Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

The corporate press: "Thinking someone got to Epstein is an absurd baseless paranoid conspiracy theory."

 

Also the corporate press: "Vladimir Putin is blackmailing Donald Trump because he has a videotape where Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed because Obama slept on it."

  • Haha  (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Clinton just commuted Jeffrey Epstein's sentence to time served.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy all these Clinton murders really do a great job of getting everyone to forget about all these Clinton rapes.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marianne Williamson just announced that she will return Jeffrey Epstein to the living.

  • Haha  (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN "How Trump's hateful Nazi rhetoric has driven one Jewish man to commit suicide."

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the difference between AIDS and crossing the Clintons?

 

AIDS is no longer a death sentence.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first blush, this is a great idea, IMO ...

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/457149-san-jose-mayor-introduces-proposal-mandating-gun-owners-have-liability

 

San Jose, Calif., Mayor Sam Liccardo on Monday introduced a city ordinance that would require gun owners to either obtain insurance for their firearms or pay a fee that supports the public cost of gun violence.

 

“Under current Supreme Court rulings, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Constitution does not require taxpayers to subsidize that individual choice. The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duquesne Frog said:

At first blush, this is a great idea, IMO ...

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/457149-san-jose-mayor-introduces-proposal-mandating-gun-owners-have-liability

 

San Jose, Calif., Mayor Sam Liccardo on Monday introduced a city ordinance that would require gun owners to either obtain insurance for their firearms or pay a fee that supports the public cost of gun violence.

 

“Under current Supreme Court rulings, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Constitution does not require taxpayers to subsidize that individual choice. The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers."

 

I'm curious if there's any precedence for something like this?  And not sure I understand the connection of insurance to cost of emergency services.

Do we only charge car owners with the cost of emergency services attributable to vehicle accidents (maybe a little through ticketing)?

Or maybe we should simply fine the criminals for the cost of addressing the problems.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

The dueling partisan conspiracy theories about Epstein being murdered:

 

It is almost impossible to sneak into a prison and murder someone. At the same time I believe that there was plenty of motive. I do not put it past anyone who would proudly and publicly lead nations into war, resulting in countless deaths of their own countrymen and those abroad, to secretly kill one truly evil person who might destroy their hold on power.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rothbardian said:

 

It is almost impossible to sneak into a prison and murder someone. At the same time I believe that there was plenty of motive. I do not put it past anyone who would proudly and publicly lead nations into war, resulting in countless deaths of their own countrymen and those abroad, to secretly kill one truly evil person who might destroy their hold on power.

 

I just thought it was funny how some people seemed so certain the other party had the guy murdered to cover something up, when they both nominated someone in 2016 with an uncomfortable connection to the creep. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

 

I just thought it was funny how some people seemed so certain the other party had the guy murdered to cover something up, when they both nominated someone in 2016 with an uncomfortable connection to the creep. 

 

The only connection worth noting, apparently, is to Bill Clinton which of course Hillary is responsible for as well. No "conservatives" were involved in the making of Epstein's world network, it appears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, $mooth said:

 

I'm curious if there's any precedence for something like this?  And not sure I understand the connection of insurance to cost of emergency services.

Do we only charge car owners with the cost of emergency services attributable to vehicle accidents (maybe a little through ticketing)?

Or maybe we should simply fine the criminals for the cost of addressing the problems.

 

Car insurance would be the precedence.  I'd be lying if I said I understood whether car insurance directly or indirectly subsidizes ambulances and first responders, but it does cover medical care depending on the circumstances.  And I think criminals are currently fined when they do something bad, but criminals committing gun violence is a minority of gun deaths/injuries.

 

I like this idea because I think the idea places more of the onus of responsible gun ownership on the gun owner.  If the owner is negligent (or even if he/she gives a gun to a trusted person who then breaks that trust) and their gun is used to commit a violent act, they should bear some responsibility for not being responsible with their own gun.  Using insurance as a tool to get more gun owners to do a better job of locking up their guns (get a gun safe with better security features or take a regular training class, cut insurance rates in half, say) and to give a second thought to trusting someone else with their gun.

 

The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and I think something like this goes directly at that problem.  It is another hindrance to obtaining a firearm as an impulse, it is another gatekeeper (insurance companies) with a vested interest in looking for "red flags," and I think it promotes personal responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rothbardian said:

Well, we do know that Bill Clinton is a war criminal...

 

Curious if you'd be willing to unpack that statement a bit.  For getting involved in Bosnia?  Or the cruise missile response to the African Embassy attacks?  Or both? 

 

In a more general sense, is it your opinion that any military action (excluding purely self defense, I assume) is unjustified?  Is there any situation where getting involved (say to stop an ethnic cleansing/genocide situation) is morally justified? 

