OFFICIAL DEBATE DRINKING THREAD

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

So, I guess the right to peaceable assembly only pertains to people whose views align with yours?

What part of “peaceable” is contained in “bomb threat”?

Other people making bomb threats is their fault?

1. YOU have no idea if their motive was to "peacefully assemble" or to "non-peacefully assemble".
They have a history of the later. Sure, it's possible they were there to "peacefully assemble" but it's possible they weren't. Right?
2. YOU have no idea who the people were that made the bomb threats. The Proud Boys probably weren't the ones who made the threats but you don't know for a fact that it wasn't. If it was, do you feel it would be "their fault"?
3. We live in a country where a man who was our President, and is once again running for President, LIES to incite fear and hatred for the purpose of division - instead of promoting unity. You seem to be ok with that. I would ask, are you? I already know the answer based on your posts on this site.

[JKLivin]

What part of “peaceable” is contained in “bomb threat”?

Other people making bomb threats is their fault?

1. YOU have no idea if their motive was to "peacefully assemble" or to "non-peacefully assemble".
They have a history of the later. Sure, it's possible they were there to "peacefully assemble" but it's possible they weren't. Right?
2. YOU have no idea who the people were that made the bomb threats. The Proud Boys probably weren't the ones who made the threats but you don't know for a fact that it wasn't. If it was, do you feel it would be "their fault"?
3. We live in a country where a man who was our President, and is once again running for President, LIES to incite fear and hatred for the purpose of division - instead of promoting unity. You seem to be ok with that. I would ask, are you? I already know the answer based on your posts on this site.

1.) I don’t think it is the role of the law to determine one’s motives, at least where Constitutional rights are concerned. According to the framers of the document, they are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

2.) If they made bomb threats - and I have no idea why they would do so, as it would be counter to their own interests - thru would not longer be assembling peaceably.

3.) I’ve said repeatedly that I neither like nor admire him. For the purposes of leading our country and promoting/protecting my best interests, however, I much prefer him to the giggling, imbecilic, neo-Marxist, globalist puppet benzo head running against him.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Other people making bomb threats is their fault?

1. YOU have no idea if their motive was to "peacefully assemble" or to "non-peacefully assemble".
They have a history of the later. Sure, it's possible they were there to "peacefully assemble" but it's possible they weren't. Right?
2. YOU have no idea who the people were that made the bomb threats. The Proud Boys probably weren't the ones who made the threats but you don't know for a fact that it wasn't. If it was, do you feel it would be "their fault"?
3. We live in a country where a man who was our President, and is once again running for President, LIES to incite fear and hatred for the purpose of division - instead of promoting unity. You seem to be ok with that. I would ask, are you? I already know the answer based on your posts on this site.

1.) I don’t think it is the role of the law to determine one’s motives, at least where Constitutional rights are concerned. According to the framers of the document, they are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

2.) If they made bomb threats - and I have no idea why they would do so, as it would be counter to their own interests - thru would not longer be assembling peaceably.

3.) I’ve said repeatedly that I neither like nor admire him. For the purposes of leading our country and promoting/protecting my best interests, however, I much prefer him to the giggling, imbecilic, neo-Marxist, globalist puppet benzo head running against him.

1. WHAT? Re-read what you wrote, think about it, then tell me/us if you still feel that way.
2. Good answer! Mostly. It could be in their own interests to make bomb threats but I will spare you and others my theories on that.
3. Kudos to you for your first sentence. I don't know what YOUR specific best interests are that he would be "promoting"/"protecting" but as I have said, in SOME ways I MIGHT (I'm not saying "would" because I don't believe he can and will do everything he claims he will/would do) benefit more by him being the President than Kamala being the President. You have a problem with Harris because she "giggles". Seems that's a you problem more than it's a her problem. You call Harris "imbecilic". I've said it before and I will say it again, she's a lot smarter than you are - in regards to MANY things. You call Harris a Neo-Marxist. So be it. I don't agree but I'll move on. You call her a "globalist puppet". Do you have any clue that if you truly believe that, it would be a good thing for you based on what you post on here? You call her a "benzo head". Based on....? If she is a "benzo head", you, as someone in the psych field, are comfortable calling someone who may have a strong need to be on "benzos" - a benzo head?

