Current events discussion

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

The kiddo just got back and he asked me, "Did you reply to that moron?"

View attachment 67077

Rob's got a vag the size of a large mouth bass's mouth

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Enraged Over Purported COVID Vax Injury, Gunman Attacks CDC, Kills Cop | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Rolex founder was suspected Nazi spy

MI5 wanted Hans Wilsdorf blacklisted because of his ‘strong’ sympathies for Hitler’s regime

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

He'd probably find it hilarious that your evidence that rights don't come from the gov't is to keep citing legal documents (or the Creator).

Wow. "Hilarious" to cite legal documents?

Hopefully he gets more of an education as he gets older.
If this is his peak, he's gonna have a rough life.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Nice try. Where do you come up with these ridiculous positions?

You're starting to argue liek Thxone.

It's called logic. If rights come from a "creator" ("god" in your view), and Atheists have no "creator", then they must not have rights.

If rights are given by the govwernment (in your view), then prior to governemts existing, people did not have rights.

How did the repeat "Rights of Men?"

You cracked yourself up so much, you forgot to make any sense.

LOL. But Rights are innate because Thomas Paine believes they are???

It predates Thomas Paine by 2500+ years.
So, go ahead and share your peer-reviewed analysis and conclusion.

I want to see what the experts think of your claim that human rights are not innate.

Only a true fool is unable see where rights do actually come from.

SO we have 3700+ years of "tru fools" who think himan rights are innate.

Cool. have you now flipped to agreeing with Thxone that bones do not have nerves in them, contrary to what the entire field of medical science knows?
How about math? Agree that averages are just made-up numbers only used by lazy and nefarious people?

Like you, he can't prove his claim, but it MUST be fact because he said it?

You've made your claim, but haven't proved it.
Enlisiting your 12 y.o. to be your "expert" to corroborate your view that contradicts 3,700+ years of knowledge is pretty solid. Kind of like Peter Navarro deferring to "expert" "Ron Vara" for corroboration of his ideas.

What field does your son have his PhD in? Sociology? Philosophy? Religion?
Was he part fo your peer-review group, or did you just seek his advice to show he still has a lot to learn?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Rob's got a vag the size of a large mouth bass's mouth

Says the guy who can't even hold in his own feces, or get a job and be a productive member of society.
FFS, you even have an excuse as to why you can't write a book, when all those people are knocking on your door begging you to do one.

Pretty effing lazy.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You must have.

Yep. Before I was born. That whole time travel thing that you believe in yet also deny.
"Time is a constant", or something to that effect.

I carry a gun legally which means you are 100% wrong.

How did you get past the felony rule?
What model, what caliber?

Make yourself one. For whatever reason, you came up with the idea.

It was based on your claim that the government doesn't control who makes guns, and your idea that a silencer is not considered a firearm.

A way for you to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.

You can stop the inmate shit and the felon shit.

So you're not a felon? Never were an inmate?
Then why the ongoing support of criminals?
Why did the gov't strip you of your right to carry?

Nothing to do with deflecting. How about you stop ignoring.

Another deflection.
To stay on track: It was ironic that you stated someone cannot tell others here what to do, then immediately took it upon yourself to tell someone here what to do.

Then you deflected by bringing up whether people had to follow the command or not.

It's YOUR damn theory. You are the one who keeps saying this dumb shit. XX you are male XY you are a female.

YOU are the one who said genitals determine the brain.

That human was born without genitals.
So tell us wheter they have a male brain or a female brain.
Whatsa' matter, you can't solve a simple example to prove your claim?

You were addressing people in general and that is how your question is worded. If you wanted to address me specifically you would add my screen name after the word felon or you.

The term "you" refers to you. i even included your referecne to the "womanly" 9mm. Why would you think that all people in general would knwo about your referecne here?
Pretty entitled to think that society knows all about what you are posting here.

Were you under the impression that every time I replied to one of your posts and used the word "you" ("you get triggered like a child", for example) I was talking about all people in general?

Damn, and you accuse ME of having comprehension issues (and by "you" I mean Thxone, not all people in general).

Just like this:

As a Felon ThxOne, are you allowed to own a firearm?
or
As a Felon, are you, Thxone, allowed to own a firearm?
In the second instance "are you" is not needed and can be removed leaving you with the first example.
Speaking to someone directly is not a difficult concept for most people Rob. You appear to be an exception.

If someone is replying directly to your post, or replying directly to you in conversation, it's necessary for them to address you ("you" meaning Thxone) by name in every instance?

Damn, no wonder no one wants to talk to you.
An underpaid worker having to say "Do you, Michael, want fries with that burger?" after you have said in the drive-thru "I'll have a cheeseburger" suggests you (meaning you, Thxone) are an idiot who can't grasp the simplest of conversation concept.

Lemme ask: Do you (meaning you, Michael) offer your (meaning belonging to you, Michael) first name before every conversation you (still you, Michael) have with anyone? Do you (yep. Michael) announce at the drive-thru "Hi, I am Michael" before they take your (belonging to Michael) order?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

A press conferecne will casue crime to cease?
Why didn't he have this press conference on 21 January 2017?
The shitbags of January 6th would never have been able to do anyhting.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Wow. "Hilarious" to cite legal documents?

Hopefully he gets more of an education as he gets older.
If this is his peak, he's gonna have a rough life.

