years after 1968 some federal agents had shot a NRA member (who was hoarding a large cache of illegal weapons), causing a division between hard-liners, which wanted restrictions of weapons for criminals (by giving everyone else a gun), and the moderates whom were open to restrictions, but not outright of taking away of weapons. And guess which side won? So now we have the current NRA, which gets offended any time someone breathes on a gun the wrong way. Second off, I have NEVER fired an assault rifle, nor do I own one. I only own bolt actions of low caliber, and pistols, with very few being larger caliber. The restriction of bump stocks and limits of 10 rounds a magazine is perfectly reasonable in my eyes. The 20,000 gun law figure is a hyperbole made by gun-supporters. And it doesn't matter how many laws there are, what matters is the enforcement of them. And why would we debate this on a pro-gun forum, if we'd rather discuss it here? Just because we're discussing it doesn't mean we're about to go straight to the lion's den on that matter. Third, Vermont is actually not one of the safest states. It has the highest rate of gun deaths of any New England regional states. And what does WW2 have to do with it? As far as I can tell, WW2 didn't do anything for or against gun control, because 20 years later, with the beginnings of live media, mass shootings were starting to appear. Are you trying to say how this is a right to take over a corrupt government? Because honestly, I'd have to say I'm surprised there hasn't already been armed rebellion against the government... Oh wait, no, every single time that's happened the military came in and crushed it, or the politicians just ignored it till the problem resolved itself. My stance on guns purely reflects the NEED for guns, rather than what people want from them. I would find it perfectly reasonable to limit weapons to semi-automatic pistols, and to bolt action rifles, or maybe a semi-automatic rifle with low magazine capacity. For what purpose do you need 10+ rounds if you're hunting, or if you're carrying for self-defense?

Also I feel like it should be mentioned that Nixon and some of his successors peddled the idea that hippies were pot-smoking absent-minded tree huggers. (Basically the truth from GTA.) In reality, it was more nuanced, and not a lot of people were actually like that. There was also the racial profiling of African Americans as thugs and drug dealers, etc. Additionally, the Nixon administration and its war on drugs had an alternate motive, as expressed in this quote: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." — John D. Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide, interview with Dan Baum While that quote has been disputed as to its truth, it does highlight the issues in society which we know are taking place. I'm always talking about the war on drugs because it's a perfect example of how to fuck everything up. Again, though, refer to the statistics I put up a few pages ago concerning the crime disproportion concerning African Americans, and the subsequent Prison-Industrial complex.

Truly, pinnacle of discussion, these responses. How can you NOT see that this is the situation of American politics? It's all blatantly obvious, and it lines up perfectly with what he said. Politics is always, at root, the discussion of people's fears and their responses to it. Conservatives fear Liberals becoming communists. Liberals fear conservatives becoming fascists. It's always a balancing act of fears.

Please cite sources for the "collectivism" and how they "oppose individual rights and/or favor collective rights." Also, their idea may well be superior considering they're not calling for murder and genocide. Also please, cite evidence stating that they "construed a Jewish Objectivist as a Nazi Sympathizer". Please tell me that all of these hate crimes weren't publicly supported by white supremacists as a whole? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://www.nps.gov/articles/16thstreetbaptist.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing https://www.britannica.com/event/16th-Street-Baptist-Church-bombing https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/churches/archives1.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot ----- 1. You never disproved the SPLC and ADL, you just pointed out how they thought that the okay sign on one hand was a white power symbol, and that they viewed Pepe as a racist meme. But, let's be fair, Pepe WAS used in a racist context, which the creator of Pepe The Frog himself publicly said was not the intent of Pepe. https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/defining-extremism-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/pepe-the-frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_the_Frog http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pepe-the-frog-hate-symbol-20161011-snap-htmlstory.html Please, tell me how this is misinformation? As well, you never cited evidence stating that the SPLC lied. You don't disprove it if you don't have the facts to back it up. 2. You automatically attributed the changed definition of Mass Shooting to be connected to "popularity" of the term, but you do not provide evidence to support this. 3. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment "Perhaps they deleted it because its insane?" He wasn't necessarily calling them out that they are bad at research, he was correcting an error. The guy has obviously used the ADL, a similar entity, as reference, which you cite as "misinformation." 4. I tried to figure out what in the hell GG even was, but the whole thing was such a mess of motives and claims that I couldn't even tell what side was arguing for what. I'm glad I missed it when it happened (despite being particularly active on the internet at the time of it taking place.) Saying you participated in GG doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot when people don't even know what the hell went on. 5. "By the time he returned from service in the Allied forces of World War I, very little remained of Mussolini the socialist. Indeed, he was now convinced that socialism as a doctrine had largely been a failure." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Formation_of_the_National_Fascist_Party Please, entertain the idea that he was socialist during his fascist period. ----- 1. "he's also done more to fulfill his promises in less time than Obama has regardless of whether or not one agrees with everything he's proposed or done." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_(2009%E2%80%932017 http://time.com/5106302/donald-trump-first-year-promises/ Sorry, this is all despite the fact that Trump has every branch of government with a Republican majority, and he's a Republican President? 2. "one could say he has far more stress to deal with than Obama ever did" So, he's not going to deal with stress in other ways, and would become completely hypocritical by indulging in golf? On his own courses? Additionally: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-presidential-seal/ 3. But Hillary isn't in office, and isn't making noteworthy attempts to conform to any of these political lobby's goals. I'm pointing out that Trump has been lobbied by the NRA and immediately turns to support them whenever something happens. If Hillary was President, you'd hear me criticizing her if she did things like this, but as it is, this is what we have to deal with. 4. Please cite that last claim, I couldn't find anything about that. ----- 1. You're implying that Earth doesn't vary in temperature naturally by saying that the medieval ages had slight warming, thinking this is disproving man-made climate change. The difference is that the warming of the Earth at the current moment is the fastest it has ever been. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/04/new-study-confirms-noaa-finding-of-faster-global-warming https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/10/earths-oceans-are-warming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating Yes, let's argue with NASA and NOAA, two government groups which are clearly qualified to publish reliable information about these things. 2. You left out the part where the hole in the Ozone was caused by humans due to our over-reliance on Halocarbons. If we as humans are capable of causing the depletion of the Ozone, we are similarly likely to be the cause of global warming, which is even cited by NASA to be >95% Humanity's fault. ----- I don't see it as an opposite. It's almost exactly the same, it's just that names have changed. ------ Then Lenin died and Stalin took power. ----- Please, lay out some evidence, enlighten us. Guess what the media has brought us today? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-border-wall-comments-mocked_us_5aa8ce09e4b018e2f1c2eaab https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-videos-mosque-vandalism-women-children_us_5aa9a121e4b0600b82ffe195 http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378218-trump-likens-those-crossing-border-to-professional-mountain-climbers http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-likens-immigrants-crossing-mexico-border-mountain-climbers-article-1.3872479 Meanwhile: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/reactions-stephen-hawkings-death-slammed-ableist-heres-155031194.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5492593/GOP-candidate-calls-Parkland-student-skinhead-lesbian.html https://mashable.com/2018/03/14/nra-national-student-walkout-tweet-gun-photo/#vlXTZq4negq3 https://www.thedailybeast.com/alt-right-ringleader-richard-spencer-we-attract-the-mentally-ill?source=articles_sum&via=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+thedailybeast%252Farticles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/378369-nra-tweets-during-student-gun-control-protests-ill-control-my https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/nra-trolls-student-gun-protests-with-defiant-tweet/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nra-ar15-tweet-national-school-walkout_us_5aa985b0e4b0600b82ffaddd Just to name a few. Oh, and did we forget about Trump mocking a disabled reporter? https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/07/28/donald-trump-criticized-for-mocking-disabled-reporter/ http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/jun/13/priorities-usa-action/pro-clinton-super-pac-ad-trump-mocked-disabled-r/

