Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

That Thread about US current events


Raavi

Recommended Posts

sivispacem
Just now, Eutyphro said:

"Direct action" which is a euphemism for violent communism. 

No, it's not.

 

"Direct action" isn't a euphemism for anything, it's a term used to describe protest activity designed to cause direct effects (most commonly disruption) in pursuit of a political aim. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy
3 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

"Direct action" which is a euphemism for violent communism. It's confusing how you keep defending this notion. But we should also just call it for what it is, violent communism. 

lmao

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

If you want to call out Trumpists that invade the Capitol building we should also call out hordes of woke maniacs that intimidate politicians in restaurants, or theatres, or defile their homes, under the guise of 'direct action'. We can't condemn one type of intimidation of politicians and pretend the other is fine.

Edited by Eutyphro
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Laura91
13 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

I forgot that the forum doesn't nest quotes anymore. For posterity, that wasn't aimed at you, it was supposed to be directed at E.A.B. I was supposed to be agreeing with you...

 

Okay. I got the wrong impression from your post. I apologize.

  • KEKW 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
5 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

If you want to call out Trumpists that invade the Capitol building we should also call out hordes of woke maniacs that intimidate politicians in restaurants, or theatres, or defile their homes, under the guise of 'direct action'. 

I'd rather call out people who create false moral equivalence between literal neo-Nazis attempting to overthrow democratically elected governments and people who splash paint on the sidewalk to make a political point.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy
10 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

If you want to call out Trumpists that invade the Capitol building we should also call out hordes of woke maniacs that intimidate politicians in restaurants, or theatres, or defile their homes, under the guise of 'direct action'. We can't condemn one type of intimidation of politicians and pretend the other is fine.

I don't really condemn ransacking the Capitol tbh

 

It's not so much the property destruction, clashing with police, and looting state property I take issue with. It's the motivations behind the actions that I would condemn.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
FanEu7

This thread is getting pretty heated now and illustrates the  division in the US right now lol

Edited by FanEu7
Link to post
Share on other sites
ṼirulenⱦEqừinox
1 hour ago, unopescio said:

WRONG this was overturned by Obama all future presidents will receive lifetime protection from the secret service.

Thanks for the clarification

 

--------------------------------

 

Another one bites the dust

 

02e3a174e04e115c4e533a50d505138a.jpg 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ṼirulenⱦEqừinox said:

Thanks for the clarification

 

--------------------------------

 

Another one bites the dust

 

02e3a174e04e115c4e533a50d505138a.jpg 

Oh dear, someone’s losing his pension. :'D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reformed Squid

attention,, LIBTURDS, PEDOFILES, AND COMMIES !!!

On the SIXTH of JANUARY we saw patriots STOP THE STEAL and god TRUMP came to save AMERICA !!! The MSM evil pedofile ring FOX news liberals tells you that he wasnt there but I have IMAGE PROOF he was there he was there !!!

 

www.image of trump at capital.com why isnt this working i think im being censored by the China Joe

 

ok make the next sentence bold ALL THE PROOF OF THE ELECTION FRAUD (sorry my dog ate it} AND THE LAMESTREAM METEOR STILL WONT DO THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!! By the way I have a lot of black friends who agree with me and i am not racist but sometimes black ppl do things i dont like like steal from walmart and call me bad names .

 

China joe China Chinese joe


ok now add an image of China Joe eating poop

 

Have to leave . My nurse says its time for my meds

  • YEE 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.
19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I'm sorry but if you honestly, genuinely believe this, then I can only conclude that you have either zero factual appreciation for American political history, or no real understanding of the definition of Fascism.


Put simply, there is not a single aspect of the Obama administration which even conceptually skirts fascist ideology.

 

I don't know what's so hard to understand because I made it abundantly clear in my prior posts that Obama wasn't a fascist. 'Closest' does not mean 'he was a fascist'.

 

If I had a lineup of 30 priests-all good men. And I had to decide which was the 'closest' to satan, I'd pick the guy that got the mail 3 minutes late. That does not mean he is anything near what Satan is, or even evil whatsoever. But he is the "closest". It's like people only read what they want to.

