HBKXNCUO

15 ms·

91.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Maybe give them a book instead.
92.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>No eternal leaders. Oh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchy_referendums >Freedom of expression Oh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Haverbeck
93.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>You gave your consent at democratic election No, you voted at the democratic election. There is no question on the ballot asking whether or not you consent to be ruled by the resulting government.
94.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
How is that consent measured?
95.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
If that's the case, those ideas dominated humanity for virtually all of human existence and still dominate in many parts of the world, so it seems strange to suggest the internet is somehow responsible for them circulating today. Is th
96.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
What are some of these "dark" "evil" "bad ideas" you believe are infecting, festering, and mutating in minds thanks to the internet?
97.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
And in your delivery rooms, where in half of the states, more than half of all children are born to parents who are on Medicaid.
98.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
That's interesting. Do you feel that the group's holidays are more oriented toward remembering outside persecution than is typical of other groups?
99.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
War is always a gamble.
100.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
The other politicians who haven't lost their families yet might.
101.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Tell that to the allies after WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
102.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>That's... not really relevant to the point being made. Of course it is. We don't owe them anything any more than they owe the victims of their ancestors' pillaging, which is nothing. >At the end of the day, I'm ti
103.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Perhaps people are more sympathetic to people like them.
104.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>It's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. The US decided, long ago The US absolutely never decided that, and certainly not at that time. That inscription was put there by wealthy New York liberals, and it certainly did not ref
105.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Some of those conditions are the direct result of US policies and actions in Central and South America. When it comes to matters such as these, being powerful is good and being weak is bad. Do you think their ancestors never took anythi
106.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
If there are no mandatory background checks, then it's legal to buy/sell your guns without a paper trail. It is legally possible to have guns that the government doesn't know about, or to dispose of them without the governmen
107.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Everyone believes that trying to keep guns out of the hands of people that would harm themselves and others is a part of the solution. That's why there are laws against felons possessing them.
108.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>The best we can do is what we've been doing - regulate around it as much as possible, even if such attempts are doomed to be ineffective. We can do much better than that. We can take a deep look into our own society and address the
109.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>what would actually happen is that discovery of unlicensed firearms on private property (for instance, when responding to a police report) would become a criminal matter And do you think they're going to poke their noses equally ar
110.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
That's quite a substitution you've made there.
111.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
By suggesting their concerns are irrational, are you saying you think it's more likely that registries of vehicle licenses are going to be used to perform vehicle confiscations than that registries of firearm licenses are going to be u
112.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Why this doesn't apply to guns is beyond me. Because people aren't concerned that in a decade or three, politicians are going to use the registry of motor vehicle licenses to help them in confiscating motor vehicles from norma
113.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Yup, and it also fails to take into account inherent group interests. One example would be that homosexuals have an inherent group interest in having others accept homosexuality. It isn't enough for an idea to be "more wise"
114.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>That is not intolerance. It is according to the definition you gave. That much seems clear. >How is your example being flawed irrelevant? I was referring to your desired immigration system. Regardless, I explained why it was irreleva
115.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm using the definition you gave. That's it. If you want to revise the definition, feel free. >You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rul
116.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>No one is advocating for prohibiting people from peacefully expressing their genuinely-held political beliefs in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others in public OK, but some people are arguing for an expansion of some of tho
117.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Without tolerance for differences violence is a forgone conclusion in the modern world. What makes you think that violence is not a foregone conclusion if you start prohibiting people from expressing their genuinely held political belie
118.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>a reasonable set of requirements OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sou
119.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Questions? Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration sys
120.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Because not feeding your children is not speech. For the sake of argument, I will grant that. That's not what I asked though. Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of

More ›