Shotty For Congress

[Thestatusquo]

Yes please tell me how you feel about 'the illegals'

[drmyshottyizsik]

I'm less worried about actual immigration as I am national security. I support a form of amnesty but I'll get to that.

[T S O]

This is pretty great. Though, if you're running in Texas, I'm not entirely sure what you're doing by expounding on your philosophies to the hard-left clientele of ms.

[T S O]

especially since when psych and I get into a tiff and shea pms me to tells me to fuck off and treat psych better and not to surpress psychs ideas.

hahaha I fucking love it. arguing with people is suppressing them, especially when they wander into your thread to do it. go on tsq.

[Thestatusquo]

Did you not read that he was the one who pmed me and I said nothing like that? Fuck off dude.

[T S O]

Though I'm not really sure what the point of this is, shotty. You would be better served doing this pretty much anywhere but MafiaScum. Issues like abortion aren't really that relevant in Texas because the assumption is simply that you're pro-life and you won't win many friends by being pro-choice.

[drmyshottyizsik]

This is pretty great. Though, if you're running in Texas, I'm not entirely sure what you're doing by expounding on your philosophies to the hard-left clientele of ms.

Well the district I am running in is getting increasingly liberal, and if I'm going to win as a libertarian I need to know how to pull as much from the moderate left as I can

[T S O]

That's pretty interesting. It seems like a pretty efficient way to win in Texas, or in a place like Washington, is just to slant your policies completely to one side whether you believe in them or not.

[T S O]

I don't actually think I have much input here. I'm more conservative than Libertarian, and I'm sure you know what most conservative people would think of your policies, so meh. Good luck, though. You seem like a good guy.

[drmyshottyizsik]

That's pretty interesting. It seems like a pretty efficient way to win in Texas, or in a place like Washington, is just to slant your policies completely to one side whether you believe in them or not.

lol I'm not slanting them I'm considering views so I can figure out a way to explain mine to people in a way that isn't so off putting

[talah]

Um, talah, can you stop assigning an opinion to Shea? He has made none of the arguments you are so aggressively refuting. Your first instinct to ask him a question was right, but perhaps you would like to let him answer before you continue?

Shrug, no. If Shea's saying I'm deranged because I have ideals and hopes then Shea can answer for themself.

And I'm asking that they actually question the purpose of guns, in (presumably) your country.
Because it's rife and stupid, and they don't really have a purpose other than to kill.

Would your hypothetical ban on guns also extend to law enforcement agencies?

Well for one I'm not proposing "banning" them because that's the same psychology that ends up needing them.
My mind is drawn back to that (I think Leunig) cartoon where all societies destroy their guns and decide to live in peace and harmony, and then the most important country is taken over by a pointy stick. Or maybe that was a Simpsons episode, now I think of it.
Is there something wrong with questioning why deadly weapons are a "thing" - at all?

Spoiler:

So let me summarize.

1) Fuck gay people.
2) Says a whole bunch of nothing, along with the claim that welfare is "out of control" which is not supported by any facts that I am aware of.
3) Uses the pejorative term "illegals" for no fucking reason to refer to people from mexico while making 2 reasonable points (marijuana legalization and needle exchange programs)
4) Makes a claim that is just empirically false about private prison efficiency which displays a shocking lack of knowledge of economics.
5) Fuck women, amirite?
6) I like guns. I am going to attack a position that literally no one has ever held (all guns need to be illegal).

1. uh slander? This has nothing to do with gay people. The fact is the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. I mean seriously shea how dare you put cruel words like that in my mouth. I am a large advocate for lbgt rights.
2. are you seriously here just to try and disagree regardless? what is the point here?
3. You aren't reading and are just here to be mean.
4. You are wrong, it is a fact the public prisons are 20% more expensive than private one. Again what are you doing here shea?
5. ok stop and fuck you. I hate women because I don't believe you should be able to kill a baby 5 minutes before it's born? Of course medical exceptions will be made, my entire point was that we can't make it illegal. just stop shea, you are just being mean,
6. You must seriously not be reading. This doesn't even make sense shea.

again this is a place to host a platform and discuss it not a place to say lolol fuck shotty lolol.

I'm not saying fuck you, at all. But I'm surprised and disappointed that you think the last few things you mention here.
Even if only regarding prison. A corporate model is to have customers returning. Or to have a constant, cheap supply of raw material.
There is zero incentive for a private company to get people out of their own prisons, and that seems pretty obvious to me.
Governments at least have some level of public accountability, if laughably so.

[talah]

I wasn't. I'm saying he is wrong. A "baby that has been born yet" is not a thing. It is an attempt by conservatives to deliberately misunderstand science for the purposes of advancing a viewpoint which is dangerous and harmful.

A fetus is not a human being. It never was, and it will be only after science tells us that it is a human being, which is well after the point at which 99.99% of abortions happen. Making an appeal to emotion argument about it being a human being, and about its rights and "EVERYONE WAS A BABY ONCE." is not only 100% irrelevant to the abortion debate, its just factually stupid.

This is a pretty marvellous comment by the way and I hope you won't see an olive branch of empathy cynically.

Putting the question to the absurd (and not specifically to you btw TSQ) - does every *potential* human life deserve championing?
So then we're actually thinking about vilifying anyone who has the *potential* to have a child, but decides not to?

That guy who pulls out before cumming?
That chick who gets pregnant - and can tell by a test a week later - and didn't want to?
That guy who wears a condom?
That chick who had a guy cum and takes a morning after pill?

Spell out to me the difference if you disagree that choice is a right.
We're not a species that is going to be extinct from lack of reproductive effort, let me tell you that right now.

Interestingly we might want to think about having less kids, and educating them more?
And the rest of it.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm just saying wrt guns you don't have any idea what my position even is.

[talah]

Fair enough, I don't.

[talah]

That's pretty interesting. It seems like a pretty efficient way to win in Texas, or in a place like Washington, is just to slant your policies completely to one side whether you believe in them or not.

lol I'm not slanting them I'm considering views so I can figure out a way to explain mine to people in a way that isn't so off putting

Do you need a hug by the way?

***huggggssss***

[Fluminator]

Probably. He just got banned.

[talah]

I actually offered the hugs because I saw he'd siteflaked.

But apparently you and one or two others think it's great to kick people in the face who are down.

[Thestatusquo]

eh, shotty goes out of his way to be an asshole to people. I have a hard time feeling bad about it.

[AniX]

He siteflaked AFTER/in response to being banned didn't he?

[Fluminator]

I actually offered the hugs because I saw he'd siteflaked.

But apparently you and one or two others think it's great to kick people in the face who are down.

Excuse me?
What is wrong with the people on this forum.

[Fluminator]

I was probably one of the only person who was nice to him and had friendly pm discussions with. You're going on the mute list.

[wgeurts]

Mixed feelings about the shotty ban to be fair.

[Psyche]

i mean
the reasoning is pretty airtight?

[Rob14]

I was somewhat friendly with him and had PM conversations regularly. I don't think he's a bad person. He just has some really shitty views, imo. When he's confronted with facts and logic, he generally changed his views or at least moderated somewhat, except on that silly unemployment thing. But that was a good ban. He was really asking for some form of ban the past two weeks or so. I don't think he expected it to be that long, but he's got to know the risk when starting shit intentionally.

[SleepyKrew]

he didn't even siteflake he started posting in mish mash now and is still doing his mafia stuff