I would like to point out that, currently, there are package bombs delivered to prominent African Americans and their families in the city of Austin, in Texas. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/13/austin-police-search-for-bombing-motive-say-explosives-made-with-skill-and-sophistication/?utm_term=.714088c7c761 http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-austin-bombings-20180312-story.html https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a19411206/austin-bombing/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/12/austin-bombs-texas-attack-link-previous-bombing-victims While it might be a little too soon to tell, there is a clear link in all three, that they were addressed to African Americans, and it is a possibility it is a hate crime.

Right, so I have been meaning to get around to this, but considering as I felt like I had my ass handed to me on a platter, I took a hiatus. (Yes, feel free to quote that and take that out of context. It is sarcastic. Also this entire string of sentences in parenthesis are sarcastic.) And, as much as I'd love to use a bunch of "reaction images/gifs", I actually attempt to spend my time finding things that actually prove my points. Now I'm here, and I guess it's time for me to argue those points. Well, yes, disruption is a gray area, but ask yourself this: Is the group disrupting the discussion advocating the supremacy of one race or sex/gender over another? That, lies the difference between Antifa and Nazis in such circumstances. While, yes, one can argue that Antifa is also largely a feminist movement, the entire goal of feminism is to have women on equal terms with men. It's not about bringing men down to the level of women. Also I still have no evidence that Antifa is responsible for any murders. Since no one feels like going back to check on things, let me just quote this again. Even if you don't believe in some of these, I'd be interested on learning how you think Snopes, which fact checks extensively, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which specifically monitors hate groups, get statistics wrong. I would also like to see proof that these aren't true. Additionally, take a look at this and tell me you don't find it to be far worse than what you claim Antifa does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right Also, how do they "identify" as leftists? They only cared about the working class, or at least appeared to, while they silently culled the Jewish population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism How do you know that he DIDN'T say that? I am taking it with a grain of salt, but considering the multiple other things that he has done, it is really rather mild. This is a man willing to argue over Twitter, with someone with access to nuclear weaponry. And yes, despite how petty it is, and how unlikely a nuclear war would be started over it, it's still a stupid idea. Anyways, time for a compiled list of things Trump has managed to do that is, at least ethically and socially, questionable. [] Has allegedly sexually assaulted multiple women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations (And is additionally creepy, in that he owned the Miss Universe/Teen USA/USA pageant and was alleged to have walked in on women dressing on multiple accounts, as well as personally asking them who they think is hot. Also related: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html ) [] Has indications of pedophilia. (He wants to bang his own daughter, did you guys seriously forget about that? Additionally, as I said, he owned Miss Teen USA, where he was alleged to have walked in on women dressing, with some occasions apparently also involving Miss Teen USA.) [] Has been shown to be largely ineffective at assisting hurricane-inflicted Puerto Rico, and additionally criticized the Mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulin Cruz, while he was at a Golf Resort. You can also check his twitter if he hasn't deleted it, or if these aren't enough sources for you. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-puerto-rico-trump-mayor-20170930-story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/us/politics/trump-puerto-rico-mayor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/us/san-juan-mayor-trump.html [] Speaking of golf, let's take a look at how he famously criticized Obama for taking golf vacations, but then proceeding to do it himself. http://trumpgolfcount.com/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/10/who-plays-more-golf-donald-trump-or-barack-obama/ [] Has been donated $30+ Million in total by NRA for his pro-gun stance, much of which was obtained during his campaign. He has promised legal gun age would be increased to 21, in lieu of support for gun control, but has, since writing, backpedaled on such promises. https://www.romper.com/p/how-much-did-the-nra-donate-to-trump-hes-been-loyal-to-the-organization-since-his-candidacy-2748576 https://www.romper.com/p/transcript-of-trumps-las-vegas-response-shows-it-was-measured-but-lacking-2745188 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/politics/trump-gun-control-national-rifle-association.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17109798/trump-gun-control-proposal-betsy-devos-parkland-nra http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/377987-white-house-insists-trump-not-backing-down-from-nra https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns/in-bow-to-nra-trump-throws-gun-purchase-age-to-states-courts-idUSKCN1GO1OC https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-arm-teachers-gun-purchase-age_us_5aa5c57ae4b086698a9f0828 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parkland-david-hogg-trump-nra_us_5aa6950ce4b087e5aaec5149 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/12/trump-pressure-nra-gun-control-parkland https://thinkprogress.org/sarah-sanders-trump-school-safety-plan-79bf62348734/ [] Has had a significant amount of people in his administration linked to Russia. While this may not personally indicate Trump, it is still a very questionable issue within itself. Additionally, he appears to be taking a stance against such investigation. