What legislation could have been so powerful that it prompted such a shift?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ts+Act+of+1964
http://www.history.com/topics/black-...ing-rights-act

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7e6gLht6OQ

'Hillary's America' Becomes Top Grossing Documentary of 2016
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mark-jud...cumentary-2016

the right wing grift is perpetual and eternal

rep,

Please don't shoot up Congress tia.

House Majority Whip Scalise confirms he spoke to white supremacists in 2002
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.9ea4a14f6f94

European-American Unity and Rights Organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...s_Organization

Yeah, please don't ( )

Glocks out for Harambe.

This is a line of argument you literally picked up from white nationalists.

No, you don't. I just ****ing told you how to lie better, and this is what we get?

You're a fascist, bro, not an anarchist or a nihilist. Nobody has ever called you a liberal.

Mother****er, you think the pay gap is a myth because you watched a ****ing Milo youtube.

We just ****ing talked about this. You can't just SAY you hold liberal views on X and Y while constantly arguing right wing views on whatever you're actually talking about.

Everyone ****ing knows that if we ever got around to actually addressing women's rights or UHC you would be on the conservative side of those discussions. Everyone. You think Democrats keep black people poor with welfare, man, and you expect us to think you would honestly throw down on the side of universal health care? What possible principle could you hold that allows both of those thoughts?

For ****'s sake.

Yeah I'm not sure when people started thinking law enforcement would be the primary tool of a dictator taking over the United States with force.

It's pretty obvious it would require the backing of the military. Most law enforcement is localized and actually would be a key part of resistance if something actually really did happen.

People arguing that we need weapons to protect ourselves from a take over by the police are literally flinging poop at the wall.

I would add the likelihood of a tyrannical dictator getting the support of the military itself is pretty outside the box in the United States, specifically. Nobody can clearly explain The Who, what and why they are fighting with their ar-15. Its all a cover up for masterbatory gun fetish collections. Which is fine to a degree.

However this argument that it is still to protect us from our own government is ignorant, naive and at least a hundred years past it's expiration date. Any kind of revolution or civil war in the 21st century would entirely be reliant on control of military assets.

You could be right. I honestly don't know who invented it. All I know is I could never be a republican based on certain social issues. But I've been listening to more and more conservative view points since this election began trying to figure out how sane seemingly nice individuals could be pro Trump. And every single time I've raised one of their view points here (because I was having a hard time refuting something) I just got shouted down, called a Trump voter, a racist, xenophobe, etc.

I was going to respond to OurHouse's post about his mother. I don't accept that every Trump voter, or even racist, sexist, or xenophobe is a deplorable. I think liberalism for many (especially social liberalism) is a learned process for many who grew up surrounded by racist, sexist, isolationist rhetoric. Time will eventually show that the progressive left is on the right side of history with human rights and civil liberties. But they do themselves no favors in the meantime by being intolerant and shouting people down, instead of showing the way to people like OurHouse's mom. I believe they have done more to divide the country through their sheer intolerance and attempts to silence, label, and name call anyone who disagrees with them. Fly and +rep are perfect examples.

It's sales/negotiating 101. I used to spend a lot of time on the SMP forum trying to argue logic to religious people. The more you name call and the more insulting you get, the more they dig in out of principle. So you can either get satisfaction out of calling them illogical idiots (which I admit can be fun), or you can make progress by attempting to understand why they think A, acknowledging their reasons, and then calmly explaining why B makes more sense. It doesn't always work, but works much more often than name calling. Name calling is why so many sane people voted for Trump. They went against reason and dug in against the vitriol of the intolerant left.

Wow. You might have actually have Trump beat when it comes to making up your own narratives. That's pretty hard to do. Congrats?

Just repeat a lie enough times and it becomes true? You literally sound like Trump from the debate when HRC called him Putin's puppet and his response was: No you are. You're the puppet. YOU'RE the puppet!

That is literally what you're doing here. And you represent the intellectual progressive left? LMAO!

that is what Zizek is claiming, that intolerant political corrrect people upset so many people that they voted Trump.

