1906
Spin Zone / Re: D.L. Highly talks about Police Violence
« on: July 08, 2016, 06:26:02 AM »
The Fundamental Transformation continues.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/07/07/its-too-much-d-l-hughley-gets-emotional-talking-about-police-shootings-on-cnn/
While you all were here talking about "Doormat" or other such events, I was having conversations about police assassinations of Black Men.
I honestly felt it was a bit insensitive to not even see a mention on the site as I checked a couple times today. Nobody asked how I felt- nobody cared.
Well, mark my words...were one day closer to "Fuck It" like I said in another post about a week ago. See the link above- I hope you can watch the entire 9min video. Maybe you'll give a shit.
The young folks wanted Bernie. I liked him, but I thought most of his ideas were utterly unworkable. Say what you want about the Hildebeast, but I think she has a very firm grip on the possible. That's more than I can say for either The Bern or the Donald.That might be true.
Please print out this web page http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusional-disorder.html and take with you to your next psychiatric visit.
Talking this out with the psychiatrist may help you (along with medication) understand your delusional disorder problem, along with the many others you exhibit.
We are all hoping you can rejoin society at some point in your life.
Your cowardice is only exceeded by your bigotry. A strange but not unheard of malady.
Maybe you should try to address the topic instead of attacking in such a junior high school fashion.
But then you would have to examine your bigotry and insane devotion to orange man.
True, but not the entire story. There are limits on successful application of this idea. The limitations are not as great as they were 20 years ago, but they are still there; denial doesn't make them go away.
I'm not trying to twist this - can you see my confusion? You state once "not in favor of anyone losing their rights", but then "not in favor of terrorists...having weapons".
I get the due process part of what you say, but I even said there was a due process part and you still disagreed. So you ARE in favor of terrorists and others losing their rights when declared by a court. I propose that the militia clause of the Constitution is the constitutional way to do that. Of course there has to be due process involved.
You disagree on what is essentially agreement, so it just comes across to me as you wanting to disagree.
If we put a $19,000 tax on ARs and raise the price of to $20,000, you'd be ok with effectively banning them? Because outside a select few, who can afford that?
My answer is that sniper rifles, tanks, airplanes ships and nuclear weapons are strategic, they are political weapons. There are political consequences to their use. War is diplomacy continued by other means, a private citizen is not authorized to conduct diplomacy.
I never really thought of mercenaries as bureaucrats. Seems like different skill set. Then again, what do you expect after a couple decades of outsourcing war?
There are a ton of sheeple who will vote for Hillary whether she debates or not, whether she wins or loses any debates, whether she is indicted, or pardoned. They don't care about all these witch hunts by the vast right-wing conspiracy.