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/democratic-memo-gop-fbi-trump-campaign-423446 http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-comey-testimony-htmlstory.html [] Has opposed "Sanctuary Cities", most likely because it's composed of immigrants, blaming them on the "increase of crime", despite the fact that crime rate is actually lower in these cities. Additionally, the economy is actually shown to be stronger in such cities. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/02/trump-administration-threatens-sanctuary-cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/08/4-big-things-to-know-about-sanctuary-cities-and-illegal-immigration/?utm_term=.1165e64df6b0 And before you say "I noticed a glaring error in your article, it says Obama deported more than the previous presidents", please, look at this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.a7c974821896 ----- So would you rather science just doesn't talk about the data until 20 years later when it's already too late? Objectively, scientists should work with the general public to iron out any flaws in the data. Also, apparently "An Inconvenient Truth" was cited as very accurate, with few errors. While, yes, he might have personally made some outlandish claims such with Kilimanjaro, he at least tried to stay accurate to the data he was given. Arguably, not the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome, at least pertaining to the movie itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth Please cite sources that previous reports were exaggerated or underestimated. Because these things happen all the time in science, someone notices it and says, "Hey, this doesn't look right." and then they see what went wrong. It's again, peer review. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/if-earth-has-warmed-and-cooled-throughout-history-what-makes-scientists-think-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/ Please, tell me how NASA has messed a computer model up, something they've worked with for the past 40 years. We've been genetically modifying things since the agricultural revolution. Although Volcanoes are very volatile, there is no evidence showing that Yellowstone is due for a major eruption, nor that there would be "global eruption". ----- Again, it matters with what the groups as a whole are doing. Antifa hasn't murdered anyone as far as we know, and yet there are multiple crimes attributed to the Alt-Right. Perhaps it's a fact that the Alt-right has existed far longer, but perhaps not by the same name, although not as an "Antifa" group, except probably in WW2, but that's different considering we were in active war with two fascist countries. Japan was a military dictatorship, although not too far off from fascism. And there was still racist motivations against Japanese-Americans, and a fair bit towards German and especially Italian-Americans, but not quite to the extent that Japanese-Americans suffered, largely in part to the latter 2 groups having significant immigrant numbers, especially not in the pacific coastline where an exclusion zone was placed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment#United_States_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_the_United_States#World_War_II Y'know, I just can't seem to put my finger on it, but today's events are similar to something else that happened around 60 years ago... Almost as if there was an oppressed minority in the South of the U.S. (in general) peacefully trying to gain freedom in a largely violent, conservative society... Which coincidentally, such conservatives also Threatened, Harassed, Doxxed (The equivalent of what happened, but in modern reference.), Murdered, Bombed, and to this day still attempt mass shootings because of their beliefs. ----- But you keep forgetting that Soviet Russia, in vast part was an authoritarian state, which did not particularly care for the mobs, except for when they felt threatened of being overthrown. China, even though it dislikes both Soviet Russia and Modern Russia (perhaps because of borders), still shares many characteristics. ----- Please name the last presidential electorate that even close to getting into office off of an independent ticket. You would be hard pressed to find even one. If you're not endorsed by either party, it's pretty much done with. ----- What reason do people have to be racist? Apply said logic with what you said just now, and the question of reasons he has to lie is solved. But in case you didn't get it, it's because a person might think they could gain something out of it. ----- So you're saying that if a history book references anything occurring at the time of publishing, you should criticize it as though it were entirely modern? Read my list of things trump has done up above. Also, the difference between extremism and the entirety of the group is which one is more commonplace. You seem to think that extremism is a very big sect in Antifa, and that extremism is a very small sect in the alt-right. It's entirely backwards. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising ----- Again, https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising ----- So you expect me to find a study done with no data, because it would show bias if it was present? And government agencies don't have politically leaning outlets? They don't have agendas to push? Otherwise, please refer to my comments above for this. ----- Refer to dashofweak's response for this. Except for the part about the golden one. He looks like Chris Hemsworth on steroids. While I do like Chris Hemsworth, the golden one also looks like he hit his face on his doorway. But that's just me.

