TheTexan
Member

Glorious :up: I lost count of the truth bombs

Well, it was a riot, it's not gonna be peaceful. If it was all scones and crackers and tea then it wouldn't be called a riot. I don't like this need for people on the right (not necessarily you) to try to differentiate between the "peaceful" and the "violent" protestors. Let's be real here it was a god-damn riot. There's gonna be violent protestors and peaceful protestors but they're all participating in a goddamn riot which is not gonna be peaceful or otherwise they'd call it afternoon tea with scones and biscuits. I also don't like the need for people on the right to try to disassociate or disavow themselves of the "violent" portion of the riot. January 6 was a goddamn marvel of modern anger against the establishment and it should be celebrated as such. Regardless of however hundreds of feds were in the crowd instigating or not, every rioter there is a goddamn hero. People back in the day probably called the original Tea Party rioters stupid & gullible, but at least they were men of action. Rather than sitting on our ass and commentating about how stupid someone is, as if that somehow makes us better than them.

Jan 6 gives me hope they might get angry enough to do something. This powder keg is gonna light at some point, no clue when but eventually.

I'm not even opposed to that description of the BLM riots - "fiery but peaceful". The point of that description is that most people there were attempting to do property damage versus violence against people, which is probably mostly true. But of course that description would have been just as if not more accurate for the Jan 6 protestors. As far as riots go, it was pretty fucking tame, with people thanking Officers and them giving them tours and such. The media's widely different depiction of the two events does show however the obvious hypocrisy.

Yes, perhaps more strongly written letters will be required

Within context of the point the video was trying to make, yes. The establishment left and mainstream media threw a fear hissy fit not because they were afraid of any windows being broken or even any lives being lost. They threw a fear hissy fit because they were afraid of the outraged right exercising their collective power in a symbolically meaningful way. Maybe I keep forgetting that you've said that because you keep acting like it was a righteous shoot, which it wasn't. It was a complex situation, sure, but there was a simple fucking answer: point weapons at the intruders and say get on the ground. Was it stupid, reckless, and dangerous? Heck yea it was. But guess what, being stupid, reckless, and dangerous, is not immediate reason to shoot someone.

A ton of rioters got past the barricades in the subway stations (closer to the politicians, more of a threat), and the way they handled it was: 1) Aim a gun at the rioters who broke past the barricade 2) Say get on the ground 3) Rioters got on the ground And guess what, none of them got shot.

That building is a fortress swarming with armed guards and that hallway is a fucking killbox that could be easily defended with force if needed against an angry mob. The barricade was more for the mob's protection than the people's protection on the other side. Do you still honestly believe that 1 - ONE - person getting past a 95% functional barricade, presented an *immediate* deadly threat to a guard who had the option to retreat?

I still think it's funny how the people in the hall on the other side are basically just chilling. Really scary bro. I would remind you that at that point in the riot, there was noone left to protect. Anyone who wanted out of the building was already out. The only thing that was being protected at this point was property.

Escort joke They say it's proper etiquette to tip your escort, but I'm like "If things went well, didn't you already tip her?" She responded “You already shafted me too, so fork over that gratuity you cheap bastard!"

He has a rare combination of money and genius. Reusable (orbital) rockets is a huge accomplishment and it required both.

The Space Shuttle was a weak attempt at reusability which was probably designed to fail from the beginning. The government, or more specifically its aerospace contractors, had no incentive to take it seriously. There is way more money in producing one-time-use rockets over and over again and this is why the government continues to do exactly that even now when reusable rockets are available. Reusable rockets is something that took a private hand to do. I don't think government ever had the incentive.

It's no secret conspiracy, Musk is allowed to do it because NASA's space program has been in shambles from mismanagement as you would expect from any government agency. They can barely even send rockets into orbit at all these days. SpaceX is a private enterprise success story. Elon took a lot of risks with his own money to get SpaceX to where it is today. If his Falcon had failed to get into orbit there would be no SpaceX, no matter how "in bed" you think he is or was at the time. As a further point, where do you think the motivation for reusable rockets came from? It sure as shit wasn't the government's idea. The government loves wasting countless millions and turning it into orbiting space trash. It was Elon's genius, ambition, and sheer determination that made reusable rockets a reality. Government had absolutely nothing to do with that shit. Government would have been - and still is - perfectly happy with single use launches. They love wasting money on that shit even today.