[JKLivin]

1. YOU have no idea if their motive was to "peacefully assemble" or to "non-peacefully assemble".
They have a history of the later. Sure, it's possible they were there to "peacefully assemble" but it's possible they weren't. Right?
2. YOU have no idea who the people were that made the bomb threats. The Proud Boys probably weren't the ones who made the threats but you don't know for a fact that it wasn't. If it was, do you feel it would be "their fault"?
3. We live in a country where a man who was our President, and is once again running for President, LIES to incite fear and hatred for the purpose of division - instead of promoting unity. You seem to be ok with that. I would ask, are you? I already know the answer based on your posts on this site.

1.) I don’t think it is the role of the law to determine one’s motives, at least where Constitutional rights are concerned. According to the framers of the document, they are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

2.) If they made bomb threats - and I have no idea why they would do so, as it would be counter to their own interests - thru would not longer be assembling peaceably.

3.) I’ve said repeatedly that I neither like nor admire him. For the purposes of leading our country and promoting/protecting my best interests, however, I much prefer him to the giggling, imbecilic, neo-Marxist, globalist puppet benzo head running against him.

1. WHAT? Re-read what you wrote, think about it, then tell me/us if you still feel that way.
2. Good answer! Mostly. It could be in their own interests to make bomb threats but I will spare you and others my theories on that.
3. Kudos to you for your first sentence. I don't know what YOUR specific best interests are that he would be "promoting"/"protecting" but as I have said, in SOME ways I MIGHT (I'm not saying "would" because I don't believe he can and will do everything he claims he will/would do) benefit more by him being the President than Kamala being the President. You have a problem with Harris because she "giggles". Seems that's a you problem more than it's a her problem. You call Harris "imbecilic". I've said it before and I will say it again, she's a lot smarter than you are - in regards to MANY things. You call Harris a Neo-Marxist. So be it. I don't agree but I'll move on. You call her a "globalist puppet". Do you have any clue that if you truly believe that, it would be a good thing for you based on what you post on here? You call her a "benzo head". Based on....? If she is a "benzo head", you, as someone in the psych field, are comfortable calling someone who may have a strong need to be on "benzos" - a benzo head?

1.) I don’t know what you’re getting at, but that is often the case.

2.) I can’t think of a good reason why any organization would go to the trouble of putting together a rally and then calling in bomb threats to make sure it is cancelled.

3.) Globalism is not good for me or for any American. There is a marked dropoff in quality of life for working people here that directly correlated with NAFTA/GATT circa 1994.

Giggles annoys me because she giggles to cover her lack of substantive thought and at things that are not funny - inflation, gas prices, border security.

She is not intelligent. No serious person can make that argument. I can speak a complete sentence. I win based on that alone.

I call her a benzo head because she is glassy-eyes, slurs her words, laughs inappropriately, and rarely makes any sense. Could also be alcohol or a combo of benzos and alcohol, but it further impairs her already dim cognitive processes.

[KUTradition]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/springfield ... s-3d328b6d

[jfish26]

Proud Boys marching in Springfield, OH today. There have been multiple bomb threats there in the last 48 hours.

Would be fitting if Trump’s last-ditch full-Q turn ended up putting Ohio in play.

So, I guess the right to peaceable assembly only pertains to people whose views align with yours?

Freedom of assembly does not equal freedom from (electoral) consequences. Quite a leap from there, which is what my post was about, to your response.

[JKLivin]

Proud Boys marching in Springfield, OH today. There have been multiple bomb threats there in the last 48 hours.

Would be fitting if Trump’s last-ditch full-Q turn ended up putting Ohio in play.

So, I guess the right to peaceable assembly only pertains to people whose views align with yours?

Freedom of assembly does not equal freedom from (electoral) consequences. Quite a leap from there, which is what my post was about, to your response.

It will make no difference. People are voting for his policies and, perhaps more importantly, against Giggles and her globalist overlords.

[ProudBoy]

Proud Boys marching in Springfield, OH today. There have been multiple bomb threats there in the last 48 hours.

Would be fitting if Trump’s last-ditch full-Q turn ended up putting Ohio in play.

So, I guess the right to peaceable assembly only pertains to people whose views align with yours?

Товарищ, мы следили за вами годами, но сейчас самое время. Присоединяйтесь к нам в Спрингфилде, и вы увидите истинную силу нашей общей идеологии. Мы встретимся по адресу 2121 S Edwin C Moses Blvd. в 07:00. Надеемся увидеть вас там! MAGA!!

[JKLivin]

Proud Boys marching in Springfield, OH today. There have been multiple bomb threats there in the last 48 hours.

Would be fitting if Trump’s last-ditch full-Q turn ended up putting Ohio in play.

So, I guess the right to peaceable assembly only pertains to people whose views align with yours?