Again, as I've said, they are allowed to speak against the groups using free speech. Antifa is NOT anti-free speech, and I have said it multiple times. Disrupting an event with free speech in it is not the same as oppressing it. The point of Antifa is to protest what Neo-nazis and Neo-fascists have to say, not to act as the next anti-sedition law. Also, that entire first paragraph just has so many things wrong with it. 1. Former GamerGate supporter? You've changed stances on it? Let me quote a direct excerpt from Wikipedia, which you so vehemently despise, despite its efforts to retain accuracy, which is far better than most sources can claim. "Statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent and contradictory, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. As a result, Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters committed. Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims." 2. You claim you understand "how the actions of a few do not necessarily reflect on the whole" but you immediately contradict yourself by meaning to criticize the extremist portion of it, thinking it represents the entire group. 3. I'm pretty sure they define anyone as a Nazi as someone who is extremely racist. Racism is hand in hand with Nazism, in many ways. Did you forget about the supposed "Aryan Race"? Have you forgotten the large sections of racism still left in the country? Trump is very much a racist. Now, while the difference between Nazism and racism might be an intent to follow violence with it, which would be Nazism, do keep in mind that he does hold one of the most powerful offices in the world, and explicitly criticizes African countries, calling them a "shithole", and is xenophobic to Muslims. 4. Is it a coincidence that most of the Neo-Nazis claim themselves as conservative? 5. "You cannot oppose someone's right to speak merely because you believe that they are a Nazi or a Fascist.", but, they're criticizing what they say? It's not their fault if they criticize a point so well that the person saying racist things refuses to speak afterwards. And then they proceed to play the victim card, claiming that they "threatened their right to speak." ----- 1. How has it been mishandled by Science? 2. Scientists almost always push their earliest findings. It's part of science. They want people to review their experiments and data, something called "Peer review". You can't claim credibility if no one else can replicate your findings. 3. Scientists will always have something incorrect or a quirk in one of their theories. Refining and stamping out such quirks is also part of science, so they can perfect their theories. 4. So is it just a coincidence that by the time of the industrial revolution, global carbon emissions increased? Also, what increase in the medieval period? It looks stable to me. 5. It is very well likely that we could eventually become carbon negative, it is just that most countries have not made sufficient steps to do so. You understand what carbon dioxide scrubbers, adsorption and even algae are, right? Algae especially are an easy access solution, which can be genetically modified to absorb even MORE carbon dioxide. ----- 1. And Neo-Nazis don't chant mantras like a religious cult? 2. I would say that the opposite side also "disrupts", perhaps even more. 3. Fair enough on the rest. 4. Except for the double standards. Do you think Germany is making more of an attempt to remedy their history than America? Also, when a guy argues for genocide, obviously there is something wrong there, and you shouldn't really have to wait until they actually attempt it to do something about it. I'm not suggesting arresting him, but like, get the person some therapeutic help or something. Obviously things aren't working out for that guy if he's saying genocide is a good thing. ----- I guess that makes sense. Still, has there ever been a country in modern times "Dictated by mob rule"? I mean in modern day as fast communication, not having to send a messenger boy to go tell someone your opinion. ----- I never said I wanted Hillary either, but I did leave out her, because she isn't currently POTUS. Would rather have Bernie. ----- One person with a viewer base is far different from a loosely organized group. I would rather just have someone read out the facts, with as little bias as possible, and not dance around the facts or making assumptions. Especially coming to mind is when he mentioned that Trump's tax reform cut everyone's taxes. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it makes more of a tax break for the wealthy. ----- 1. Anti-fascist movements have largely featured the picture of the two flags. Antifa has kept it in theirs, but it is slightly different, not the same as the one on the book. 2. I did look it up. Also, it discusses modern anti-fascist movements because it's relevant. But you said that for me. I don't see what your argument is. 3. It is relevant because history repeats itself. I'm not saying Trump is Hitler, but he does have a few characteristics of Hitler. Racist? Check. Wants to have mass deportation? Check. Blames a specific ethic/religious group? You bet. ----- So, you think that just because there isn't fighting over political maneuvers, you think that they are all the same? Also sure, it's an endorsement of Antifa? It's not representative of the whole platform. Again, hypocrisy with earlier. ----- Again, actions of a few representing the entire group? While many did enjoy Spencer getting punched, it was really rather deserved, considering he is literally a Nazi. He entirely fits the ideals of the Nazis. I'm pretty sure more people than Antifa think he's a Nazi. I abhor the fact that his hometown is even in my state. ----- You're shitting about the last one, right? They had no blood on their hands until Charlottesville? Did you not see that list of things that I left that suggest otherwise? Also, I even admitted that they do Doxxing as of late, and most likely have made threats, just not to the degree that the Alt-Right does. Antifa usually only reserves such acts for prominent Alt-right members. I guess I can also add Violence and Harassment, but these happen even less often. Also, Antifa never attempted bombings to my knowledge. ------ Unless you have better sources? ----- I guess? But I think we both know that them verbally arguing is likely not going to happen. ----- I would like to point out that even though alt-media might disapprove of even more radical groups/individuals, that doesn't mean they don't have their own faults. But let's be fair, the media is pretty biased, no matter what direction.

Man, you can piss off a lot of specialists saying that sort of shit. Political science exists, and you have to use science when you put in a law because if you don't have evidence it's very unlikely that people will support it. Although, I still wonder about how anyone took Trump seriously. Your point? I don't care if you use left biased sources or not as long as there's actual scientific evidence backing it. You do realize hate speech means anything advocating the marginalization of people, and advocating someone as lesser, right? Also, you're completely blowing what I said out of proportion. I didn't contradict myself. People are entitled to say what they want in America, but it's really everyone else who has to deal with them that determines whether they think it's a valid opinion or whether it's hate speech. You do realize the ACLU also draw the line at hate speech right? They might respect free speech but they sure as hell don't like it when that speech is advocating social hierarchy, especially when based on race or political views. Sorry, how are they the embodiment of fascism? Extreme Nationalism IS fascism. If you looked it up in the dictionary, it would say that. You're thinking of the modern definition which says it's oppression in general, but when I say fascism, I mean the original term, used properly. Also, while yes, many countries are named rather ironically, those are nations you're talking about, not an actual group of people. Granted, yes, there could be groups which are named opposite of what they are, but these groups often just get considered by most people as being an unreputable group, since they already lie about their name. Also, you're really, really scraping the bottom of the communist barrel. You're referring to totalitarianism, which is very far from what communism actually should be. Naming themselves as communists is a lie. 1. What do blackshirts have to do with this? 2. They're anarchists and communists (for actual communism), so what? 3. Perhaps he's carrying the N. Korea flag as a sign of protest. He's not saying he wants it to be north Korea, I think he's saying it already is. 4. Okay, but there's always those extremists, a very small sect. But it is pretty fucked up. 5. They cover their faces to hide who they are? Have you missed the efforts made by alt-right to identify people who participate in Antifa activities? No one actively does that in Antifa for the alt-right, only the leaders of the group. 6. Are those pictures of immolated officers actually from Antifa or is that from another riot? 7. Again, killed by totalitarianism, not actual communism. 8. There's a huge difference between soldiers in a war who don't have to worry about being individually targeted after all is said and done, and protesters who can be harassed and threatened. This is something that the alt-right does far more commonly to the average protestor, and Antifa only usually does so to prominent alt-right members. 9. Holy shit you need to read those websites you cite, the Economist especially made arguments I agree with.

