(09-13-2023, 10:02 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: 5) Racism - I made sure to point out that it was more Nazi-esque, so I’m going to skip over the part about how you said it may be a misapplication of the word fascism. The left has been weaponizing race and racism since the Obama administration. “Racial Equality” has become more and more about taking whites down, and less about racial equality. It’s been easier for blacks to get into schools than whites and Asians of equal qualifications for a really… really long time. All a moot point though, as the SC decided 3 generations of affirmative action was enough, and it’s going the way of the dodo since the Students for Fair Admissions situation; this would be the most honest and least political move towards racial equality that we’ve had in at least a decade. Until Elon came along, you could post racist things about whites with impunity; but do it to blacks? Suspension or ban. That isn't tin foil hat stuff. It's a thing. I don't know your stance on that, but I'm certainly not cool with it. And a growing percentage of the country isn’t either. If we put racial equality at the top of the list, we gotta have it apply to everyone. I'm of the opinion that diversity hires and racial quotas, as opposed to equality of opportunity and hiring further divide the country based on race, as if the goal were a "separate but equal" type situation.
Might as well say "the Left" has been weaponizing race and racism since the Civil Rights movement began affecting public policy and law in the 1950s. The struggle for racial equality was linked to "the Left" and especially Communism even before that, as early as the 1930s.
I don't know much about Musk and Twitter. Not an issue I followed very closely. Would love to see examples of what's deleted and what's not, and why.
I would like to comment on your take on Affirmative Action (we've already had discussions on that in this forum) but it might ultimately save time if I asked a few questions first.
E.g., given the correlation between parental wealth and admissions to college--especially to top-tier universities--how could the end of AA be expected to do anything but increase racial inequality? To me it just looks like the limitation of black wealth accumulation resulting from a century of segregation laws continues to have a residual effect via "color blind" admissions, while white privilege gets a boost as legacy admissions fill spaces that formerly went to more qualified minorities.
Also, can you give one or two examples of "weaponizing race" which aren't simply efforts to achieve racial equality in areas where inequality is still evident?
(09-13-2023, 10:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: This just is the point where I have issues with your stance, how you throw the term fascism out there. That doesn't make much sense to me. The FBI did not expose the laptop story, just as much as they did not expose a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. They just don't do that. All that was around were unconfirmed allegations from folks like Rudy Giuliani. Who has a demonstrable track record of promoting fake stories. He deserved all the scrutiny he got.
One can discuss mistakes made, or even bias shown, over a laptop in FBI possession not being confirmed (that, as of now, still does not implicate Joe Biden) as a true story. I would even agree with that. But fascism? Isn't it part of your own stance that one should not use that word lightly?
And what you call possible collusion stemmed from a real story about Russian election meddling. That was not fake at all. Couple that with a candidate that by all appearances is the beneficiary, says quite some weird stuff (he just did, not my fault) and hires quite some Russia-affine people like Manafort Flynn and then some, and of course the media has a story, with special councels and all. If that were all about Hillary, FOX would have had a 24/7 story too. You can credibly accuse the media of sensationalizing, and certainly of severe bias, but again, fascism?
Same goes for the steele dossier, that was just dirty opposition research that did not come out before the election - one wonders why the anti-Trump FBI did not just leak it just in time before the election. Why not do that as a corrupt FBI agent? If they really were in cohouts with Democrats, they would have. That the dossier itself triggered the investigations into the Trump campaign or was the one central element in said investigations is just a wrong narrative and you know it. Yet you use it to make a fascism claim. That is a bit dishonest, imho.
Fascism is yet another word that has been overused to the point that it is meaningless. As we previously discussed, there are fringe elements on both ends of the ideological spectrum that warrant the label (even though the term is generally only used for the right due to its etymology). I don't think it's displayed by either side to the point that warrant the accusation. You have clear examples of overreach on both sides, Desantis' expansion of the restrictions on discussion of sexual topics to HS students, and you have the current thread and the criminalization of speech in Michigan.
Both parties have embraced some pretty awful policy positions, most notably the GOP on abortion and the Dems on the rule of law. They both deserve our scorn, and yes I believe in equal measure. I know that hurts some people here, not you btw, who may honestly believe they're on the side of the "good guys", but that's a sop and it's always been a sop. Both parties are dog shit, as are most of their candidates. Your only real hope is to reside in a purple enough state that prevents the worst extremes of both parties from reaching public office. Because once you get too red or too blue you're in for a treat.