 

I even used the modifier 'recent history' because I understand he wasn't a fascist destroying America, but the point was that he pulled off some sh*t that exceeds some guy sh*tposting on Twitter.

 

I *could* argue some of the finer points in the post:

 

Quote

it was not characterised by suppression of individual liberty or authoritarianism.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/just-the-facts-what-we-know-about-the-nsa-spying-on-americans/

 

Does spying on Americans count? And you know what, even then I'm not totally against the NSA spying on Americans during Obama's tenure. I'm not even against Obama killing Americans without a trial. I even understand declaring wars on nations without the approval of Congress. I'm just saying these points CAN be debated.

 

Quote

Also, whilst we're on the subject of questionable assertions, drawing any kind of analogy between the events that took place on the 6th and Trump's role in inciting them, and the BLM protests and comments made by ideological supporters of the movement is absolutely absurd. In one instance you have a primarily peaceful movement (93% of the circa 2,500 BLM protests saw zero recorded instances of violence) addressing legitimate societal grievances, and on the other you have an army of far right, neo-Nazi and white supremacist goons equipped with firearms and IEDs who attempted to overthrow a legitimately elected political administration, kidnap and kill government employees they saw as traitors, and who in about three hours of violence in one location resulted in more fatalities and more dead law enforcement officers than have been attributed to the actions of BLM and their supporters in over 2,400 protests across 5 months.

 

This, I believe, is disingenuous. It's easy to characterize the fringe elements of a movement as the entire movement, and throughout the summer that is precisely what the right did to BLM.

 

It's really no different what you're doing here. Point out the fringe, and apply it to the whole. Trump had something like 70 million votes in the election; 70 million didn't storm the capital. Granted, I doubt all the people that voted for him agree with his conspiracy theory. But even if its 200 people total, it wasn't 200 people storming the capital.

 

About the only point I can really address here is the "addressing legitimate societal grievances" and "resulted in more dead law enforcement officers than have been attributed to the actions of BLM and their supporters"

 

The latter is objectively false:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers

 

The shooting occurred just weeks after a grand jury decided not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo, who was responsible for the death of Eric Garner on July 17, 2014.[2] The grand jury's decision resulted in widespread protests in New York City and across the nation against police brutality and the lack of accountability for it.[3] The protests also coincided with widespread protests in response to a grand jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9.[4] Brinsley's motive to kill the NYPD officers was motivated by outrage over the two deaths.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

 

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five officers and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. Johnson was an Army Reserve Afghan War veteran and was angry over police shootings of black men. He stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers. The shooting happened at the end of a protest against the police killings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, which had occurred in the preceding days.

 

I await the, "not all BLM supporters are like this" after the "These Trump crazies need to all be shut down".

 

It's not even a contest anyway I don't know why this is a point to argue. My entire thing has always been the hypocrisy of certain segments suddenly disparaging an entire movement and group of people over those that chose to do something stupid. And the sudden outcry and outrage when these same people rationalized the BLM burnings. That's my gripe.

 

Quote

AOC's expression of support for the ends of direct action is not an incitement to violence. She hasn't committed seditious conspiracy by claiming herself the rightful leader of the US and actively encouraged her followers to perform actions specifically designed to undermine the elected leadership and the US Constitution. AOC did not use her powers to prevent the involvement of the National Guard  or federal law enforcement until after an attempted insurrection had failed. 

 

You know, unless someone can prove me wrong, Trump never called for direct action and incitement to violence either. I've tried looking for this, and I am more than willing to be proven wrong on this. But the most I've found are NYT articles that quote him saying something along the lines of, "GONNA BE IN DC! STOP THE STEAL! LETS GET WILD!" or somesuch. Which is not a direct call to violent action. By that metric I can read into a *lot of things* by BLM supporters, and it wouldn't even be hard. "Pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon"? You can much more easily infer violent action from that than anything Trump has said.

 

Besides that I'm not here to defend Trump, and I don't want people to think I am. I agree that Trump, after months of lawsuits failing in courts, kept going and going like an idiot. I'm fine with vetting elections, but 3 months after the fact it became obvious that there's just no proof.

