Five minutes of hate news

[mrttao]

All I said that courts decide what is and isn't legal

And you said this as an explicit response to quotes about rebelling against an illegitimated usurpation of govt.

As for the entrapment: Everyone on the site knows that practically. It's old news, not the gotcha you are looking for.

I was not looking for a gatcha.
I was saying both of you debating as if the guy actually did try to rebel against a usurper. when he didn't, that was the FBI faking things out

 

[DarthOne]

No. The courts did not exist. What she did goes all the way into war territory.

Your right about this, but in more way then one I am sad to say.

 

[Abhorsen]

And you said this as an explicit response to quotes about rebelling against an illegitimated usurpation of govt.

In said this in response to someone saying that killing a person would be legal with this one weird trick.

I was not looking for a gatcha.
I was saying both of you debating as if the guy actually did try to rebel against a usurper. when he didn't, that was the FBI faking things out

I didn't even comment about the guy. Jesus. I was solely talking about a poster's braindead take.

 

[mrttao]

In said this in response to someone saying that killing a person would be legal with this one weird trick.

1. you are trying to be dismissive. But killing a person is absolutely legal via many "little tricks". There is "self defense", there is "you are an executioner working for the govt", and there is "you are a soldier killing an enemy soldier", and "you are a cop and the guy resists arrest" (in most places)
Lots of legal ways to kill.

2. His so called "one little trick" being "a dictator overthrew democracy, and you are a rebel loyal to the old govt"

 

[Abhorsen]

1. you are trying to be dismissive. But killing a person is absolutely legal via many "little tricks". There is "self defense", there is "you are an executioner working for the govt", and there is "you are a soldier killing an enemy soldier", and "you are a cop and the guy resists arrest" (in most places)

And not "The governor did something unconstitutional". I'm being exactly as dismissive as this dumb statement deserves.

2. His so called "one little trick" being "a dictator overthrew democracy, and you are a rebel loyal to the old govt"

And that's nice from a moral perspective, and we could have a conversation there. Not from a legal perspective.

 

[mrttao]

I didn't even comment about the guy. Jesus. I was solely talking about a poster's braindead take.

You explicitly addressed this specific case and did not just generally address his argument. citation:

Whitmer did allegedly unconstitutional stuff. So the courts then decide if it is.

===
The only idiotic take is you saying "it is up to the courts to decide if a dictator really overthrew the govt"

A more sane response is "saying she a dictator who overthrew the republic govt is an exaggeration".
which is my position, and why I think he is wrong too.

 

[mrttao]

And not "The governor did something unconstitutional". I'm being exactly as dismissive as this dumb statement deserves.

And that's nice from a moral perspective, and we could have a conversation there. Not from a legal perspective.

1. You are engaging in strawmen.
His argument was not "the duly elected governor did something unconstitutional".
His argument was "X overthrew the government to become a dictator"

If you do not agree that X is a dictator who overthrew the govt then say as such.
Instead you pretend that he didn't not make the argument he did. Simply because you disagree with said argument.

2. From a legal perspective whether a rebellion is legal or not depends on who wins the civil war

 

[Abhorsen]

You explicitly addressed this specific case and did not just generally address his argument. citation:
===
The only idiotic take is you saying "it is up to the courts to decide if a dictator really overthrew the govt"

A more sane response is "saying she a dictator who overthrew the republic govt is an exaggeration"

Lol. Still wrong. Given that the courts were functioning, yes, they were quite capable of deciding. More, you missed the part where used that as a turn of phrase.

I love, btw, that you are trying to defend that killing someone on this basis would be legal. Like, I couldn't have asked you to pick a dumber hill to defend. Not that you have many good positions to defend, but this is a particularly stupid one: "That guy who said killing a governor was legal had a good point." Man, I'm not the greatest at debates here, anyone will tell you, but a little word of advice from someone who's lost his fair share: don't try to rescue idiots saying idiotic things, you just expose yourself as an idiot.

1. You are engaging in strawmen.
His argument was not "the duly elected governor did something unconstitutional".
His argument was "X overthrew the government to become a dictator"

Only... that's the entirety of his argument that the government was overthrown:

Her Covid lockdowns were run by dictatorship. The Michigan constitution does not allow state money to go out without legislature approval, even if you win a lawsuit against the state. She spent state money while the legislature was suspended for fear of covid.

Oh, look, he's arguing that the governor did something unconstitutional. And that's basically the entirety of his argument. It's a dumbass argument as well.

Maybe next time, you'll take the time to read the thread? I mean, blatant ignorance and stupidity hasn't stopped you in the past, but here's hoping.

2. From a legal perspective whether a rebellion is legal or not depends on who wins the civil war

No, that's whether it is punished or not. The Revolutionary war was illegal. The UK just couldn't punish them though.