(09-14-2023, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fascism is yet another word that has been overused to the point that it is meaningless. As we previously discussed, there are fringe elements on both ends of the ideological spectrum that warrant the label (even though the term is generally only used for the right due to its etymology). I don't think it's displayed by either side to the point that warrant the accusation. You have clear examples of overreach on both sides, Desantis' expansion of the restrictions on discussion of sexual topics to HS students, and you have the current thread and the criminalization of speech in Michigan.
Both parties have embraced some pretty awful policy positions, most notably the GOP on abortion and the Dems on the rule of law. They both deserve our scorn, and yes I believe in equal measure. I know that hurts some people here, not you btw, who may honestly believe they're on the side of the "good guys", but that's a sop and it's always been a sop. Both parties are dog shit, as are most of their candidates. Your only real hope is to reside in a purple enough state that prevents the worst extremes of both parties from reaching public office. Because once you get too red or too blue you're in for a treat.
Not familiar with all the examples, but the overall message is imho true. And I do not think I am with the "good guys", or that democrats are the good guys. It's all way too nuanced to put on such a label to begin with, plus there are plenty examples where imho they clearly are not the good guys. I think they're still better than anything Trump, that I do; and of course as European alone I believe at least some left policies lead to a better society, but I get that in many respects California is a credible counter-example. That being said, boy there are bad apples and oversimplifications and undue villifications and smugness etc etc on this side of the aisle, en masse, as are complacent overreaches like the one discussed in this thread. No doubt. I'm certainly not with them or feel I have to take their side at all costs.
The purpose of my post you answered to was twofold, first to underline how absurd it is to scold someone for allegedly using the term fascism and then throw the fascism label around anyhow, and second to address several mistruths and wrong narratives. That, imho, is something the right particularly excels on, on repeating and reaffirming falsehoods in the hopes of them getting factual. Not that it's only the right side that does so, of course, far from it, but at times it's just overly blatant and possibly deliberately provocative.
(09-14-2023, 12:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: Not familiar with all the examples, but the overall message is imho true. And I do not think I am with the "good guys", or that democrats are the good guys. It's all way too nuanced to put on such a label to begin with, plus there are plenty examples where imho they clearly are not the good guys. I think they're still better than anything Trump, that I do; and of course as European alone I believe at least some left policies lead to a better society, but I get that in many respects California is a credible counter-example. That being said, boy there are bad apples and oversimplifications and undue villifications and smugness etc etc on this side of the aisle, en masse, as are complacent overreaches like the one discussed in this thread. No doubt. I'm certainly not with them or feel I have to take their side at all costs.
I know you don't that's why I specifically left you out of the example. I think that both left and right leaning policies can have a positive effect on society. A right leaning example would be on the importance of family. It is not an exaggeration to say that many on the left are dismissive, and sometimes disdainful of the importance of father's in raising children. As discussed in another thread, single parent household led by the father achieve significantly better results than those led by a mother, even when income disparity is accounted for. In fact the BLM movement originally stated that part of their mission was the destruction of the "nuclear family". They have since removed that part due to the poor optics, but they are hardly alone in this regard.
Also, the importance of cultural touchstones to a cohesive and largely unified society is also largely the province of the right. There is a tendency on the left to view everything that is old or traditional as inherently bad, largely due to the politics of those who created them. The awfulness of historical relativism aside the character of the progenitor does not influence the validity or importance of their idea or institution. This is one of the biggest areas of weakness for the modern left.
Quote:The purpose of my post you answered to was twofold, first to underline how absurd it is to scold someone for allegedly using the term fascism and then throw the fascism label around anyhow, and second to address several mistruths and wrong narratives. That, imho, is something the right particularly excels on, on repeating and reaffirming falsehoods in the hopes of them getting factual. Not that it's only the right side that does so, of course, far from it, but at times it's just overly blatant and possibly deliberately provocative.