 

Quote

That's before we get onto the claims about race and crime which are construed in such a way as to ignore the core issues. Multiple academic studies have demonstrated that US law enforcement disproportionately targets ethnic minorities in their actions, with analysis suggesting that as many as 40% of police interactions with black Americans would not occur if the individual was white. Comparing outright numbers of police shooting victims ignores that demographics of the US, and comparing crime rates to shooting rates commits the double fallacy of ignoring the fact that commission of crime is not in itself a justification for shooting (only the specific circumstances of the incident are), and that the reasons for higher crime rates amongst ethnic minorities are chiefly a result of economic, political and social suppression.

 

I'm more than willing to see these studies, I'm just telling you why they may face more police stops and fatal encounters. The reasons for Blacks either living in poorer areas or comitting more crimes or what have you are up for debate, and I never said it can't be because of something systematic. I don't think that's the case, obviously. But I didn't shut it down.

 

I'm merely saying there's a reasonable explanation for more frequent fatal police encounters.

 

But I cant imagine how youd gauge that "40% of police interactions with black Americans would not occur if the individual was white". Within my coursework we had to formulate peer reviewed studies and I have no clue how you would even go about proving a negative. Isn't that an impossibility?

 

Quote

We've already seen a wholesale move to other platforms from those on the far right as their ability to use the larger social media platforms as a mouthpiece for their hate has been eroded.

 

'mouthpiece for hate' is questionable. The people on Parler are people like Megyn Kelly and Rand Paul, although he's inactive. I took a gander at it and I can't speak for the majority populace, but it has a lot of typical right wing politicos that are anything but 'hatespeech' spreaders. Either way, the idea of 'hate speech' is bullsh*t to begin with. And even then, what qualifies as such is questionable depending on what we're looking at. It's dangerous to begin a campaign against something as subjective as 'hate speech'. I'm not calling it in line with fascism, but it leads to similar control and subjugation.

 

Quote

and people who splash paint on the sidewalk to make a political point.

 

again, this is what Im talking about. The way you characterize a movement you dislike with one that has your full support is the issue.

 

Quote

Holy f*ck I missed this post when skimming the previous ones to respond to. Majored in politics? From where? Zorban's Grilled Chicken University Kebab Van?

 

Jesus wept.

 

I haven't been here in a while, but I recognize your name. Very familiar. And your posts are generally thoughtful and have a good modicum of thought put into them,.

 

But stuff like this diminishes both your larger point and the perception of you. Don't resort to the tactic of people that are either angry or flustered in a debate. It's why I'm riding this other guy so hard over being angry at me. I'm not actually mad at anyone that disagrees with me, but he sure as sh*t is.

 

You're better than low-brow insults. Cause we can do that all day. If you're gonna lash out and say "f*ck you" just say it instead of wasting my time reading an unfuny 'witty' insult.

 

Quote

Lol at the absolute dumbass saying Obama was the closest America got to fascism. Absolutely lol. Imagine thinking that unironically. Must have been living under a rock for the past 4 years.

good argument

Edited by E.A.B.
  • Like 1
  • YEE 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.
12 hours ago, ddarko12 said:

That argument is used towards people like you who don't even experience what you're trying to dispute, because you're gaslighting and think using studies and graphs geared towards your narrative will prove your point without any actual experience.

 

 

its funny that the argument against statistical data is "you dont know what its like" and "thats a lie"

 

Look, svispam or however you spelled it cited studies proving the contrary. I'm interested in that.

 

BTW, telling people 'they dont understand' is bad form because lol I do. I grew up in East NY; 90% Black iirc and everyone is below the poverty line. How much do you wanna bet I had it worse than you?

 

The reason I never bring it up is because its irrelevant. Whenever I get into these arguments and the person just assumes I'm White I don't even argue the point either because, again, irrelevant.

 

But you're really hung up on sticking by it despite it not actually being an argument and just a coping mechanism.

