He clearly isn't blaming them for the shooting, but drawing attention to the fact that these events are constantly used as cudgels to attempt to take away rights they don't agree with. Some would say the people trying to prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves because they are fearful are complete assholes of human beings. California is one of the most restrictive states in the nation for firearm ownership. Its almost like these laws only disarm people who obey the law...

OP is a delusional Communist who has lost touch with reality. Don't bother.

It is quite a legitimate question. Your denial that the two are related is quite delusional. All you are doing is making it easier to traffic and prostitute children.

Quick question for you. How do you propose to prevent child trafficking into the USA if children are not temporarily detained? Do you think letting any adult with any child cross into the country just because they have a child is a good idea? You don't think that won't be exploited by child sex traffickers? This is again another demonstration of your motivations based on emotion rather than logic.

I think this is to a large degree what Theymos was attempting to do with the most recent trust system updates. I completely agree that the trust system's goal is to help people prevent being duped by frauds, so it should be a totally trade based system, but a lot of people gained influence in other ways here who resist such an arrangement. I think the new system is an improvement but still could be better.

I agree, the economic system is fucked. Particularly as a result of The Federal Reserve and its endless money printing inflation warping the buying power of money. If we had sound money most people would be doing just fine. Regardless of this however, I don't think humanity as a whole can manage to live without financial worries. People as a whole have trouble managing their consumption. Humans just tend to want more and more and more. Without some kind of limit, humanity would easily collectively drain all of the world's resources over frivolous bullshit, much like we are doing now. In summary, there always will be, and in my opinion should be some kind of limit.

[calls me hypocrite as he argues with me and as he says he won't argue with me and says he is still ignoring me]

Speaking of dishing it out and not being able to take it, I thought you were ignoring me. I guess you just couldn't restrain yourself. Maybe the 4th time you ignore me forever will manage it eh? The only one that needs meds is Vod here. Maybe you can report some one to the FBI or the ATF this time because they criticized you. All the circle jerking is just confirming how effective my efforts really were. Thanks again!

Nah, I got booted off for exposing cons and control freaks like you
Don't you have some altcoin teams to extort?

Cool story bro. BTW. Who the fuck is Techshare?

Is this the part where you desperately try to sound smart by misspelling the name of some guy you want to reference without an actual specific reference like everyone should be familiar with everything he wrote?



Apparently you have problems with reading comprehension. My first motivation is not trolling. Anyways if you insist, I nominate myself.

IMO this whole "Raid Area 51" thing is just a psy-op. It may very well have started just as a joke, but I think they are actively using it now to not only basically honey pot potential domestic threats, but also test to see how effectively they can get masses of idiots to rally and attack a designated target based on internet rumors and memes. IMO this is just a dry run for a more serious version of a similar scenario. They would be dumb to at least not study the potential for this kind of threat because it very well could be something that external forces or state actors use to sow domestic unrest. Never underestimate the power of dumb people in numbers.

So in summary, you have no retort to my points, and your argument consists of the narrative is true because that's what the official story is?

Absolutely. I prefer to have an actual debate if my opponent is capable, but often they are not and resort to all kinds of illogical semantic games and personal attacks. At this point, yes I will absolutely troll them for my own amusement as well as to demonstrate their motivation of arguing from a position of lack of emotional control rather than logic. If you come at me with anything other than solid logic, one way or another I get my pound of flesh. Notice all of the people who are most adamant about me being a troll also very strongly disagree with my views in Politics & Society. I wonder why that is! Could it be all the people least capable of an actual debate? All of your nominations do give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside though knowing I truly did get inside your heads, so thank you for that.

OOOh, of couuuurse... the comments. The comments are well known to be a reliable part of any article right? You seem to have an infatuation with trying to use comments as part of the argument of the substance of the article itself as if they are the same unit, and not created by random 3rd parties. I have scripts blocked so I don't read them anyway, and the comments are not part of my source.

"you always come up with some weird conspiracy shit, every time a famous actor/singer etc dies..."

What the fuck are you talking about? Oh right, you are projecting other people's actions on to me and collectivizing it as if I said these things I never actually said. Sorry but I am not responsible for the theorizing of other people. I am only responsible for my own statements.

BTW what the fuck does Sandy Hook have to do with ANY of this other than that they were both shootings? I never brought up Sandy Hook. This is more projection on your part, and totally off topic.

Everyone notice how he totally avoided responding to my very valid points in favor of this collective blame?

Sorry but the USA doesn't belong to the native American Indians any more and it has not for some time, just like Mexico doesn't belong to the Aztecs any more, just like countless other nations that USED TO be ruled by other people. Why it it that all cultures need to be respected... except when it is Christian American and European culture, then fuck em? Since when do anthropologists set immigration policy? Can you tell me which nations were not formed by imperialism? Are you telling me no nations should exist, because they were all formed via imperialism?

"Critical Theory" is a very specific "school of thought" within Sociology. You are confusing it with critical thinking, which is something you are not that great at, but is absolutely a good thing. Critical Theory is essentially Marxism with a veneer of Sociology wrapped around it to give it an appearance of scientific legitimacy.

I am familiar with the Clinton case. Clinton got himself for trouble because of PERJURY, upon which the obstruction of justice charges were based. The underlying crime in this case is perjury. What is the underlying crime in the case of Trump? Please do tell I have been waiting three years to hear evidence of this one.



If anything exists criminally at all (zero evidence presented), it is a process crime which hinges upon there being a crime to obstruct to begin with. It would be similar to the police making up a fake story to search your car and later having the reason for the search proven not legitimate. Any evidence created as a result of the "fruit of the poison tree" would be invalid. A closer example would be getting charged with resisting arrest. Cops used to like to do this a lot where they couldn't find another crime they would just charge you with resisting arrest but never explain why they had to arrest you to begin with. There needs to be some kind of evidence for the basis of the investigation to begin with.





Yep. Anyone who knows how the laws works knows the government never "exonerates" or proves people innocent. That is not how it works. It has nothing to do with being able to charge him as president. It is just a carefully crafted semantic word salad to give dumb people the impression he is guilty of a crime while also technically saying there is no evidence of a crime. The law is "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until Muller exonerates you".


Related: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-26/ag-barrs-russiagate-origin-probe-pivots-smoking-gun-tapes-exculpatory-evidence

Common sense? Lets talk about common sense. Lets examine police protocol. Is it common sense that a police officer is firing at a target he can not see? No, police officers are trained to first identify a target before firing. It is not like the movies. They are not supposed to do things like fire into houses, through doors, or walls. If they can't see it they aren't supposed to be firing at it. Second of all one of the other things they drill into any gun owners head in any basic safety training is to always know what is behind your target. You might be aiming for an armed assailant, but if there are a bunch of kids 30ft behind him, shooting is not an option. This to a large degree also rules out a cop firing into what is basically a crowd of people running in every direction. Also as far as I remember in the report there was no mention of police on the ground firing. That is why I used the term "wildly" because if in fact your argument that "police aren't gods" and they make mistakes, and lets say one was just freaking out, that's exactly what he would be doing, firing wildly. Sound implausible? I agree, but the sad part is that is the most plausible explanation that makes any sense for it to be a police officer, your premise.

You made one quote in your statement other than quoting me directly. That quote. I know where my words came from. What did your quote come from? Give me a URL.

I would rather have Melania as Potus myself.

Melania 2024

Sir, are you trying to tell me they can dodge bullets?

No, I am trying to tell you that when they are ready, they won't have to.