Okay, sure, let's say I'm biased. I'm biased because I am citing specific evidence proving my points? Or am I biased because perhaps I don't fall into similar political views? You know people are allowed to have different opinions right? It's just a matter of whether people choose to take it seriously or not, based on evidence, or lack thereof. I just have chosen to be highly skeptical of what you cite as evidence, based off of what I have accrued as evidence which is statistically backed, and is not a rant made by one guy wearing all leather in a basement. The key is a variety of sources which can be backed by actual scientific proof. I wouldn't dismiss everything you say as biased if you had a reliable source of information that isn't FOX, CNN, or a tabloid's article, or aforementioned guy in a basement trying to be edgy. I do understand it's free speech for nazis, or free speech for nobody, but it's America and people can legally take action against hate speech. When governments or legal bodies crack down on what people can or cannot say, that's a restriction on free speech. And before you say "ACLU IS EVIL AND IT'S A LEGAL BODY THEREFORE IT'S A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH", no, it's just a group of lawyers that assists with people whose civil rights are infringed upon, who much of the time happen to be minorities. That, and it is usually only obeyed federally when the Supreme Court makes a decision on something. Also, what are you saying in that last sentence? They aren't fascists. I've said that multiple times. Antifa is "ANTI-FASCIST". Clue's in the name. Very few people in Antifa are nationalists and even fewer, maybe even none can be considered fascists. Please cite some evidence showing they are fascists if you're going to claim that. Also: At least Antifa doesn't have the history of holocausts and racism in the background of it, unlike Neo-Nazis and Neo-Fascists, and, to a far lesser extent of holocaust on the Alt-Right.

1. While I do agree with much of the ideals of Antifa I do not seek "membership" with it. I also don't agree with some of the methods, but it is generally more agreeable than the alt-right. 2. It's not "Alt-Left Fascism" if they are explicitly anti-nationalism. Fascism requires extreme nationalism. And, again, I still do not seek "membership." To claim that I do is like if I claimed you want to join the KKK because of your obsession with knights. And please don't say I'm comparing, because, again, I'm not explicitly comparing the two. 3. They might be domestic terrorists but they're nowhere near as bad as white supremacists and extremists. 4. Name a time when Antifa led a riot that wasn't in response to the alt-right and neo-fascist groups. Also, many members agree that they only use violence when absolutely necessary. 5. I kind of want to see more video proof that isn't from a biased filter like FOX news or some guy in a basement trying to be edgy.

Sorry, please enlighten me on how Antifa doesn't like the idea of Free Speech? Antifa is a loosely organized group, so attributing that sort of thing to the group as a whole might prove difficult. No one is saying anything about getting rid of free speech? http://time.com/4899658/charlottesville-antifa-protests/ Okay, but, we're forgetting that even though we HAVE these critical parts of science, a large portion of our current government is ignoring it? Even if it is not in critical speech, science still isn't being accounted. If we DID account for science, we wouldn't have a president saying that global warming is a hoax, regardless of whether he attributes it to the Chinese or not. Also a fun little thing: https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/category/education/ So what do you propose to fix that? They *are* talking about it. You have to talk about something to say why it's bad. You shouldn't have to just *demonstrate* why we shouldn't have mass shootings, although recent events dictate that, despite numerous demonstrations showing why it's a horrible event, the majority of politicians don't care. You're implying that America isn't already governed by the rich? When was the last time we had a president that didn't already make obscene amounts of money, or have some easy access to it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth Oh. It's Truman, who left office in 1953. Then how did Donald Trump become president? Because arguably, it was not from logical consistency and an unflawed argument. Have you considered that maybe him having only 30,000 viewings on that video you linked below would have been a reason? I don't consider his 214k subs to be a compelling argument, because obviously those do NOT carry over to his actual viewer count, at least on the videos you think are the biggest theory hole-punchers? Also, yeah, you're right about the bottom bit, but obviously Antifa isn't full on anti free speech. They *are* engaging. Have you considered that maybe this is just a book that covers the history of Anti-Fascist movements, and that the DNC chairman used it in relevancy to current context? Also, since when has a handbook of a loosely affiliated group been condemned as the smoking gun of a movement's motives? Hitler made his own book, and then proceeded to form his own governmental party. Antifa is not ordered by a single person, it is a set of morals and a large group of people loosely linked by these morals. “The standard for antifa ideology is anti-capitalism, anti-fascism of course. Those are kind of the two main pillars, but within that, encompassed, it also comes with being anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ableism, anti-transphobia, anything like that and just protecting people who are marginalized and oppressed.” - An Antifa Activist Now, the anti-capitalist movement within Antifa is obviously a newer section, but the group as a whole can agree against fascism, as it is the point for the group's existence. Far-Left groups have been operating for years prior without any serious opposition because they don't do this: Well, actually they have done threats and Doxxing as of late, but not that I know of before now. Alright, you asked for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Neo-Nazi_alliances_and_Stormfront https://qz.com/1182778/the-far-right-was-responsible-for-the-majority-of-extremist-killings-in-2017/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-supremacist-murders-2017-report_us_5a5f59b0e4b0ee2ff32c4bea https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016 https://www.splcenter.org/20180205/alt-right-killing-people https://www.snopes.com/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ Beating up someone, while still an atrocious act, is still pretty mild compared to the list of things that the Alt-Right has done. Mistakes are always made, you can look at any organization, militarized or otherwise, and see examples. Of course they're not the all-knowing. That's why you use critical thinking, like you were talking about earlier. Although I do want to know how critical thinking brought you to the comparison of Antifa to the Alt-right and of Weimar Germany.