 

Quote

That is a crock of sh*t. My family is pretty upper middle class, we live in a nice area and you can still face prejudice here even from the police. It can and does happen anywhere and if anything it feels more uncomfortable being in nicer areas as a black person. It feels like you're more likely to be monitored and treated like an outsider. I used to shop at our outdoor mall a lot and the security just eyeballed me like a hawk and always seems to be wherever I am. And I've been stopped multiple times to ask why I'm out there so much...

 

I was gonna say, "if you want to argue who had it worse we can do that" but here I find you're rich. The anecdotal evidence is fine, but its so faulty and easily dismantled that I wouldn't know where to begin. There's a reason actual research isn't based on anecdotes and assumptions. At least, good research.

 

Quote

Honestly, I think the consensus in this thread is that you're spewing nonsense so I don't know why I'm even bothering. Hell this isn't even about BLM it's about that failed coup on Tuesday that I repeat, isn't even comparable to the July protests.

 

lol I know exactly where I'm arguing I've been on this forum for a decade longer than you. That doesn't matter. We could take it to twitter or demcraticunderground and the large swath of people would also disagree with me. But that doesn't make the argument irrelevant.

 

Otherwise, your entire ideology is irrelevant, because if it was on Parler or some other right wing side the concensus would be on my side

 

Quote

You are a dimwit. Of course Drumpf was doing that sh*t. He was continuing all of those policies and aspired to ramp things up. Also, I don't treat politics as a sport. You are a f*cking dunce if you think that is what is happening in my post. Both sides f*cking suck. "It's not that serious". Wow. Again, you are a f*cking dimwit. This sh*t IS serious. Anyone who believes otherwise is a pie in the sky moron that understands f*ck-all about anything.

Christ u mad.

 

And where did I say I support BRSMOPH? f*ck him too.

 

Quit cursing; quit being mad; calm down

 

6ec4aba1-347c-4326-8877-70ff1cfa533c.jpg

 

Edited by E.A.B.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I don't know what's so hard to understand because I made it abundantly clear in my prior posts that Obama wasn't a fascist. 'Closest' does not mean 'he was a fascist'.

Putting aside for a moment the fact it's quite simply wrong on a basic factual level, it contributes literally nothing meaningful to claim someone or something is "closest" to a point of references they share absolutely no characteristics with. It's the logical equivalent of taking a collection of garden gnomes and asserting one has the largest penis.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I even used the modifier 'recent history' 

An intentionally vague term that you can mean pretty much whatever you want. Given that I was alive during part of them I consider the 80s "recent history" as would a great many other people, and you can't honestly be suggesting that Ronnie was less of a fascist than Obama.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

but the point was that he pulled off some sh*t that exceeds some guy sh*tposting on Twitter.

You have got to be joking. Donald Trump has done far more than simply "sh*tpost on Twitter"; he has perpetrated a sustained assault on individual liberties, worked to create a shadow government through changes to the political appointee system within the civil service by stuffing senior roles with allies then changing these positions into apolitical "lifer" roles (and indeed the inverse, changing truly apolitical roles into political ones do he could fire civil servants and replace them with yes men), encouraged and enabled the founding and expansion of what are effectively armed loyalist paramilitary groups under his ideological control and, judging by events on the 6th, directly commanded by him. 

 

Attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the use of the judiciary to harass political opponents, the list goes on. Nepotism, cronyism, explicit support for white nationalist groups, the disproportionate use of military and law enforcement capabilities against ideological enemies, the striation of American political and cultural society into "us" and "them", and attempted corruption of the levers of political power and the fundamental separation between legislature, judiciary and executive in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

 

It's hard to find a single area in which the last four years have not seen the Trump administration has not skirted closer to Fascism than the Obama administration.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Does spying on Americans count? 

Several points vis-a-vis this;

 

1) most of the mechanisms and capabilities disclosed in the 2013+ surveillance leaks significantly predated the Obama regime. They're an allegation that could equally be levelled at any post-1990 presidency including that of Trump given that most of the powers still exist and the checks and balances are still effectively nonexistent. The association with Obama because the disclosure happened on his watch shouldn't be misconstrued as his being responsible for the building and operation of these capabilities.