Товарищ, мы следили за вами годами, но сейчас самое время. Присоединяйтесь к нам в Спрингфилде, и вы увидите истинную силу нашей общей идеологии. Мы встретимся по адресу 2121 S Edwin C Moses Blvd. в 07:00. Надеемся увидеть вас там! MAGA!!

I’m busy at 7:00 this evening. May I suggest you check with one of your true comrades on the bored? Their ideals align much more closely with yours and those of Comrade Giggles.

[jfish26]

Vance claims he and Trump have to "create stories" about migrants eating cats and dogs "so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people."

There is then some awkward dead air as Bash tries to highlight the absurdity of what he just said

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1835309555 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

If one must (in one’s own words!) “create stories” to bring awareness to a group’s perceived hardships, then I think it is reasonable to question the basis in fact of those hardships.

Lies illuminate the truth, in relief.

If one must lie to make one’s point, then it is reasonable to question how much of the point is grounded in fact in the first place.

[twocoach]

Proud Boys marching in Springfield, OH today. There have been multiple bomb threats there in the last 48 hours.

Would be fitting if Trump’s last-ditch full-Q turn ended up putting Ohio in play.

So, I guess the right to peaceable assembly only pertains to people whose views align with yours?

If all that happens is they assemble, walk around with a flag and then leave then I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, that has not been their history. We'll see.

[twocoach]

Vance claims he and Trump have to "create stories" about migrants eating cats and dogs "so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people."

There is then some awkward dead air as Bash tries to highlight the absurdity of what he just said

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1835309555 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

If one must (in one’s own words!) “create stories” to bring awareness to a group’s perceived hardships, then I think it is reasonable to question the basis in fact of those hardships.

Lies illuminate the truth, in relief.

If one must lie to make one’s point, then it is reasonable to question how much of the point is grounded in fact in the first place.

Yep. If you have to lie to make your point then your point either doesn't need to be made or you're too incompetent and lazy to put in a little effort to find valid examples to support your point. You shouldn't be voted for as President if either of these things is true.

[JKLivin]

Proud Boys marching in Springfield, OH today. There have been multiple bomb threats there in the last 48 hours.

Would be fitting if Trump’s last-ditch full-Q turn ended up putting Ohio in play.

So, I guess the right to peaceable assembly only pertains to people whose views align with yours?

If all that happens is they assemble, walk around with a flag and then leave then I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, that has not been their history. We'll see.

I’m no fan of the Proud Boys, but I hope, for the sake of everyone there, that they keep it toned down.

[japhy]

Boo Fucking Hoo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fPEsijLz ... 9yeQ%3D%3D

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

1.) I don’t think it is the role of the law to determine one’s motives, at least where Constitutional rights are concerned. According to the framers of the document, they are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

2.) If they made bomb threats - and I have no idea why they would do so, as it would be counter to their own interests - thru would not longer be assembling peaceably.

3.) I’ve said repeatedly that I neither like nor admire him. For the purposes of leading our country and promoting/protecting my best interests, however, I much prefer him to the giggling, imbecilic, neo-Marxist, globalist puppet benzo head running against him.

1. WHAT? Re-read what you wrote, think about it, then tell me/us if you still feel that way.
2. Good answer! Mostly. It could be in their own interests to make bomb threats but I will spare you and others my theories on that.
3. Kudos to you for your first sentence. I don't know what YOUR specific best interests are that he would be "promoting"/"protecting" but as I have said, in SOME ways I MIGHT (I'm not saying "would" because I don't believe he can and will do everything he claims he will/would do) benefit more by him being the President than Kamala being the President. You have a problem with Harris because she "giggles". Seems that's a you problem more than it's a her problem. You call Harris "imbecilic". I've said it before and I will say it again, she's a lot smarter than you are - in regards to MANY things. You call Harris a Neo-Marxist. So be it. I don't agree but I'll move on. You call her a "globalist puppet". Do you have any clue that if you truly believe that, it would be a good thing for you based on what you post on here? You call her a "benzo head". Based on....? If she is a "benzo head", you, as someone in the psych field, are comfortable calling someone who may have a strong need to be on "benzos" - a benzo head?

1.) I don’t know what you’re getting at, but that is often the case.

2.) I can’t think of a good reason why any organization would go to the trouble of putting together a rally and then calling in bomb threats to make sure it is cancelled.

3.) Globalism is not good for me or for any American. There is a marked dropoff in quality of life for working people here that directly correlated with NAFTA/GATT circa 1994.

Giggles annoys me because she giggles to cover her lack of substantive thought and at things that are not funny - inflation, gas prices, border security.