Agreed to the former, I just thought your post opened up some interesting avenues of discussion. It is also certainly true that a lie repeated enough becomes truth for many. As you say the left does engage in this too, and I believe they do so in just as insidious ways, if not as blatantly. Take the oft repeated utter fabrication from the left that firearm deaths are the number one killer of "children" in the US. This is blatantly untrue and the statement includes people aged 18 and 19, neither of which are children, or even adolescents. In the US under 14 is legally a child. If you take that age group alone then firearm deaths aren't even a blip on the radar. If you have to lie, and lie often, to try and achieve your goal then your goal is something I hope you never achieve (not you personally obviously). This is as true with the "stolen" 2020 election as it is with criminal justice "reform" and gun deaths.
(09-13-2023, 10:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: Same goes for the steele dossier, that was just dirty opposition research that did not come out before the election - one wonders why the anti-Trump FBI did not just leak it just in time before the election. Why not do that as a corrupt FBI agent? If they really were in cohouts with Democrats, they would have. That the dossier itself triggered the investigations into the Trump campaign or was the one central element in said investigations is just a wrong narrative and you know it. Yet you use it to make a fascism claim. That is a bit dishonest, imho.
Seems to me the reason it didn't come out before the election was that that they got it in mid-September and hadn't confirmed it in time yet? Didn't stop Mother Jones from publishing info about it before the election though.
It played a part in all of this, there's no denying that.
Was or was it not this Document used in an attempt to get phone taps on certain confidants close to Trump per a FISA request?
Was or was it not one of the documents used in an attempt to get Trump impeached?
This report should never have seen the light of day, all it did was give Trump the ammo he needed to weaponize it to discredit Mueller's report.
Pee Gate still cracks me up. It was quite outlandish and even if Trump isn't the smartest, he's at least smart enough to know that Russia's theme song is "I'll be watching you".
(09-14-2023, 01:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Seems to me the reason it didn't come out before the election was that that they got it in mid-September and hadn't confirmed it in time yet? Didn't stop Mother Jones from publishing info about it before the election though.
Journalists looking for a scoop does not equal fascism. That's just what journalists do, especially when unfettered by integrity.
The dossier was published way after the election though.
(09-14-2023, 01:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It played a part in all of this, there's no denying that.
Was or was it not this Document used in an attempt to get phone taps on certain confidants close to Trump per a FISA request?
I did not deny that. I deny it was the one central element of the investigation, or the thing that started it, as is stated time and again.
It was in parts used, inappropriately as far as I can tell, to renew an existing FISA warrant against Carter Page. This whole prong of the investigation was never central, and neither was Carter Page.
(09-14-2023, 01:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Was or was it not one of the documents used in an attempt to get Trump impeached?
Puh, I don't know. There were many ridiculous attempts to do so, I remember a bearded guy named Green bringing up impeachment a thousand times, maybe he used it. That is not really much proof of anything, except that politicians often use all the dirt they can get.
The real impeachments were about something else.
(09-14-2023, 01:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This report should never have seen the light of day, all it did was give Trump the ammo he needed to weaponize it to discredit Mueller's report.
On that we agree. As far as I can tell, neither the FBI nor the Hillary campaign aimed for it being published. It was an associate of McCain who apparently thought otherwise.
(09-14-2023, 01:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pee Gate still cracks me up. It was quite outlandish and even if Trump isn't the smartest, he's at least smart enough to know that Russia's theme song is "I'll be watching you".
Oh sure. This was a nice detail for late night comedians and the like, who could not stop talking about it, just as much as Hannity could not. Aside from that, I doubt many people took that seriously.
(09-14-2023, 10:59 AM)Dill Wrote: Might as well say "the Left" has been weaponizing race and racism since the Civil Rights movement began affecting public policy and law in the 1950s. The struggle for racial equality was linked to "the Left" and especially Communism even before that, as early as the 1930s.
I don't know much about Musk and Twitter. Not an issue I followed very closely. Would love to see examples of what's deleted and what's not, and why.
I would like to comment on your take on Affirmative Action (we've already had discussions on that in this forum) but it might ultimately save time if I asked a few questions first.
E.g., given the correlation between parental wealth and admissions to college--especially to top-tier universities--how could the end of AA be expected to do anything but increase racial inequality? To me it just looks like the limitation of black wealth accumulation resulting from a century of segregation laws continues to have a residual effect via "color blind" admissions, while white privilege gets a boost as legacy admissions fill spaces that formerly went to more qualified minorities.
