Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charlottesville

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mr_e
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    I want to keep this option open... that is that he meant to do it...
    I can't believe you're saying that. You're being extremely disingenuous.

    There is not a single person in this whole thread, that I'm aware of, who appears to be decided as to his guilt or innocence, except perhaps you. Everybody here seems to be taking a considered approach and weighing the evidence and considering everything they have seen and heard-- except apparently you. As far as I can see, pretty much every single person who has responded to you in this thread has (and is) keeping open the possibility that he did it--as will be determined by a court of law. The real (ultimate) "TRUTH" (in big double quotes), lacking a spontaneous confession, might never be actually known-- since the purpose of the court is to *ASSIGN* guilt or innocence where it cannot be otherwise determined. But it is a system that we have all agreed to abide by and uphold. That is the basis of American jurisprudence.

    Leave a comment:


  • mr_e
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    I would say I have a pretty clear idea of the driver's intent... like I have a pretty clear idea of what was in the mind of the people that crashed planes in NY buildings...
    I know what ran through their minds too... the tail section of the plane. And that's about all you can say with certainty, apart from the evidence they left in letters and videos.

    Leave a comment:


  • mr_e
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    I'm not defending the man here but on the face of the video, the shooter was reacting to a threat. The threat being a man using a spay can as a blow torch. The shooter shot a warning shot at the ground next to the man with the torch(I think it was BS doing that). The relevance of the charges is that the self defense standard is pretty strong in this case and they were looking for something else.

    On the Second degree murder charges for the driver, that revolves around intent. The lesser charges seem to be an indication the DA is shooting for the easier charge. Remember there was a left leaning journalist who stated that officers reported there may have not been malice.

    I've seen these videos too...Showing the car driving away and back tracking around. The Maroon van sitting at the intersection for 5 minutes without a driver. Again, we would need to know what was going through this kids mind and the driver of the van. As far as conspiracy theories, I'm not on board with the program.

    Closer to what? We all agree the bad people are bad!

    I understand why you say "BS" for shooting at the ground first-- but I think the guy was smart, or at least lucky enough to have time for a second shot-- and I think it will work well for him in court as he will be able to provably say "He had fair warning, and I even gave him a warning shot"-- which I think will go a long way toward helping him frame it as a self-defense measure.

    Leave a comment:


  • mr_e
    replied
    Originally posted by TheNarrator View Post
    great post gom!
    Agreed. I think you pretty much laid out the whole thread in one post.

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    ok, how about the continual BS regarding your interpretation of how the law really works?

    somehow, you dont sound very much like somebody that is well versed in law.

    ...but Im sure you think you do
    Ah I see... you are missing my point here...

    I am not talking about how the law works... I am talking about how the law is failing to work.

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Sure you can. It's called a republic, and has worked a treat many places.
    Here is a trick: If you need to make it a law and enforce... it is not really much of a social contract...

    I agree that attempts to enforce positive morality ("Love thy neighbour") usually have worse outcomes than settling for just enforcing negatives ("Do not kill").
    Not sure where you want to go here... the law must be positive... in such a way that in practice, the people that go to jail are the ones that do what the law says:
    "A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual."

    There are more direct reasons for that; I don't see the problems of ethics and economy as closely connected.
    I do... because there is ethics of work, ethics of trade.. and so on...

    Pretty much everything about economy is based on trust and goodwill...

    You have to trust the factory is giving you good value product for your money, you have to trust the bank will give you your money back when you ask for it, you have to trust you will get paid for your work, you have to trust that printed paper that the government issues is an acceptable medium of exchange, you have to trust that if you make an investment you will potentially make a profit... If any of this trust get lost... then the system starts to collapse...that is how you end up with a mess up economy. Where nobody want to invest, they create black markets to import goods from other factories, they exchange in foreign coins, or in letters they write down at home...

    Socialism is great at undermining the trust of people... it is a moral problem that ends up destroying the whole economy. For every one of this "you have to trust...", I can give you at least a dozen examples of socialist countries where the government is the one destroying this trust... for a communist country... no a single one of them is saved, all of them all the time.

    Let me give you a comical contemporary example... Socialist Venezuela confiscated some containers of toys, right before Christmas:

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...yre-overpriced

    This is a product that was being imported into the country by a family owned small supermarket chain... with the idea of selling them for the season... now they find out that the government seized the product, with some made up excuse...

