Hoya just came into the thread with a year 1 gjallarhorn and left no survivors.

Did LOL at the TuT post that he would only read and respond to short messages on the subject. But yea he isn't trolling.

I'm not trolling at all. Was just being honest with him because at that point in time I was watching The Open, slacking, and playing pokemon goat. I wasn't going to be reading long posts.

Terrorism and violence are understandable responses to authorities' actions and inactions. I get it. It sucks, but I understand it.

Tolerance of intolerance I don't get. It makes no sense to me, especially considering the left's movement against citizens in their own country.

When the biggest military power, economic power and biggest war mongerer attempts to "solve" problems like Putin ISIS and the Saudis through "diplomacy" and inaction, we are implicitly condoning their actions and acknowleding that those currently in power are immensely benefiting from the status quo, especially those involved on the US side.

If you are in a legitimate argument, the merits of which are about World Peace and Prosperity, reducing your dialog to real-time discussion without much in the way of consideration, analyzation, and thought, do you see why that may seem a bit disingenuous?

What? America is a war monger, so Hoaya not wanting America to be even MORE of a war mongerer means he tolerates intolerance? His (and the huge group of people you think are hypocrites because it serves your uneducated, weed-fueled need to be above it all) argument is that military action is counterproductive to curbing the intolerance. You want him to be in favor of what he thinks will create more intolerance, because otherwise that means he is tolerant of intolerance.

But please, tell us how you define the left and how you define its actions against its own people for the purpose of your nonpoint here.

He has stated multiple times that his position is "just kill" and that he doesn't care about nuance when it comes to justifying or criticizing that stance. Not implied. Explicitly stated.

So more hashtags and profile pictures then. Got it.

I've never said that. There's a lot of nuance regarding collateral damage.

Not more, better.

Blowing up the middle east while shaking hands with the Saudis and accepting millions from them does not benefit a world of peace, prosperity and tolerance, but it does benefit the military industrial complex as well as help maintain US's economic power over brown people, while also encouraging a divided world.

I have a thought, but I don't feel like getting in between the Hoya Woody argument.

it's cool, I'm listening over here

Can you quote someone who thinks we shouldn't criticize the treatment of gay people in Saudi Arabia? Thanks.

Yeah,

Obama and Hillary, implicitly.

Maybe read up more on Kissinger's playbook on foreign relations and military interventionism, and the economic advantages gained.

Had 2 thoughts that probably are a little off topic.

1). When there is a mass killing, I've noticed that the media waits to find out the race of the person before saying the reason

Muslim = terrorism
White guy = mental illness

2). I'm not a person who is against guns at all. I'm for more background checks etc. However, an argument I've often heard is that a good guy with a gun will prevent a bad guy with a gun from doing anything. Well aren't the police officers good guys with guns? Highly trained good guys with guns aren't able to stop somebody when that person plans and wants to do damage.


Those are my two I'm sure terrible thoughts. Carry on.

Cerebreakx itt

get em bratz

Bratz brings the barz and leaves them speechless

/mic-drop

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...blican-ticket/

Pence/Trump interview on 60 Minutes

you realize even more how dumb Trump is when he answers questions side by side with someone else. The guy is seriously a moron, like just nothing going on upstairs.

Not to get too wordy on you, but you've already had about a half dozen people try to explain to you why saying "your moronic ideas are counterproductive" is not the same as saying "hashtags will fix all this." Are you ever going to tell us why that's wrong, or are you going to just keep sticking your fingers in your ears?

There is a ****ty thing that we all recognize is a ****ty thing. You have this Pollyanna notion that there is an easy answer to this ****ty thing, or that we have to do something even if we know THAT PARTICULAR SOMETHING will bring orders of magnitude more ****storms to the whole world, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY AMERICANS. You couldn't be more naive.

Basically you're trying to put leeches on a sick person, and telling people they're pussies for pointing out that won't help.

And you think the people saying "leeches won't help" somehow think that bandaids will help fix the cancer.

I watched it.

Pence was mostly deferential to Trump, playing his part.

Don't think Trump cameoff bad at all. That isn't in his top 100 worst interviews.

I know it's cliche and trite but I imagined my dad watching Trump on 60 Minutes (he watched it, I will bet both my kidneys) and I will bet my liver that the interview solidified his Trump support and he fist pumped over 11.5 times.

Can't get anything past my man Bratz.