"Yeah, but Christianity has evolved from it's original incarnation, and is now something much more than it used to be, as a force for positivity. Islam is still stuck in the 11th centuary where it still thinks women are worth less than men, and will throw gays off buildings. And the Crusades were wars of defense against Islamic invasions to Sicily, Spain, and Constantinople. It's a typical weak leftist argument that has been debunked numerous times. Funny how you have to go back 1000 years to justify "muh evil christians", when I can open this newspaper TODAY and read about the latest Islamic terrorist attack by the "Religion of Peace"" Yes, because they claim self-defense. Despite the attempts, weren't the crusades massive failures? And, were there plans for them invading beforehand, or was it retaliation? "Force of positivity" yes, because they complain about gay people existing? Also, are you aware that there is a division in Islam? The Sunni are the ones who are fundamentalists. The Shia are a peaceful sect of Islam. Guess which one immigrates into the U.S. to get out of conflict? Yeah, the Shia. "Yeah wrong, there was no "systemastic genocide" of Red Indians; they died from diseases that they had no immune to, and from fighting for their lands and losing. They got over it, why can't you? The National Socialists were NOT Christians: They used the catholic church to spread their propaganda and to convince people that they cared for Deutsch values. Also what's 6 Million Jews compared to the millions of Christians (AND Jews) slaughtered in the middle east every year (to the point of near extinction), and over 120 million innocents killed by the evil hands of Communism? A damn little. Not that you care about dead Christians anyway." Sorry, did you miss the part where I said "and white supremacy"? Also, "they got over it"? I'm sorry, you expect me to believe, that while I live on a reservation, that they got over it? You're kidding, right? Reservations themselves are a racist construct. They weren't made to preserve Indian culture. The United States government purposefully put tribes with known history of wars and conflicts in the same area. Also, I'm gonna either need a actual figure or a citation for the mass genocide in the middle east. Because as far as I can tell, only thousands have been killed, not millions. Also, communism is an entirely different beast. "Yeah, because they're socialist dumbasses that are still stuck in the 1990's, and because they want to destroy traditional american values and the nuclear family, and subjugate everyone to their regressive ideology. Conservative LGBT people don't cite Christianity as the reason. Makes you think..." Jesus Christ, you're kidding, right? Can you please clarify in your response which group you're talking about? Also, what conservative LGBT people? You literally can't just be gay and support the very platform that says you shouldn't be able to get married. "Yeah that no one does anymore you idiot. You sound like we're in the 18th centuary. Are you living at the bottom of the ocean?" Dude. Simple Google search. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy https://nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-therapy-torture.html? https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy "Mass shootings DON'T happen every week. The USA is at a 40 year low in gun crime. Kids and girls were taught how to use a rifle in school. Teenagers used to have a "rite of passage" where they would own a gun before moving out. They didn't have mass shootings back then. You can't fool me with your leftist MSM fueled propaganda." Yeah I'm calling bullshit. https://goo.gl/images/4CVP22 "Congress has prohibited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from conducting research that advocates in favor of gun control. The CDC has interpreted this ban to extend to all research on gun violence prevention, and so has not funded any research on this subject since 1996." "Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S." "Newsflash jackass: THE NRA HAS KILLED NO ONE. NONE. They are there to defend the Constitutional and Federalist Right to own firearms, literally the CORE of the USA. Frankly it's anti-american to be so hateful to them. Although to be fair, they aren't as good at defending gun RIGHTS as they should be, which is why other groups like the NFA are more effective at promoting the fundemental right to bear arms." I'm sorry, did me calling their actual organization shit offend you? They're shit. I do not agree with what they stand for. Not the 2nd amendment itself, but the way they go about it. They are about making guns easier to acquire. Logically, you'd never hope to have teenagers have to do shit for the adults, but frankly, this is where we're at. "That is actually the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Holy shit how retarded are you? I can not believe how autistic you are, comparing the NRA, a group that defends Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, and has killed NO BODY, to a racist lynchmob of the 19th century that doesn't exist anymore. And you call me the bad guy? Look in the mirror you hypocrite." Newsflash jackass, the KKK does still exist. Also, I never explicitly compared the two. I was just saying you can blame a group for being shit because of what they stand for. Frankly, you're really grasping at straw here, to exacerbate the issue. "Haw, If you have ever used a Firearm, you would know about Firearm Safety, maintaining it, and how to keep it properly and be a legal responsible gun owner. Even though any woman can be a prositute if they wanted, hardly any do it. So what logic makes you think that every legal responsible gun owner would be a mass shooter? Because let's face it: You don't want no guns. You want guns in the hands of everyone BUT the american people, so they can't defend themselves from big government takeover, because you're totally anti-big government aren't you?" I literally just fried my brain trying to read this as a coherent string of sentences. I have fired a gun. I do, in fact, have ownership of a gun. Gun ownership is not equal to women wanting to be prostitutes. Oh wait, I'm supposed to read that in context with the following sentence, silly me. But I still can't make any fucking sense of what you're saying, or how it's supposed to even be a point. I am saying that it should be harder to obtain a gun in the fucking first place so that people are able to understand every necessary precaution to owning a gun. What's this have to do about me supposedly wanting everyone but the American people to have a gun? You're literally a personification of the NRA because you think when I say Gun Control you immediately fucking clutch a gun like it's your child. I'm not saying we should go AUSTRALIA and take away everyone's guns. I'm saying we should be responsible for our weaponry, not handing it out like free samples! Also, what big government? It's already a big government! By your logic we should have had a fucking uprising every 4 years for when a new president is being elected! You literally are missing the point of everything I've said. Please, for the love of god actually spend time crafting a response so you understand what in the hell you're supposed to be arguing against anyways. "I have a strict Gun Control policy. If there's a gun around... I want to be in control of it." -Clint Eastwood Sorry, did you literally miss the political undertones of Dirty Harry? He's not about being a fascist, although with the context you're quoting it in, you want me to believe he is? "Over the years, Clint Eastwood has been quoted publicly taking stances supporting gun control: For gun legislation Believes all firearms should be registered Backer of the Brady Bill, and its mandated waiting period (for gun safety purposes) Wondered why anyone would need or want an assault weapon Supported Dianne Feinstein for the U.S. Senate (but has had harsh criticism for President Obama)" He literally encompasses my stance on guns. This is just ironic at this point.