She is not intelligent. No serious person can make that argument. I can speak a complete sentence. I win based on that alone.

I call her a benzo head because she is glassy-eyes, slurs her words, laughs inappropriately, and rarely makes any sense. Could also be alcohol or a combo of benzos and alcohol, but it further impairs her already dim cognitive processes.

1. YOU said.... "I don’t think it is the role of the law to determine one’s motives, at least where Constitutional rights are concerned. According to the framers of the document, they are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator".
* I don't agree with that. I feel AT TIMES it is absolutely the role of the law to determine one's motives. AT TIMES, ESPECIALLY if/when constitutional rights are concerned.

2. You really can't think of a good reason why they would do that?
I'll give you 3 off of the top of my head.
a. First off, did they "put together a rally" or was their plan to just "march"? Why would their rally get cancelled if the threat was called in and stated a bomb was somewhere else in the city other than where their rally was being held? See, it would force people from one place to another - to where they are.
Which brings me to b.
b. Diversion. Send law enforcement to the threat location/s. Take them away from where the "rally" is being held.
c. They are fuckwads.

3. I admit my ignorance. I am not educated regarding "NAFTA/GATT circa 1994" and how it caused "marked dropoff in quality of life for working people". I'm not "pro-globalism" but there are absolutely benefits to globalism. Things that would be a benefit to you.
I actually respect that you are annoyed by Harris laughing at things that you feel are not funny. Often it can indeed be a defensive mechanism and a sign of insecurity and being uncomfortable.
She is at least somewhat intelligent. Any serious person who feels she isn't, is ignorant. She is fully capable and does speak in complete sentences. Yes, she isn't a great speaker and at times she has difficulty verbally expressing herself. You of all people, as a psych guy, should realize that doesn't automatically equate to being an idiot.
You feel she is on benzos or alcohol because you think she has glassy eyes. Ok, share with us a specific time when and where you looked at her and you thought she had glassy eyes. Don't go searching for photos or videos. Just tell me/us. She slurs her words? Ok, I'll give you that at times she slurs her words. Now tell us that you don't think the orange guy slurs his words as much if not more than she does. He claims he doesn't drink. So is it benzos? I already commented on her laughing. She rarely makes any sense? No. Occasionally does she say things that make little sense? Absolutely. You, and she, and many if not most people have that in common. Me included. I took a "benzo" once in the past 17 years because it was prescribed for me to take before a medical test. I haven't had a sip of alcohol since December of 2007.

[Sparko]

So, I guess the right to peaceable assembly only pertains to people whose views align with yours?

If all that happens is they assemble, walk around with a flag and then leave then I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, that has not been their history. We'll see.

I’m no fan of the Proud Boys, but I hope, for the sake of everyone there, that they keep it toned down.

"Toned down?" They exist as a brown short army to intimidate the public and foment violence. Their wearing of earth tones is a nice tip of the hat to the Volks Sturmer. Just like your Russian buddies online.

[JKLivin]

1. WHAT? Re-read what you wrote, think about it, then tell me/us if you still feel that way.
2. Good answer! Mostly. It could be in their own interests to make bomb threats but I will spare you and others my theories on that.
3. Kudos to you for your first sentence. I don't know what YOUR specific best interests are that he would be "promoting"/"protecting" but as I have said, in SOME ways I MIGHT (I'm not saying "would" because I don't believe he can and will do everything he claims he will/would do) benefit more by him being the President than Kamala being the President. You have a problem with Harris because she "giggles". Seems that's a you problem more than it's a her problem. You call Harris "imbecilic". I've said it before and I will say it again, she's a lot smarter than you are - in regards to MANY things. You call Harris a Neo-Marxist. So be it. I don't agree but I'll move on. You call her a "globalist puppet". Do you have any clue that if you truly believe that, it would be a good thing for you based on what you post on here? You call her a "benzo head". Based on....? If she is a "benzo head", you, as someone in the psych field, are comfortable calling someone who may have a strong need to be on "benzos" - a benzo head?

1.) I don’t know what you’re getting at, but that is often the case.

2.) I can’t think of a good reason why any organization would go to the trouble of putting together a rally and then calling in bomb threats to make sure it is cancelled.

3.) Globalism is not good for me or for any American. There is a marked dropoff in quality of life for working people here that directly correlated with NAFTA/GATT circa 1994.

Giggles annoys me because she giggles to cover her lack of substantive thought and at things that are not funny - inflation, gas prices, border security.

She is not intelligent. No serious person can make that argument. I can speak a complete sentence. I win based on that alone.