    No that long later, Maduro is making this big show where he is giving toys to poor kids... He claims that this is the fruits of socialism:

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/13/...ion-christmas/

    Hard to consider the idea of importing some product into Venezuela... trust is lost.

    OK, not Exxon, but large corporations operating solely for profit tend to disregard everything else but profit.
    Making the community better would entail taking some tiny cut in profits, and they usually never do that, but rely on other people to foot the bill.
    Ah I see... At least in the this part of the country, I must say... corporations are not like that... they try to be locally involve and what not...

    I think you have a strain of it yourself.

    M
    I am not smart enough for that...

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by dubs View Post
    Tribalism = primative National Socialism

    Borders = Civic Nationalism ---> Confederation ---> Globalism

    Weak/No Border = Lawlessness, Chaos, Tribalism, etc

    There's really not much to your flimsy arguments

    You hate modern culture and civilization

    You like tribalism (except white tribalism) and national socialism (except white national socialism) and you consider this to be "globalism."

    At it's core you're simply anti-white.

    That doesn't make you special or unique, guys like you are dime a dozen.
    What a way to misinterpret me...

    "You hate modern culture and civilization"

    Some aspects of it.. yeah... I must admit I am not a big fan of feminism, for instance...

    "You like tribalism (except white tribalism) and national socialism (except white national socialism) and you consider this to be "globalism.""

    Completely the other way around... I think in a globalist system there is more room for individualism.. for diversity... I do like diversity...

    Just for the kicks of it... what is "white nacional socialism"??? like... how would define? who is a member of it? who is not a member?, what happened to the people that does not cut it a a members, but are stuck in the same territory?

    I am pointing this out, because out of the bat the 3 words together "white national socialism" sounds perverted as you can get... and It also looks like... you are in favour of it?

    "At it's core you're simply anti-white."

    Why would I be? Why would I care the color of your skin? why would I hate it??? it makes no sense what you say here.

    "That doesn't make you special or unique, guys like you are dime a dozen."

    I know I am not unique and special... so??? what is your point?

    Leave a comment:


  • Manalysis
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    Yeah, they missed an important element, and that was the goodwill of people...
    I don't know about that. At least one theorist of communism (name beginning with K... M...) was adamant the 'the liberation of the workers had to be the labour of the workers themselves', i.e. it couldn't be done by well-meaning bourgeois or zealous intellectuals, while e.g. Lenin was all for zealous intellectuals, and so became Chief Important Element Misser, and one of the reasons I hesitate to call the USSR "marxist", and certainly not "communist". But that's nitpicking history.

    you can't really put down social contract into a paper and call it a law...
    Sure you can. It's called a republic, and has worked a treat many places.

    does not work that way.
    Yes, well, it tends to deteriorate; but so does every type of government.

    You can't really force people to be charitable or go to jail...
    Sure you can. That's what the church did for 1000 years.

    fundamental reasons why socialist governments turn into the oppressive monsters they do...
    I agree that attempts to enforce positive morality ("Love thy neighbour") usually have worse outcomes than settling for just enforcing negatives ("Do not kill").

    and at then end the economy is a mess.
    There are more direct reasons for that; I don't see the problems of ethics and economy as closely connected.

    I have not idea what this is about.. what happened to Exxon?
    OK, not Exxon, but large corporations operating solely for profit tend to disregard everything else but profit.
    Making the community better would entail taking some tiny cut in profits, and they usually never do that, but rely on other people to foot the bill.

    Probably... Socrates was a philosopher, they like to toy with those thing...
    I think you have a strain of it yourself.

    M

    Leave a comment:


  • dubs
    replied
    Tribalism = primative National Socialism

    Borders = Civic Nationalism ---> Confederation ---> Globalism

    Weak/No Border = Lawlessness, Chaos, Tribalism, etc

    There's really not much to your flimsy arguments

    You hate modern culture and civilization

    You like tribalism (except white tribalism) and national socialism (except white national socialism) and you consider this to be "globalism."

    At it's core you're simply anti-white.

    That doesn't make you special or unique, guys like you are dime a dozen.

    Leave a comment:


  • MatrixTransform
    replied
    you really should consider not behaving like an infant.

    probably help yr case

    Leave a comment:


  • MatrixTransform
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    What BS?
    ok, how about the continual BS regarding your interpretation of how the law really works?

    somehow, you dont sound very much like somebody that is well versed in law.