Not as tax-payer funded as you might think. The majority of SpaceX launches and the majority of its revenue comes from Starlink. The private space launch industry didn't even exist before Elon and his company is less reliant on government revenue than its ever been. Pretty impressive I would say for basically inventing an entire new industry.

The way I look at it is this, nearly everybody in this country sends more to Uncle Sam than they can ever get back. So, get what you can back in whatever form you can.

Shrug. I don't know anything about electric cars but I do know he revolutionized the space industry

It's like 100x better than it was before he took over. I'm sure Twitter still has a large remnant of leftists in its employ, and I can't fault Elon for having better things to do than to micro manage X

Electric cars were and would be subsidized with or without Elon, I still don't get it. And to the extent that he did lobby for any subsidies... he's a businessman, it'd be stupid not to.

I still don't get why you hate Elon. If you were Elon would you turn down an opportunity to rewrite regulations to your company's favor? I sure as heck wouldn't.

I bet he'll audit EPA first heh

This whole thread is Russian propaganda

So I was right ^?

I would have but I already exhausted my time limit of fact checking for the day. Only use reliable sources if you want to better get your point across cus otherwise people like myself will dismiss all of your other sources out of hand as I have now for lack of time lol

Those numbers seemed off to me so I fact checked them. The statista.com source says (after logging in with a free account) that their source is Mother Jones. The reason the numbers seemed off, is that Mother Jones excludes gang violence from their numbers: So yea, if you exclude gang violence, black violence is gonna seem a lot lower than it actually is.

I have no doubt that the pharma's are making buttloads of profits but there's a buttload of costs that come with it too. The costs are almost entirely regulatory but the costs are quite real however. If we were to get rid of the FDA, yes Ivermectin would be a lot cheaper. But regulatory-free Ivermectin is already available cheap & OTC. It's just marketed for animals and not humans. Same thing for many antibiotics. They are available OTC as fish medicine. Some fish medicine is even made in the same facilities as human medicine, as a cost saving measure. The whole idea that medicine has to be prescribed by a doctor for it to be safe or useful is just well not true. Obviously some common sense and personal responsibility comes into play, but if you want cheap & OTC Ivermectin, it certainly is available.

Whether or not something is "legal" doesn't really matter, and I don't think it ever has. What's more relevant, is whether or not the government wants something to be illegal, and whether or not they can find a venue with a jury that agrees with them.

They can't be held responsible yet. My whole point was that it is headed in that direction. And it is. Won't be able to hide behind "but its just a protocol" forever. This case brings us just one step closer to it. Generic protocols like HTTP are obviously a different story, but if someone were to build and maintain a protocol that was specifically designed to allow terrorists to get away with a 9/11 every day, do you think the US government would all of a sudden respect his rights because "technically" he wasn't doing anything illegal? The Backpage guy wasn't technically doing anything illegal, he's going to jail for 5 years and his partner committed suicide. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought people were being arrested for writing protocols today. But yes, that is definitely where we are headed. And no, you won't be safe running your decentralized "platform" on your computer no matter how many times you say "but I can't disable criminal behavior from happening on my platform even if I wanted to". I hope this clears it up for you.

I assume you can just buy the horse paste. It's probably made to a similar standard than pharmaceuticals. Horse lives are valued greater than your own :cool:

jmdrake this is basically a case in point of what i was saying the other day, this has become the norm of where platform providers are being held liable for what others do on their platform. what's interesting in this case, is that presumably most of the "prostitution" content posted on backpage would have been advertised as escort services. which is legal in theory. there is no way for backpage to know for sure that it isn't a legitimate "escort" service. they can guess pretty well but not know for sure. what this does is it pretty much makes it illegal to post escort services online, even though escort services is itself not against the law