 

I guess of the many morally questionable wars we've gotten involved in since WWII, Bosnia seems like one of the least morally ambiguous-to-wrong ones. It didn't seem like we had an ulterior motive in that case (oil, proxy war with the Russians/Communism).  I get the position (and agree) that any killing of other people is morally wrong, but standing by and letting other people slaughter each other is on morally shaky ground as well.  I certainly get the argument that we are pretty (racially) selective about which genocides we decide to get involved with and that we can't be in the business of stopping all conflict around the world.  And I agree that we are guilty of stirring up and/or initiating our share of conflicts which were more clearly morally wrong (Iran, Iraq, Central America).  But Bosnia didn't seem to be a case of that.

 

As to the cruise missile response, I agree that it was ineffectual and reactionary.  The proof of the ineffectiveness was the fact that 9/11 would happen a few years later.  But say the administration had come up with a more effective and targeted response ... was the act of reacting militarily unjustified in and of itself?

 

And Ahura Mazda knows Clinton is justifiably deserving of a large number of epithets and criticisms.  I'm having trouble with 'war criminal' though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

No "conservatives" were involved in the making of Epstein's world network, it appears.

 

I didn't say that at all.  My post was, I thought pretty clearly, discussing that both parties have connections to the guy.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

 

I didn't say that at all.  My post was, I thought pretty clearly, discussing that both parties have connections to the guy.

 

Didn't mean to say or imply you did. I was talking more generally about what we're all hearing and reading. Sorry for any confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Duquesne Frog said:

 

Curious if you'd be willing to unpack that statement a bit.  For getting involved in Bosnia?  Or the cruise missile response to the African Embassy attacks?  Or both? 

 

In a more general sense, is it your opinion that any military action (excluding purely self defense, I assume) is unjustified?  Is there any situation where getting involved (say to stop an ethnic cleansing/genocide situation) is morally justified? 

 

I guess of the many morally questionable wars we've gotten involved in since WWII, Bosnia seems like one of the least morally ambiguous-to-wrong ones. It didn't seem like we had an ulterior motive in that case (oil, proxy war with the Russians/Communism).  I get the position (and agree) that any killing of other people is morally wrong, but standing by and letting other people slaughter each other is on morally shaky ground as well.  I certainly get the argument that we are pretty (racially) selective about which genocides we decide to get involved with and that we can't be in the business of stopping all conflict around the world.  And I agree that we are guilty of stirring up and/or initiating our share of conflicts which were more clearly morally wrong (Iran, Iraq, Central America).  But Bosnia didn't seem to be a case of that.

 

As to the cruise missile response, I agree that it was ineffectual and reactionary.  The proof of the ineffectiveness was the fact that 9/11 would happen a few years later.  But say the administration had come up with a more effective and targeted response ... was the act of reacting militarily unjustified in and of itself?

 

And Ahura Mazda knows Clinton is justifiably deserving of a large number of epithets and criticisms.  I'm having trouble with 'war criminal' though.

 

Was Herbert Hoover a war criminal in the United Fruit Company Massacre affair? Was he innocent because he used Columbian proxies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

Didn't mean to say or imply you did. I was talking more generally about what we're all hearing and reading. Sorry for any confusion.

 

I've seen a lot of stuff in the media & on social media about Trump's connect to Epstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

 

I've seen a lot of stuff in the media & on social media about Trump's connect to Epstein.

So have I. 

 

But my money is still on Dershowitz!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bothering to say "God Save Us" over anything Steve King says is probably not worth it, but his latest screed on the issue of families and love is rather amazing!...

 

""What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?" 

 

God Save Us, God save us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Duquesne Frog said:

 

Curious if you'd be willing to unpack that statement a bit.  For getting involved in Bosnia?  Or the cruise missile response to the African Embassy attacks?  Or both? 

 

In a more general sense, is it your opinion that any military action (excluding purely self defense, I assume) is unjustified?  Is there any situation where getting involved (say to stop an ethnic cleansing/genocide situation) is morally justified? 

 

I guess of the many morally questionable wars we've gotten involved in since WWII, Bosnia seems like one of the least morally ambiguous-to-wrong ones. It didn't seem like we had an ulterior motive in that case (oil, proxy war with the Russians/Communism).  I get the position (and agree) that any killing of other people is morally wrong, but standing by and letting other people slaughter each other is on morally shaky ground as well.  I certainly get the argument that we are pretty (racially) selective about which genocides we decide to get involved with and that we can't be in the business of stopping all conflict around the world.  And I agree that we are guilty of stirring up and/or initiating our share of conflicts which were more clearly morally wrong (Iran, Iraq, Central America).  But Bosnia didn't seem to be a case of that.

 

As to the cruise missile response, I agree that it was ineffectual and reactionary.  The proof of the ineffectiveness was the fact that 9/11 would happen a few years later.  But say the administration had come up with a more effective and targeted response ... was the act of reacting militarily unjustified in and of itself?

 

And Ahura Mazda knows Clinton is justifiably deserving of a large number of epithets and criticisms.  I'm having trouble with 'war criminal' though.

 

Basically for his interventions into Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq, but you can convince me to add Bosnia as well...

 

Here is one such example...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...