Yes, t is hilarious to cite legal documents as proof that gov't ISN'T the arbitrator of rights. The fact that you can't see the massive hole this blows in our argument is, without doubt, one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Not Seinfeld/Marine Biologist Funny, but definitely phawking funny. Gov't enforcing rights is the proof that they aren't the source of our rights has to one of the most asinine claims I've ever heard. It would be one thing if I brought up the hundreds legal documents and you argued against them as a knee jerk reaction, but you're the one that brought them up thinking it somehow bolstered you position.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You're starting to argue liek Thxone.

It's called logic. If rights come from a "creator" ("god" in your view), and Atheists have no "creator", then they must not have rights.

If rights are given by the govwernment (in your view), then prior to governemts existing, people did not have rights.

And that's what passes for logic in your feeble mind??? Dude, stop digging, just move on. Take a break or something.

You cracked yourself up so much, you forgot to make any sense.
View attachment 67079


It predates Thomas Paine by 2500+ years.
So, go ahead and share your peer-reviewed analysis and conclusion.

I want to see what the experts think of your claim that human rights are not innate.

SO we have 3700+ years of "tru fools" who think himan rights are innate.

But these "fools" keep using the gov't to regulate the rights. And of course depending on the "fool," the rights were subject to change.

Cool. have you now flipped to agreeing with Thxone that bones do not have nerves in them, contrary to what the entire field of medical science knows?
How about math? Agree that averages are just made-up numbers only used by lazy and nefarious people?

Nice try. Thxone's claim that there are no nerves in bones is ridiculous, but you've managed to take things to a new level.

Like you, he can't prove his claim, but it MUST be fact because he said it?

You've made your claim, but haven't proved it.
Enlisiting your 12 y.o. to be your "expert" to corroborate your view that contradicts 3,700+ years of knowledge is pretty solid. Kind of like Peter Navarro deferring to "expert" "Ron Vara" for corroboration of his ideas.

What field does your son have his PhD in? Sociology? Philosophy? Religion?
Was he part fo your peer-review group, or did you just seek his advice to show he still has a lot to learn?

Sorry to tell you but alot of PhD's are morons, especially when it comes to the "soft sciences."

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

For a right that doesn't come from the gov't, the gov't sure seems to have a lot to say about how it's regulated, exercised, restricted, The first case should piss Rob the Right off pretty good given that it would have restricted proselytizing.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940 Supreme Court case, free exercise of religion, First Amendment, religious freedom, legal precedent, U.S. history, civil liberties

billofrightsinstitute.org

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

Reynolds v. United States: It is not a valid defense to a crime to cite a religious belief or religiously imposed duty.

supreme.justia.com

{{meta.fullTitle}}

Wisconsin v. Yoder | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Wisconsin v. Yoder

constitutioncenter.org

Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 42-90

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Six Flags is closing 2 parks, including in California. See where.

Six Flags recently announced it is closing two parks in the United States, including one in California. See where.

www.desertsun.com

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

From the 2021 memory hole

HPD defends use of pricey robot dog taking temperatures at homeless program

The dog, known as SPOT, cost more than $150,000 and was paid for using federal CARES funds.

www.hawaiinewsnow.com

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Yes, t is hilarious to cite legal documents as proof that gov't ISN'T the arbitrator of rights. The fact that you can't see the massive hole this blows in our argument is, without doubt, one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Not Seinfeld/Marine Biologist Funny, but definitely phawking funny. Gov't enforcing rights is the proof that they aren't the source of our rights has to one of the most asinine claims I've ever heard. It would be one thing if I brought up the hundreds legal documents and you argued against them as a knee jerk reaction, but you're the one that brought them up thinking it somehow bolstered you position.

The governemnt protects rights and the government can punish you for exercising certian rights.
The government does not GIVE you rights.

I've challenged you six ways from Sunday to prove your belief, and you have failed every single time.
Why is that?

Why do you think you know rights better than 3,700+ years of experts? Do you REALLY think that just because you say so, all of the experts are wrong?
Cool! Then PROVE it. Show us how you turned the whole concept on its ear, and it is no longer an accepted fact that we have innate human rights.

I'll literally eat my hat ON VIDEO if you simply present proof of your claim.
If you are right, then proving it will be terribly simple, since it's such a big change to our reality.
Challenge accepted?

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

The governemnt protects rights and the government can punish you for exercising certian rights.
The government does not GIVE you rights.

I've challenged you six ways from Sunday to prove your belief, and you have failed every single time.
Why is that?

Why do you think you know rights better than 3,700+ years of experts? Do you REALLY think that just because you say so, all of the experts are wrong?
Cool! Then PROVE it. Show us how you turned the whole concept on its ear, and it is no longer an accepted fact that we have innate human rights.

I'll literally eat my hat ON VIDEO if you simply present proof of your claim.
If you are right, then proving it will be terribly simple, since it's such a big change to our reality.
Challenge accepted?

Why have the experts time and time again codified our rights? Because the gov't grants, suspends, reminds, modifies and denies us our rights. To say otherwise is foolishness.

Yet another example. I travel out if state and guess what: privacy rights change along with gov't enforcing them. My rights as an employee change from state to state.

Better put a call into the USSC, Rob the Right, Constitutional Scholar Extraordinare has some news for them...