Also, can you give one or two examples of "weaponizing race" which aren't simply efforts to achieve racial equality in areas where inequality is still evident?
I agree let's take it one point at a time, I'm getting to old to be organized for this, I'll just elaborate on weaponization of race (which really amounts to getting votes for the Democrats by creating things that don't actually exist) and affirmative action. All of this is a complicated issue so I’ll try to stay on target, but the general sense I get is, the Democrats create or exaggerate a conflict, designate a scapegoat (typically white Republicans), say they need to be stopped (more on the white supremacy nonsense later), and plan on getting more votes that way than the other way around.
How the left weaponizes race: it goes beyond specific examples, it’s an entire mentality, campaign and determination to make race the center point of everything. A lot of it, you could sum it up with LBJ’s famous quote (“I’ll have them ______’s voting democrat for the next 200 years), which, IMO, is still their approach. One of the ways they use in order to weaponize race, is the lying about racial crimes and race relations in the US. The monopolized left media's coverage (not just MSM either) of racial incidents has you think that white people are dangerous and picking off black people left and right, in an unending series of hate crimes. Black on white crime is never covered, white on black crime is covered CONSTANTLY, though it happens far less. Joe Biden said, "White supremacy is the biggest threat to domestic security." How? Explain that. Black Americans are responsible for 51% of murders, 51% of robberies, 35% of aggravated assaults, 27% of motor vehicle thefts, and 30% of rapes, yet are only 12% of the population. They’re just lying, there's no other way to put it. Biden displayed this when he didn't talk about the black murderer in Florida who drove a car into 70 white people killing 6, but was on the first train out to the Buffalo shooting (which was, ironically, in retaliation to the lack of media coverage on the Florida black supremacist killing). This was blatant pandering to get votes.
You brought up affirmative action, generational wealth, legacy admissions, etc. I have a problem with “white” being synonymous with “generational wealth” which is basically what affirmative action says. It’s not. At present, 47% of black Americans are middle class, 49% of whites. 87% and 92% respectively are graduating high school. Not a lot of people realize that, but the Dems nurture this narrative that black people can't get ahead no matter what they do. This is where the Dems controlling the media gets very dangerous. Hence, an exaggerated need for affirmative action and further potential resentment. Not to mention black kids growing up feeling discouraged because of these mostly mythical barriers the Dems tell them they face. The ones who tell them those barriers aren’t real, like Candace Owens and Tim Scott, are shunned by the media and called “Uncle Tom” (in Scott’s case, Uncle Tim was a popular hashtag on Twitter).
One of the other big hits and justifications for special treatment for blacks, according to the Democratic party is the subject of police brutality. This was completely overblown by the Dems and exaggerated. I've covered most of it in a diff post so I won't repeat. Rashard Brooks is dead because he resisted arrest and punched and tried to tase a cop, not because he's black. This is on video. Despite that, the Wendy’s, where he was drunk and passed out in the drive thru and subsequently blew a .15 or so, was burned down. Literally because the dude got shot for trying to tase a cop. I even remember an MSNBC anchor saying the racist cop should’ve just driven him home instead of arrested him. I’m white, I would’ve loved my DUI to have been handled like that too. Most of the cases like Rashard's were overblown, no research was done on the part of the rioters, resulting in resentment and countless business being destroyed as well as racial relations in neighborhoods, houses, property... etc.
People of all races will eventually have to be treated equally. Right now minorities, outside of Asian, have all the advantage for decades, particularly black Americans. If I'm not mistaken, I think the new ruling says that universities will look at financial backgrounds and upbringing instead. Up to this point, affirmative action doesn't acknowledge the difference of "having generational wealth" and "being white." I have no generational wealth (grandfather gambled away my dad's inheritance as well as put him into debt when he died). Treating races differently, just from a philosophical perspective, really does create an "us and them" environment. It's only natural that it's formed separate tribes ("This year the Oscars has an all-black production team!" "Support black businesses" "Government aid for hurricane victims in Florida will first go to communities of color" "Black farmers get priority for government aid", etc).