"Correct... and yes, because Islam is a regressive dangerous and destructive religion that has stayed in an 11th century timewarp that has caused more deaths in the entire world history than any "white supremacy" in our time." Yes, and Christianity isn't based off of something similarly regressive, dangerous, and destructive? Did you miss the crusades? The multiple "Holy" wars? That'd be ironic considering you've named yourself after the "Templars" who obviously took part in the crusades. Saying it's all Islam's fault is missing the other similar religions, which used their religion to commit atrocities. I also hope you would consider the amount of African Americans killed by white supremacists and slave owners. And, while we're at it, let's add the systematic genocide of Jewish people and Native Americans. Because this was all either white supremacy or Christianity claiming superiority. Compared to the recent influx of radical Islamists, they have nothing on the violent history of Christianity. "It doesn't matter if it wasn't ISIS, they're not the only Islamic terrorists, some act of their own accord. Islam is intolerant of LGB people, and Islamofascist actions or violence should not be excused from criticism." And this is also compared to people claiming that gay people are against their religion... In the U.S. Have you missed the last 60 years of Anti-LGBT groups? Almost all of them cite Christianity as their reason. And even though they might not say they want to murder gay people, you have to admit that there is a shocking correlation between LGBT people committing suicide, and oppressive "religious" views. There is also conversion therapy, which in equivalent is torture of LGBT people to be afraid of being themselves. "Yeah good on 'em, supporting the second amendment, and actually doing what they were CREATED to do." So basically what you're saying is, despite the results of endorsing easy public access to firearms, you'd rather have a mass shooting every week? Even if it was their purpose as a group, and why they were created, that doesn't make the group any less shit. That's like saying that you can't blame the KKK for being a white supremacist group. Because you goddamn well can. "That is not true, that has been debunked numerous times, and I dare ask you, "Have you tried it yourself?" They do not just give out guns willy nilly, despite the Legacy media portrayal as such. From background checks to Safety lessons, it's not as simple as fronting up, unless the dude's an illegal weapons trader." [CITATION NEEDED] Yes, just let me go out and spend money I don't have on something I'd never use. You can do that too, y'know.

I would like to state that the problem isn't that we should pull out of the middle east, because as terrible as the war is, we could solve it by replacing infrastructure and continuing to take in refugees. If we're going to cause chaos we should provide something more solid than what it was in the first place. (Though not a dictatorship.. America has a bad history with that.) We're a largely hypocritical country because we say we're for immigrants, while some denounce Muslims from being allowed in. And, the Orlando nightclub shooting was not proven to be linked to Islamic extremism. The fact that ISIS claimed they were responsible is BS because any time something happens, they tend to claim it anyways. Also, racist bias isn't an SJW buzzword, as much as you'd like to claim it could be. In simple terms, someone makes their decision based on generalization and stereotyping a ethnic group, while having very little actual interaction with them. And while, yes, there were multiple factors for the cause or for the shooting to continue, the NRA continually endorses policies to make access to guns easier. It's hypocritical to have a requirement to be taught how to use a vehicle, and take a test to be legally allowed to operate it, when you can go into the nearest pawn shop or gun store and get a gun, with very little effort.

I would just like to point out that burning the American flag is just a sign of protest. You are legally entitled to your first amendment, and burning a piece of cloth won't get you arrested in a sane country. As well, you cannot be hypocritical about such things if you are wearing clothing with the American flag printed on, because, surprise surprise, that is not what the flag codes say is respectful. "No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations." Contrarily, you probably *can* wear it as a sign of respect, it's just that context matters. However, this isn't quite what I'm here for. I would like to point out the futility of prosecuting people with crimes for something honestly pretty negligible. When a person is convicted for possession of illegal substances and has not committed any other crime, it is the worst mistake possible to be made, because when you charge someone with that, you soil their public record, and are likely to make any chances of their employment impossible. We incarcerate people who could be rehabilitated properly, if we could just look at other countries and say, "Hey, this works for them, let's investigate it!" and have an intelligent discussion about it, but we radicalize, getting to the point where we refuse to even acknowledge the source of an argument from someone else. What is the cause for people to make these arguments? Is it a racist bias? Are they getting the information from a credible source? While there are many issues with our system, we would rather form petty arguments than discuss this rationally. I have heard of no other Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, while many domestic terrorist activities have been caused by white supremacists, notably not immigrants, and people who are desperate for fame, and will do the worst act possible to achieve this. The republican platform seems to consist of: "Look at how vulnerable our children are to these horrors! We need to prevent exposure to video games!", and in the next day, criticize teenagers for pointing out flaws in their gun policies, all because the politicians want to keep raking in NRA cash. Why do you think that there are so many companies which have pulled out of agreements with the NRA? They are realizing that people DON'T like the NRA. The NRA might have membership of 5 million, but what is that compared to a country with a population of 321 million? That's less than 0.02 percent! Their spokesperson actively speaks out against the survivors of a shooting that was a direct result of the NRA's policies. The NRA endorsed trump and he subsequently decided to "make it easier for mentally ill people to acquire guns." We have had over 50 years to solve the issues of gun control, but it feels like we have taken steps backwards rather than forwards. Over 1,000 people have died in these mass shootings which we should view as terrorist attacks, and a majority of these took place in the last two decades. When we would rather watch children die than do something about the increasing issues of homicide with firearms, it signifies failure. These are terrorist attacks, in our own country, while we proceed to go to countries across an ocean and fight for a "War Against Terror," arguably making these countries worse, rather than helping them. We come through and destroy infrastructure and provide little to no substitute afterwards, making it easier for these forces for which we are fighting, to maintain control. Fighting a fire but not getting to the root of it, is obviously the least effective way of handling it.