I call her a benzo head because she is glassy-eyes, slurs her words, laughs inappropriately, and rarely makes any sense. Could also be alcohol or a combo of benzos and alcohol, but it further impairs her already dim cognitive processes.

1. YOU said.... "I don’t think it is the role of the law to determine one’s motives, at least where Constitutional rights are concerned. According to the framers of the document, they are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator".
* I don't agree with that. I feel AT TIMES it is absolutely the role of the law to determine one's motives. AT TIMES, ESPECIALLY if/when constitutional rights are concerned.

We're going to disagree, then. I think "inalienable" is the operative term here. Pretty hard to work around that.

2. You really can't think of a good reason why they would do that?
I'll give you 3 off of the top of my head.
a. First off, did they "put together a rally" or was their plan to just "march"? Why would their rally get cancelled if the threat was called in and stated a bomb was somewhere else in the city other than where their rally was being held? See, it would force people from one place to another - to where they are.
Which brings me to b.
b. Diversion. Send law enforcement to the threat location/s. Take them away from where the "rally" is being held.
c. They are fuckwads.

I'm not an authority on the Proud Boys, nor am I a Proud Boys apologist. I agree with their dissatisfaction with the status quo in our government and their America First approach. I really can't speak to your list of good reasons other than to respond to c by saying that fuckwads are in the eye of the beholder and that they seem to abound in all political spectra.

3. I admit my ignorance. I am not educated regarding "NAFTA/GATT circa 1994" and how it caused "marked dropoff in quality of life for working people". I'm not "pro-globalism" but there are absolutely benefits to globalism. Things that would be a benefit to you.
I actually respect that you are annoyed by Harris laughing at things that you feel are not funny. Often it can indeed be a defensive mechanism and a sign of insecurity and being uncomfortable.
She is at least somewhat intelligent. Any serious person who feels she isn't, is ignorant. She is fully capable and does speak in complete sentences. Yes, she isn't a great speaker and at times she has difficulty verbally expressing herself. You of all people, as a psych guy, should realize that doesn't automatically equate to being an idiot.
You feel she is on benzos or alcohol because you think she has glassy eyes. Ok, share with us a specific time when and where you looked at her and you thought she had glassy eyes. Don't go searching for photos or videos. Just tell me/us. She slurs her words? Ok, I'll give you that at times she slurs her words. Now tell us that you don't think the orange guy slurs his words as much if not more than she does. He claims he doesn't drink. So is it benzos? I already commented on her laughing. She rarely makes any sense? No. Occasionally does she say things that make little sense? Absolutely. You, and she, and many if not most people have that in common. Me included. I took a "benzo" once in the past 17 years because it was prescribed for me to take before a medical test. I haven't had a sip of alcohol since December of 2007.

Again, we're going to disagree. I am a pretty staunch isolationist and nationalist (not White Nationalist, despite what your new bestie and the rest of the Mean Girls around here like to insist), so I see no benefit to giving away sovereignty to other countries.

Giggles is inarticulate and says nothing of substance when she has to speak extemporaneously. It's why they have almost never allowed her to do interviews unless the questions are provided ahead of time and she can rattle off her memorize canned responses. The few times they allowed her off the leash, it was catastrophic. I call that lack of intelligence. You are free to call it what you will.

Her eyes are glassy pretty much all the time. By that, I mean out of focus and delayed in responses to stimuli. She slurs her words all the time, which is unusual for someone of her age. Yes, Trump does that, too, sometimes, but it is much more expected of someone who is his age. Again, I'm not submitting that he is a paragon of intelligence, wit, or morality. He is, however, the kind of junkyard dog that I want going up against Putin, Jinping, and other world leaders who want push us around. Giggles' only area of expertise is fellating men to get what she wants, and that's not going to get us far as a nation.

I have no problem with Benzos when taken as prescribed. They are addictive and have great potential for abuse, and are not a good idea when you have the fate of the free world resting on your shoulders. Congrats on your sobriety. That's a major accomplishment, and I mean that sincerely, having worked in inpatient an outpatient addictions centers for years.

[KUTradition]

KKK makes an appearance in Springfield

glad trump and vance are creating stories

[jfish26]

KKK makes an appearance in Springfield

glad trump and vance are creating stories

It’s almost like - and I hope you’re sitting down - a party’s policies being so deeply unpopular that, even with a tailwind from gerrymandering and voter suppression, the party has to make common cause with racists and bigots and other assorted loons in order to stay competitive, has consequences!

[defixione]

Birds of a feather.