 

2) a slightly more semantic issue, but one worth bringing to the fore given that I've spent the last 16 or so years either working or studying in international relations and strategic studies, with about half of that specifically working in "computer network defense" as the NSA would term it. NSA mass collection activity against Americans was/is, on a technical level, not espionage (spying). It comprises only part of the intelligence cycle (collection and processing) and by and large US citizens were not explicit targets of thus collection activity but incidental. The term "surveillance" hits somewhat closer to the mark but still isn't really accurate from the context of describing what happened with contentious collected data (IE very little from an actions perspective), which is best described as "indiscriminate intelligence collection". That's not to devalue the human rights and civil liberties impact but "spying" despite its colloquial usage has specific technical connotations which don't accurately describe the likes of ECHELON or XKeyScore.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

This, I believe, is disingenuous. It's easy to characterize the fringe elements of a movement as the entire movement, and throughout the summer that is precisely what the right did to BLM.

The problem with this contention is that I'm not referring to pro-Trump protest activity in general. Nothing I've said could reasonably be construed as characterising all Trump supporting protests by the actions of those who stormed the capitol. I'm saying it's obviously fallacious to draw analogies between violence and looting emanating from rights protests and an attempted armed insurrection. Nor should it be construed as a moral judgement that one is contextually "acceptable".

 

The simple fact that both involved violence does not make them comparable.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

The latter is objectively false:

It's only objectively false if you intentionally misquote me. The words that followed that statement were 

 

"than have been attributed to the actions of BLM and their supporters in over 2,400 protests across 5 months."

 

I wasn't referring to 2014, or 2016, I was referring to the 5 months of unrest that followed the George Floyd killing in May 2020. The only police fatalities that occured during those 2,500 or so protests across those months were caused by Boogaloo Bois.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

My entire thing has always been the hypocrisy of certain segments suddenly disparaging an entire movement and group of people over those that chose to do something stupid. 

"But what about X" tu quoques are not useful in objective analysis of events. Pointing out alleged hypocrisy doesn't constitute a meaningful rebuttal. 

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

And the sudden outcry and outrage when these same people rationalized the BLM burnings. 

The problem with this that rationalisation, apologism and encouragement or instigation are not the same thing. Rationalising something doesn't mean you agree with it, just that you understand the circumstances leading to it occurring. It's unreasonable and illogical to equate even being an apologist for violent actions- "well that's what happens when you deny the downtrodden a voice" etc- with inciting them.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

You know, unless someone can prove me wrong, Trump never called for direct action and incitement to violence either. 

I would counter that this is an extremely narrow perspective from which to speak, not least of all because a direct incitement to violence doesn't itself need to contain violent language. And "marching on the capitol to stop the steal" is self-evidently direct action. 

 

The notion that Trump did not know he was speaking to a group of self identifying armed revolutionaries when he gave his speech is absolutely unconscionable. He will have been made aware through his Secret Service detail and through federal intelligence and law enforcement briefings that attendees of the rally had come armed and prepared to kidnap and inflict violence on elected representatives. This intent was publicly expressed by the individuals in question and supported by the actions of some once they breached the Capitol. To deliver the words he did, and call for the actions he did, in full knowledge of the facts above cannot possibly be interpreted as anything other than an incitement to violence.  Denying the confirmation would have required violent action, plain and simple, and calling on his followers to do so is therefore an incitement of that.

 

Not only did he do this, he also created an environment where the prospect of success was improved by specifically refusing to mobilise federal resources even after the Capitol had been overrun. 

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

By that metric I can read into a *lot of things* by BLM supporters, and it wouldn't even be hard. 

Ah but we weren't talking about general BLM supporters, we were discussing the specific assertion you'd made that democrat figures had incited violence through their comments.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I'm more than willing to see these studies

https://people.ucsc.edu/~jwest1/articles/West_RacialBiasPolice.pdf

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1

 

https://sparq.stanford.edu/opd-reports

 

That's just for starters.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

'mouthpiece for hate' is questionable. 

