Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "HasanAbi"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thebignacho
No, it's not. The First Amendment does not protect you from censorship (of speech, religion, etc) by private companies or individuals. How many times do I have to keep telling you conservative fucks?
In fact, the example you gave happens to be a perfect example of that! Companies can do what they want, since you, as an employee, legally agreed to their terms.
They can also mandate dress codes that exclude religious garments (yarmulke, hijab, veils, etc), "violating" your freedom of religion. No crosses and/or prayer allowed at any McDonald's? Perfectly legal. As long as you're there, using their services.
I don't like Big Tech either- they do have too much power. But you can't break the law to stop their actions, no matter how good your intentions are. It sets a dangerous precedent.
If you want address the issue, you either create a new law or look into prior ones (like antitrust) as a possible avenue. you can't just go off the rails and completely ignore the legal system.
And Trump has violated Twitter's ToS many times, specifically the Glorification of Violence and Civic Integrity policies.
No, I won't oppose it. Charlottesville was a riot, so were the George Floyd protests, and so were the Capitol riots.
John Locke (the inspiration for the Founding Fathers' writings) gave explicit permission to overthrow a government if it does not protect the people's natural rights to Life, Liberty and Property.
Sometimes, it is necessary.
And I think you're drawing a line that doesn't exist. What those people did at the Capitol was just as illegal as what the George Floyd protestors did. Sorry. Breaking and entering onto federal property, armed, is extremely illegal.
Don't try to make something legal just because you support it happening now. It'll come back to bite you, case in point:
Big Tech can do what it wants because the Court ruled that an anti-gay baker (private individual working for a company) can do what it wants.
Okay, so would you support riots against stop and frisk? Or would you say that it's "not unfair"? Name me a situation where you'd support the left rioting against the police. Would you at all? Because if you can't, then you don't operate on principles, you just want your team to win.
The riots were against the death of an unarmed man in breach of standard protocol. And an unfair ruling to dismiss Chauvin's 3rd degree murder charge. It's not a new law, but a legal decision. Same as the Capitol riots.
And you're right, that is hypocritical. That's why I don't support those cops, either. And I also don't support people turning in their rioting coworkers to the Feds, that also sets a dangerous precedent. Most of the Left doesn't have that double standard, you're thinking of Liberals. And if you think those are the same, then you have a lot to learn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@malum9478
Except they do. America cared, and continues to care, a whole lot. Progressives are willing to scream over what happened in Bolivia but somehow turn into nationalists and war hawks when it comes to the same situation, just to the benefit of a rival power?
I fear manufacturing consent has worked on all of you- no matter how progressive, you are all very nationalistic at heart.
Also, the CIA has been funding extremist elements, so no, it wasn't Russia (America, in your strange analogy) who funded 'insurrectionist groups'--- it was the actual US. Vice has reported on the Azov battalion, and the American neo-Nazis that are slowly streaming into its ranks.
Also, your analogy was a false equivalency, too.
It would be more like if North America was, for centuries, under a single state, with Americans making ground in what is now Canada. The state collapses, but the boundaries aren't drawn along ethnic lines, and millions of Americans are now in Canada--- (for the sake of analogy here) Canada has recently forced the Americans to stop learning English in schools, and learn French instead. Americans are regularly beat up in the streets for using English. All the while, Canada is inching closer to China's military alliance.
And then China is angry when the Americans living in Canada ask Washington to become a 51st state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mjm3091
Well, I'm glad you at least venture outside of your imagined victory lap.
I disagree with your assessment, for multiple reasons. India and especially China are still wearing of aligning with the West for any reason.
A limited nuclear engagement, as seen in Japan, would not destroy half the world-- and no country would have a justifiable reason to attack Russia on Ukraine's behalf. There's no international law to do so, and any country firing would receive missiles in kind.
Sanctions would be increased, a no-fly zone would be established, maybe NATO would be deployed to Ukraine, but all sides understand: asserting Ukraine's independence is not worth the entire world.
Russia would, in short, not be attacked back directly.
Regarding China-- the CCP has already agreed on the Amur as its northern border, and controlling all that land is extremely difficult, given their current domestic problems.
"Potentially there will be some revolution or country itself may fall apart - no one will try to get hands on Russian territory though. It will eat itself down like USRR did. After being economic pariah, probably will even fall behind Belarus after this."
Lol, are you finished with your fevered hateboner-fuelled ramblings?
I think not. Russia currently is majority Russian, there are no further lines to divide it along. Only Chechnya and Dagestan, but they will quickly go back to fighting each other, or Georgia, as was in the past.
In fact, if we go by ethnicity, northern Kazakhstan is basically Russia.
Even if the Russian state somehow falls apart (again, nukes-- so very unlikely), it will just reform itself. It has twice now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1