While I can understand your sources of the other points, I do not see the correlation of single mothers to their children being inherently sociopathic and criminal. The most important part of statistics is never confusing coincidence with correlation. There is also the possibility that it was an abusive household, regardless of whether the mother was single, dead, or was joined by a partner. I find it hard to believe that having a mother and father rather than just two parents would do to assist it. While there are many heterosexual parents, of course, adoption is still a viable source for others to become parents. Additionally, people only become sociopathic or criminal when they feel that it is the most effective way to achieve their goals, Whether it is stealing to survive or a more violent ideal.

So, given America's history with mass shootings in the last 2 decades, what are your thoughts about how discussion has been treated, and how politicians are endorsed monetarily and graded by the NRA depending on how pro-gun they are? Additionally, how do you feel about Trump's legislation which makes it easier for mentally ill people to acquire guns? While personally I believe that there should be a right to reasonable self defense with a pistol, I do not agree with America's "need" of rifles, unless said weapon is used in hunting, is limited in rate of fire, and magazine capacity. Additionally, I think that guns should require extensive training to use. To acquire a driver's license you must pass a test, and I think that a similar principle should apply for guns. While there is always an argument made that guns would still be acquired illegally it would still largely reduce the amount of mass shootings. Additionally, mental health should be reviewed regularly of anyone who (obviously legally) owns a gun. Background checks would also be employed. As Americans we obviously refuse to observe and adopt methods used by other countries, but I believe that a model similar to Canada's gun law system would be ideal. What would you need a gun for besides hunting and self defense? While competitive and recreational shooting exists, I still largely disagree with continued legislative slack, especially when it becomes obvious that Americans collectively cannot take responsibility for what guns can cause, and societal issues which further can incite such cause.

So, I guess it's time for my monthly forums rant. Net Neutrality is dead because it was pushed through by a "board" of only a few people. There are millions of fake comments saying that net neutrality should be repealed, with some of those comments coming from "Barack Obama". That was a vote which was pushed through, regardless of the fact that people wanted to investigate why these fake comments were made. Yet, the FCC was perfectly fine with saying, "Alright, public opinion dictates we repeal net neutrality" when most of it was the same copy and paste remark, with a sizable amount of them coming from dead people. Granted, there are many programs out there to have people simply put in information and they will get a generic copy and paste statement, however, these are not requests made by dead people or previous POTUS' against their own policies of which they instated. Even if the twitter arguments between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump haven't sparked a nuclear war, it's still an extremely petty scenario. I don't consider the repealing of the Paris Climate Acts a good thing, especially by someone who calls global warming a "Chinese Hoax". The likelihood of that bill being adequately replaced is miniscule, at least until 2019 or 2021. The Keystone Pipeline goes over the Missouri and other environmentally sensitive areas, and the Missouri is used as a source of water for many residents downstream. There is legitimate concern over this pipeline leaking, and the president refuses to review this because it is 'economically important' to his policies. While the Keystone pipeline is a controversial issue, I don't think that the EPA was a controversial division of the government. It is a branch dedicated to protecting the Environment from Americans, and Americans from the Environment. What purpose would it serve to cripple the EPA? The MOAB is just a political statement of power. It doesn't matter anyways because apparently Russia has a bigger one. It's just all a show of power, it's all anything has ever been politically in the history of mankind, not just the last 242 years that America has existed. Instead of Joe Arpaio, let's talk about the "Prison Industrial Complex", where there is incentive for police to arrest for more trivial things, and make people labor for the profit of the prison. And the people doing so only get paid a few dollars a day, if they're lucky. "The wages for these jobs are a fraction of what similar work would earn outside of prison; in the federal prison system, for example, the pay range is between $0.12 and $0.40 per hour." - https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/dec/09/prison-work-program-ohsa-whole-foods-inmate-labor-incarceration https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/304669/ Alright, the Pence thing. He is extremely homophobic. The conversion therapy thing is something misinterpreted and spread around as rumor, my bad. However, let me link something from his 2000 election page. "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage. Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a "discreet and insular minority" entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities." In case you don't believe me: http://web.archive.org/web/20010519165033fw_/http:/cybertext.net/pence/issues.html and scroll down to "Strengthening the American Family" Even if it was 18 years ago, it says that he had a stance on it. And, "Pence also called being gay a choice and said keeping gays from marrying was not discrimination, but an enforcement of “God’s idea.”" - http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/ Even if Planned Parenthood is defiling people's beliefs via taxation, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least have cheaper hospitals or similar practices, that aren't tax funded or won't scaremonger abortion. It should at least be an option for someone who didn't want to have a baby, or was forced into it. And yes, while there is birth control, not everyone can foresee something happening to themselves involving sex. And fair enough, the media has, throughout the history of America, been extremely biased and manipulative of evidence. TL;DR My view on things is pretty much just "Let people believe what they want.", but I don't think that when people believe that other groups of people are less than them that it is even considered a valid belief. A good example of a result of such beliefs, albeit extreme, would be the Holocaust. Another would be the entirety of the U.S., with minorities being singled out either politically or socially. What does it do for everyone else if you are considering a section of the human population to be lesser and unimportant? My point being: Who the hell cares what someone does if it only involves themselves? Just live on Earth and try to further the species as a whole, not just for or against a group of it. Anyways, monthly (edited) rant over.

The screenshot could just be one of the many caves that Xen has, I'm sure they're going to keep the open space vibe... probably.