However, that argument has a flaw, since Sanders was by far the better choice if you really wanted things to change and wasnt a PC guy at all, just a liberal left, who would have brought back social justice to the US, which would have helped 90% of the population.

Im not a Zizek hater, i have real sympathy for his idea to provoke everybody and develope completly new views what could be a new leftist utopia.

But i think alot of his arguments are questionable, also he has a lot of conflicting views. Besides that, there is no real evidence for alot of his claims.
So at the end of the day i think you can play around with the idea, that politcal correctness (and feminism etc) has a 'dark side', but you are away far from proving that it is a bad thing.

You realized the nation's largest police union endorsed Trump, right? He campaigned on the "Law & Order" candidate.

It doesn't matter. This is the argument most gun owners I know make when I ask why they'd ever need a gun that could kill 60 people within a minute. My original thinking was if you ever need to kill that many people that quickly you've got bigger problems than any gun could solve. But their argument is they have the right to defend themselves against a militarized police force and I can understand that line of reasoning.

So far, no one has presented a solid reason why this shouldn't be. When I've suggested the solution of simultaneously demilitarizing the police while issuing stronger gun control, I get the weak argument of "But uh... The police are the good guys!". That's just not a good answer.

Which guns can't kill 60 people within a minute? Of those guns which you find acceptable, how many people can they kill in a minute?

Dictators don't necessarily need the police to take over, they can do it with the ballot. They don't even necessarily need crosscheck, voter IDs, felony disenfranchisement and help from the Russians, but that all helps.

I don't think it's even a common thing to imagine that a dictator takes over the United States any other way than through the electoral process.

Right. Except that you have to factor in the different fiscal ideologies between the right and left (it's not just social). Socialism is a dirty word to many conservatives. They consider it downright treasonous! You can have a reasonable debate about fiscal matters. What's the best way to reduce the deficit, how to stimulate the economy and bring jobs back, etc. Social justices leave no room for debate. Racism is simply NOT okay under any circumstances. Nor is telling people who they can fall in love with and denying gay couples the right to marry. So on these issues there really should be no debate. However...

It takes time for some people to come to terms with some of these social issues. When I was a kid the term gay was a derogatory term. It was something you called a guy as an insult. I did it myself! I was of the mindset that being gay wasn't natural and it was wrong. This was an all too commonly held viewpoint. I even had teachers in school used the word gay to chastise a male student! It was common practice. It wasn't until I started LEARNING about the subject of homosexuality that I started seeing the error of my ways. Oh, science shows that it's genetic? Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom? What really IS wrong with two men or women falling in love?

Same issues apply to racism. I still struggle to see what's racist about certain issues. And when I do, I question them (and quickly get called an incorrigible racist on 2p2). Not everyone is born with the social purity of a Fly or a +rep. Recognizing social injustices especially, as a white male who has never had to deal with being discriminated against can be a learning curve. And I think the more isolated one was as a child growing up (such as OurHouse's mom?) the more there is to learn. So that's why I'm for being a little more tolerant and TEACHING people about social justices, rather than just writing them off.

Anyway, Sanders was my guy and I was very upset because I think he got screwed by the DNC. I still believe he would've beaten Trump in the general election and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive the DNC for that. My main point though is that there are also fiscal concerns that people also feel very strongly about and Sanders was never an option for them.

First, I didn't say I found any type of gun acceptable or unacceptable. I'm just arguing for parity with police forces. But I'll play along...

I'd think James Holmes would've had a pretty hard time killing 12 people and injuring 70 others with a revolver. But I'm sure your point is more sarcastic than that. I'm dumb so maybe be more direct?

Why do you think that about the revolver? What qualities does the revolver have that make it so ineffective? If Holmes had a revolver, how many people would he have been able to kill do you think / why?

whoops...


Um ok. Really has nothing to do with my posts though.

Lets get back to the dems overthrowing a dictator with their guns.

man shut the **** up lestat

wtf is it with these tone policing novel writing fake libs

QED?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=qed+what+does+it+mean

That post was sarcastic. I don't know if you're post is sarcastic or what you are questioning, but QED stands for "quod erat demonstrandum" and means "thus it has been demonstrated. " It's commonly used in math.