 

[mrttao]

Only... that's the entirety of his argument that the government was overthrown:

And you disagree with his conclusion that the govt was overthrown by a dictator.
You are pretending he did not make that conclusion.
You are not addressing it.
You are not saying "I disagree with your assertion that the govt was overthrown".

You are ignoring the actual point of contention between you and him in order to make some bad faith arguments. for some inscrutable reason.

 

[Abhorsen]

And you disagree with his conclusion that the govt was overthrown by a dictator.
You are pretending he did not make that conclusion.
You are not addressing it.
You are not saying "I disagree with your assertion that the govt was overthrown".

Because I don't care if he's right as to whether the government was overthrown or not. I'm stating that regardless of whether that happened, his batshit idea that murder became legal is wrong.

That's literally the entire point I'm making, and you are trying to assign me all manner of other beliefs so you can score a win. If this is what you need to do to beat me of all people, who's not the greatest at arguing, you gotta lotta work ahead of ya.

You are ignoring the actual point of contention between you and him in order to make some bad faith arguments. for some inscrutable reason.

Nah, you are ignoring every argument I make here, assigning me points of contention I never had, then arguing against those.

My position, as stated originally, is and has been: nothing made killing a governor legal during Covid, and if you think something did you are a moron. Not because you don't understand complicated legal theory, but that you think laws made by politicians wouldn't protect politicians.

Why do I even care? Because stupid wacko legal theories lead to people thinking that by putting enough punctuation in their name, the flag fringe makes them free of US law (soverign citizen BS).

 

[mrttao]

Because I don't care if he's right as to whether the government was overthrown or not. I'm stating that regardless of whether that happened, his batshit idea that murder became legal is wrong.

I get the feeling that you are vacillating here between different arguments just to not get caught on something wrong.

It matters because we agree on A but disagree on B.
There are two scenarios. You claim that in BOTH scenarios it is an illegal murder.
You then further claim that because YOU decided that YOU believe in both scenarios it is an illegal murder, you can just pretend that people positing scenario B are actually positing scenario A.

This is bad faith argument, and why it actually matters.

We all agree that without a dictator performing a coup, killing public officials is a crime. (scenario A)
The only thing we disagree on is what happens in the scenario of a coup followed by an armed rebellion by loyalists to the former govt. (scenario B)

Thus all the arguments I and him have given you are ones that are based on a scenario B.

"murder" is by definition an illegal killing. But there are lots of legal killings as I have listed before.
If you disagree with the notion that there is such a thing as a legal killing please say so.

Tell me, when the USA won their rebellion against the UK. Did they put the revolutionary generals on trial for "murdering" all those british officials and soldiers?

Why do I even care? Because stupid wacko legal theories lead to people thinking that by putting enough punctuation in their name, the flag fringe makes them free of US law (soverign citizen BS).

We are not talking about soverign citizen, we are talking about a scenario where a dictator performed a coup followed by an armed rebellion again said dictator.

 

[Abhorsen]

The only thing we disagree on is what happens in the scenario of a coup followed by an armed rebellion by loyalists to the former govt. (scenario B)

Thus all the arguments I and him have given you are ones that are based on a scenario B.

"murder" is by definition an illegal killing. But there are lots of legal killings as I have listed before.
If you disagree with the notion that there is such a thing as a legal killing please say so.

Tell me, when the USA won their rebellion against the UK. Did they put the revolutionary generals on trial for "murdering" all those british officials and soldiers?

Wow, shockingly, if you read what I posted in the thread, you'd know I already answered this exact scenario in response to you: It was legally treason. The British were simply unable to do anything about it.

Winning the war doesn't make it more or less legal, it just changes whether or not it can be punished. It's no more legal than Biden's corruption, even though we know that will not be punished either.

But say you don't buy this. Fine. You've also made a bad analogy. He's not arguing that the guy was acting like a revolutionary: He's saying that the revolution already happened, and Whitmer did it (again, this is batshit, an unconstitutional action does not a coup make). Fine. So a real analogy would be if, soon after the American Revolution, a British loyalist tried to kill George Washington but got caught by the Americans, and began arguing that his attempted murder was legal. Well, shockingly, he'd still be wrong.

We are not talking about soverign citizen, we are talking about a scenario where a dictator performed a coup followed by an armed rebellion again said dictator.

No. You are talking about that. I'm talking about one thing posted that I disagreed with (on the grounds it was batshit), that apparently you decided meant I believe a legion of other things.

 

[mrttao]

Wow, shockingly, if you read what I posted in the thread, you'd know I already answered this exact scenario in response to you: It was legally treason. The British were simply unable to do anything about it.