    ...but Im sure you think you do

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    More BS...does that offend you? Good day!
    No it does not offend me... if anything it can get annoying... eventually...

    Leave a comment:


  • Grumpy Old Man
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    Tribalism is all based on borders...



    Than can be a theory of it.



    Christian, american, white... that is what they stand for... 2 of them, anyone can convert or applied for... the other one is where the problems are, as people can't chose what race they are...



    I never understood that mentality.. but it is very common throughout human kind... so...



    I don't know... don't ask me... I am not advocating for tribalism... I am a globalist...



    Did all this small kingdoms build walls too??? I feel here that you are actually making my argument... I can't do nothing but agree... Thanks.



    OK, maybe Manalysis is right and my cynical sense of humor scapes you...

    The difference between legal and illegal is a stamp in a paper... It is not such a big deal... people that is legal get the expiration date on the paper, then become illegal... people that is illegal uses any of the many forms to legalize their situation and get the stamp...

    You can make of this stamp the big deal you want, but in the long run it is unimportant. I also don't think that this is the core of your issue, as you have already confuse legal with illegals... if you can't tell the difference... then it must not be so important for you?



    OK...



    Would have being easier for them to do so... if US did not give big guns to drug cartels... what was the whole point of operation fast and furious? Give them guns so they all kill themselves?



    A bit simplistic.. but I would say, mostly accurate...



    I don't think they want to be part of the union.. do they?



    Ah TY.. I was containing myself just out of worries that it will offend you... but now that you tell me you are cool with it... then I will scream it much more comfortably... TY!



    And you think that 11 million illegal immigrants have come to US... for charity??? LOL



    But refugees make cheap labor... they work in factories for minimum wages... why a businessman would not want them?

    And beggars... I guess here you are talking about the illegal workers that are stealing the jobs of americans???

    This is some nice article about your beggers:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/op...e.html?mcubz=0



    Interesting point of view... would like to see it a bit more... explained...

    For me globalism comes with developing a global culture... but that is a whole wall of text that maybe doesn't belong here... anyway...



    How you measure "development"?
    More BS...does that offend you? Good day!

    Leave a comment:


  • Grumpy Old Man
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    Oh OK, so this is a different man than the car driver?

    And I keep asking.. have they arrested the torch man yet?



    Always impossible to know what is in the mind of another person... but I think we can make up an accurate enough idea...



    Oh well...



    Closer to how people will react to the jury...

    They will follow your position and recognize and respect the legal process, and their results... Or they will call it corrupted and come with more conspiracy theories about the jury and what not...



    I would say I have a pretty clear idea of the driver's intent... like I have a pretty clear idea of what was in the mind of the people that crashed planes in NY buildings... I understand that I will never know 100% sure what was in their mind... maybe they take medications?...

    But this is the core of the issue here...

    I want to keep this option open... that is that he meant to do it...

    Then there is whole debate about not keeping that option open and I should consider anything but that option... I asked "why" and that did not sit well... neither...

    So I am not spinning your words... I am actually celebrating that we are goign to keep this option open... and of course seeking to start eliminating the ones that should not be there... and so we see at the end what options are left?

    But ones my option is included... Then we can start breaking each one of the options to see if they are actually viable in the giving situation... I mean if i get to interest enough people to participate in such exercice... 45 pages just to get to keep one option alive in the list... WOW. How long you think will it take me to debunk the other options?

    I am glad I have debunk some of the other options already.... Would you believe someone actually presented the option that he did not see the protesters on the street? Glad I was able to kill that in just 2 pages... Though I might not really know what he saw or not... and so it gets bring back as... it is possible he did not see any of them and he though he was driving in an empty street... until he hit the car, and so that is when he saw the people, panic and back up to escape the angry mob that was goign to lynch him... I hope the option that he did not see them doesn't come back.. but I am ready for it... anyway...

    Ah, by the way... Dubs in post #426 express some concern that I am here to infiltrate and spy the community... would help dubs if you tell what are your though on making me a moderator of the forum... I am such a crack I am sure I have convince you I am the guy for the job... LOL

    But it is all an infiltration operation, nonetheless. Payed for Soros... I first gain your trust, and seduce you with my wilds and then you trust me the moderation and... I don't know... But if it is possible... you can give some thoughts on that, so might dubs know that I failed my sneaky attempt?