I don't think it is questionable. It's a platform which permits hate speech and incitement of violence under the pretext of "free speech". It doesn't stop being a mouthpiece for hate just because people other than extremists also use it.

 

7 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

again, this is what Im talking about. The way you characterize a movement you dislike with one that has your full support is the issue.

I'm not "characterising a movement", though. I'm contrasting specific actions. I don't support the harassments of elected politicians by any stretch of the imagination but drawing moral equivalence between it and literally trying to overthrow the government is frankly idiotic.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric

The Whitehouse, now.

137522872_253350752814246_65219990257937

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

I read this morning that Parler may lose their hosting with Amazon..

 

When I went to pull up their webpage to see if they were still active...they are...their landing page gave me a chuckle.

 

It's almost as if she is saying "my america, not one Mexican, Muslim, black person in sight".   

16kKDOb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Craigsters
2 hours ago, trip said:

I read this morning that Parler may lose their hosting with Amazon..

 

When I went to pull up their webpage to see if they were still active...they are...their landing page gave me a chuckle.

 

It's almost as if she is saying "my america, not one Mexican, Muslim, black person in sight".   

16kKDOb.jpg

Parler has now been booted by Amazon, Apple and Google, and it may have to go offline temporarily

Link to post
Share on other sites
ddarko12
12 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I grew up in East NY; 90% Black iirc and everyone is below the poverty line. How much do you wanna bet I had it worse than you?

This completely invalidates anything further you have to say. Talk about gatekeeping, I suggest you re-read your post just to see how stupid you sound. Christ. :kekw: I mean there's no doubt plenty of folks have experienced way worse than me. That doesn't make my experiences irrelevant. People who take this approach towards anything disgust me. It's gatekeeping, you should look it up.

  

12 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Whenever I get into these arguments and the person just assumes I'm White I don't even argue the point either because, again, irrelevant.

Well wtf are you then? Because if you're a minority and trying to act like this, that's even worse.

 

12 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

But you're really hung up on sticking by it despite it not actually being an argument and just a coping mechanism.

Because you've failed to provide any actual good arguments. And I threw that in there at the end, kind of knowing it would trigger you and make you go on a damn tangent, saying stuff like that always seems to enrage folks who argue like this for some odd reason. Really kind of shows what your real problem is.

 

12 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

but here I find you're rich. The anecdotal evidence is fine, but its so faulty and easily dismantled that I wouldn't know where to begin.

"Rich" you have no idea where I come from or where my parents came from. Don't start throwing that term around. Really, you need to stfu with that. And "anecdotal evidence" I mean I guess anyone who voices their experiences in life is just bullsh*t anecdotal evidence huh? My mom and I got called a f*cking n----r two weeks ago, but that means nothing. I guess.

 

12 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

lol I know exactly where I'm arguing I've been on this forum for a decade longer than you.

I've been here since 2012 bud. But really who cares? If you didn't care then you wouldn't have brought it up. Get over yourself. It actually should be embarrassing because then I imagine you're like 30 or 40 spewing bullsh*t like this.

Edited by ddarko12
Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

i can confirm that is true as i always have dozens of zip lock bags on my persons filled with my feces

  • Like 2
  • KEKW 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Craigsters

 from 2011

Edited by Craigsters
  • KEKW 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jackedbanan
22 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Good thing your opinions are as sh*t as your username.

man who wrote his pc parts to his signature tells me my jacked and based status is bad. do you think you are in a position to tell me how my username is xD

anyway I'll sinply stay away from us politics threads, not worth the trouble

 

  • Like 1
  • YEE 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another U.S. Capitol police officer, Howard Liebengood, 51, died while off-duty on Saturday, the USCP announced in a statement: https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/duty-death-uscp-officer-howard-liebengood

 

Allegedly by suicide by some media outlets. 

Edited by Nrav
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
20 minutes ago, jackedbanan said:

anyway I'll sinply stay away from us politics threads, not worth the trouble

Attaboy

  • Like 1
  • YEE 1
  • fir thi bairns 1
  • KEKW 3
  • Bruh 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.