1. thank you for finally being willing to discuss the actual point of contention.

2. let me quote myself.

2. From a legal perspective whether a rebellion is legal or not depends on who wins the civil war

3. Why is the authority of the USA over its own territory after it won its independence war less than that of its former occupier?

Anyone can say "I am a sovereign power and declares you are illegal".
But laws by definition is an artificial construct enforced by a govt over controlled territories.
The moment the british were kicked out and a new nation formed, is the moment british law ceases to exist there.

4. So... are we back to "rebels should sue instead of rebelling, because rebellions are illegal".
George washington and his friends were wrong to rebel, he should have sued king george instead?
Or... what, I am unclear what is your current argument even.

But say you don't buy this. Fine. You've also made a bad analogy. He's not arguing that the guy was acting like a revolutionary: He's saying that the revolution already happened, and Whitmer did it (again, this is batshit, an unconstitutional action does not a coup make).

I literally said, in like 5 posts, "a coup followed by a rebellion against the coup by loyalists of the former govt".

Are you seriously arguing that only 1 rebellion ever is allowed to occur and afterwards no more rebellions can occur?

 

[King Arts]

I'd like to see what happens in a nation with a randomly selected, rotating leadership.

I mean, I anticipate it crashed and burns catastrophically. But in Case it doesn't? I'd be interested to watch it play out. Somewhere else. Not here.

There's points to be made that it might actually be less corrupt. But there's issues with competence. Of course we have issues with competence with elections, too so...idk. would be interesting.

Well do our current leaders that are selected in the way of an oligarchy show much competence? Also again the article did say that the rights of citizenship could be held behind a wall for only those who pass a civics test. That way the only people who get selected would at least know the basics.

Ah, but who can we trust to do the vetting?

Lets be frank here- our current issues boil down to political apathy in the general population cause in part by a dumbing down of the citizenry, a tangled mess of laws that are impossible for the average citizen to keep track of, people having to work to the bone just to make ends meet.

Now here is the actual problem with copying that system to America. Ancient Athens used slaves to do certain burocratic tasks and even police jobs since the slaves would have little reason to care about the majority of the issues that were up for debate unless one side was obviously going to do something drastic that would cause the whole city and everyone's homes to be destroyed they wouldn't care. Since we don't have slavery anymore a similiar position COULD be filled with foreigners since foreigners would not really be invested in whether prince A or prince B should be in charge(unless their own foreign nation was involved somehow) after all the the Varangian guard was loyal to the Byzantine empire because what do they care about the internal political debates. This won't work for America, it would work for Switzerland, or other smaller states that don't have foreign interests.

But America is an empire and thus it has policies on what to do everywhere we care what happens in South America so South Americans care what each political party in America thinks about that area, we care about the middle east so Israel and the Arabs care about what our internal polticial parties do, we care about Asia so that means China, Japan, Taiwan are interested in our internal politics to see what we will do. We care about Europe see what the whole Russia debacle is.

A nation that just minded it's own bussiness could hire foreigners to handle some issues since Switzerland does not care about South Africa and the same in reverse, and Argentina does not care about the others except with regards to trade deals.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I like Javier Milei's take on the NAP and it's one I think more American Libertarians ought to adopt.

"We won't ever start shit, but I swear by all that's holy, if you Motherfucking Commies start shit, all bets are off."

 

[Wargamer08]

I like Javier Milei's take on the NAP and it's one I think more American Libertarians ought to adopt.

"We won't ever start shit, but I swear by all that's holy, if you Motherfucking Commies start shit, all bets are off."

Absolutist policies like that are vulnerable to the already extant left wing grayzoning.

 

[mrttao]

I like Javier Milei's take on the NAP and it's one I think more American Libertarians ought to adopt.

"We won't ever start shit, but I swear by all that's holy, if you Motherfucking Commies start shit, all bets are off."

Commies have been starting shit for a long while in western countries without reprisals

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Commies have been starting shit for a long while in western countries without reprisals

Which is why you make damn sure there are reprisals.

 

[DarthOne]

MUST WATCH: #FultonCounty Sheriff's officers are violating the First Amendment right of Trump supporters and the media who showed up to the Fulton County Jail today ahead of President Trump's arrest.

Officers with black masks and guns placed barricades up in the location where the rally was supposed to take place today. The barricades were not used yesterday. This is an effort by Fanni Willis to suppress free speech and to stop the rally from taking place outside of the Fulton County Jail.

The actions seen in this video are yet another attack on our civil liberties and the US Constitution.

 

[DarthOne]

"Fulton County, Georgia DA Fani Willis has requested October 23 as Trial date against Donald Trump and co-defendants HOURS before Trump is set to be arrested and mugshotted. "