    Don't have to make a big statement... from 1 to 10 how inclined are you on making me a moderator of the forums? Then again, no for me, I kind of have an idea of what it is... but for dubs... it is an actual real worried that dubs don't need to have... in my opinion.
    More crap that I'm very familiar with it. You cannot talk your way out of your own bias and agenda...It screams so loudly I cannot hear a word you say to the point where you'd loose all semblance of objective neutrality. You are full of shit and have little clue why! Good day!

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by dubs View Post
    Let us assume that racism (including intra-race racism) exists in the heart of every man.

    Without borders then we have tribalism, ancestor based social structure.
    Tribalism is all based on borders...

    Borders and civic nationalism enforce the idea that we don't care who your ancestors were.
    Than can be a theory of it.

    KKK doesn't like it, because KKK is white tribalism.
    Christian, american, white... that is what they stand for... 2 of them, anyone can convert or applied for... the other one is where the problems are, as people can't chose what race they are...

    Same as a Mexican who says "my ancestors lived here, so this area is mine."
    I never understood that mentality.. but it is very common throughout human kind... so...

    If we are gonna base things on ancestors, then white tribe should live in white area, black tribe should live in black area, etc etc.

    But isn't that how the whole thing started?
    I don't know... don't ask me... I am not advocating for tribalism... I am a globalist...

    ALL humans were once tribal and "ownership" was based on population and which tribe is better at killing, raping and enslaving the tribe next door.

    Europe at one point was ruled by "duchies" and every small piece of land had a duke or a king and a "du jour" ownership based on kinship and blood ties.

    So if you marry a french princess, that give you the right to invade France and invoke the right of blood.

    You think all of the stuff you're saying is avant garde but we've all seen this movie before.

    I'm not saying that the status quo is the final stage of human development.

    I'm saying that ignoring borders is a giant step backwards.
    Did all this small kingdoms build walls too??? I feel here that you are actually making my argument... I can't do nothing but agree... Thanks.

    Globalization is a human eventuality, but it's not going to happen thru illegal immigration.
    OK, maybe Manalysis is right and my cynical sense of humor scapes you...

    The difference between legal and illegal is a stamp in a paper... It is not such a big deal... people that is legal get the expiration date on the paper, then become illegal... people that is illegal uses any of the many forms to legalize their situation and get the stamp...

    You can make of this stamp the big deal you want, but in the long run it is unimportant. I also don't think that this is the core of your issue, as you have already confuse legal with illegals... if you can't tell the difference... then it must not be so important for you?

    It will be more similar to the EU shengen accords.

    Voluntary confederation based on mutual BENEFITS.

    For example if Turkey wants membership to the EU, it must change its values, it must repudiate the Armenian Genocide, they cannot remain "Turkish Tribe" and be part of the EU.
    OK...

    Likewise Mexico has to clean up its act.
    Would have being easier for them to do so... if US did not give big guns to drug cartels... what was the whole point of operation fast and furious? Give them guns so they all kill themselves?

    Why are people crossing the border? Because Mexico doesn't have opportunities, it's a bad economy, bad govt, lots of corruption, etc etc.
    A bit simplistic.. but I would say, mostly accurate...

    So why the fuck should we voluntarily form confederation with them?
    I don't think they want to be part of the union.. do they?

    You can scream "racism" all you want, just like the Turks.
    Ah TY.. I was containing myself just out of worries that it will offend you... but now that you tell me you are cool with it... then I will scream it much more comfortably... TY!

    But this is not the fucking Red Cross, we are not a charity.
    And you think that 11 million illegal immigrants have come to US... for charity??? LOL

    Businessmen want other businessmen to do business with, not beggars or refugees.
    But refugees make cheap labor... they work in factories for minimum wages... why a businessman would not want them?

    And beggars... I guess here you are talking about the illegal workers that are stealing the jobs of americans???

    This is some nice article about your beggers:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/op...e.html?mcubz=0

    Security + Time = Eventual globalization.
    Interesting point of view... would like to see it a bit more... explained...

    For me globalism comes with developing a global culture... but that is a whole wall of text that maybe doesn't belong here... anyway...

    This will happen after development, not before.
    How you measure "development"?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X