What the hell is all that crap? People are sick of it. Literally the exact opposite of what MLK wanted. You can't count on a high school drop out broke white coal miner from West Virginia listening intently to black kids who got a free ride to college tell him how privileged he is forever. Enough already.
Last point... affirmative action and diversity quotas make it so blacks only have to compete with other blacks for jobs / college admissions, whites against whites, etc. Seeing as black Americans consistently score lower than the other races, their performances will continue to fall short if they’re kept isolated from other “tribes” (I hate that term, but it is what it is). In this way, affirmative action is actually hurting black America. Sports metaphor: OU is in the big 12. We all know they're not performing as well as the SEC, but they won the conference, so we put them in the playoffs anyway. Well, you know the rest.
(09-14-2023, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you don't that's why I specifically left you out of the example. I think that both left and right leaning policies can have a positive effect on society. A right leaning example would be on the importance of family. It is not an exaggeration to say that many on the left are dismissive, and sometimes disdainful of the importance of father's in raising children. As discussed in another thread, single parent household led by the father achieve significantly better results than those led by a mother, even when income disparity is accounted for. In fact the BLM movement originally stated that part of their mission was the destruction of the "nuclear family". They have since removed that part due to the poor optics, but they are hardly alone in this regard.
Also, the importance of cultural touchstones to a cohesive and largely unified society is also largely the province of the right. There is a tendency on the left to view everything that is old or traditional as inherently bad, largely due to the politics of those who created them. The awfulness of historical relativism aside the character of the progenitor does not influence the validity or importance of their idea or institution. This is one of the biggest areas of weakness for the modern left.
This will get tricky for me. So first, the agreeing part. I for one think a society needs conservative and progressive currents. Progressive ones that want to make things better (to put it generically, no judgment), a conservative part that does not want to overthrow all customs and values that have proven to work and be useful. In the end, both sides have to compromise and reach a form of progress that doesn't leave society behind (if that happens, conservatives will win elections; if progress is stalled, then proressives will win, and so on). That part makes sense to me, even though I'm usually a dissenting voice to conservativism (and even though the model fails right now in the US, imho).
I'm not always just left leaning, of course. I do harbor some more conservative viewpoints, eg on immigration policies, so it's not always that easy as in these oversimplifications. Logic, for one, is another factor that knows no political colour.
Here's my problem with your post though, I have a wholly different view on families. Fundamentally different, as in far left, so I can see no wrong in that. As in I'm very sceptical of the core family or rather, I'm sceptical whether politics really should try to strengthen, incentivise and enforce the traditional family model. My first reason being that it does not work any more. Divorce rates go up, couples less and less stay together for life or for 20 years even, it's just what humans do in their freedom. They are no longer satisfied with the same job, the same town, the same surroundings for their whole life - and the same life partner. The concept of monogamy makes many people unhappy, with all negative consequences that follow (frustration, anger, violence, all that). Not all people, sure, it still fits for some, and personally I feel quite differently about that. But imho it fits less and less people and that trend to me is irreversible, no matter what politics tries to do against it in an attempt to strengthen the core family as the superior model. I for one see it all the time, for one happy family I see five where everything is just a suffering for everyone, that are forced into a traditional model without being suited for it. Quite often in the name of the children that imho in many cases do not benefit from the loveless bond their parents lie on about on their behalf. I know folks say that all of this isn't quite true, but to me, it is.
Secondly, I am uncertain what to take away from studies showing how successful single fathers are compared to single mothers. For one, all studies in my country reach a whole different conclusion, often mentioning the special bond between mother and child a father will not have in the same form. But be that as it may, maybe your study is the one worthwhile, I'm in no position to deny that. Even then I have an issue with deduction, meaning to claim what is true in a majority in cases is now basis for policies and laws concerning every single person. I will not argue against the rights of a father, imho it should be quite equal to a mother's rights and this is not happening, so I agree that much. But to me that's also all that should follow.
The third and final point will not sit well with you, but it's tough to leave it out. I am so not conservative when parents' rights are concerned. Conservatives, imho, seem to think that their power over their child should be more or less absolute, except for mistreatment. My view, however, is that having the parents be the only two towers a child looks up to to be quite harmful. Parents can, deliberately or accidentally, mess up their children for life, way more than school ever could, and it happens often to varying degrees; and the more influence they have, the less corrective there is. Of course the parents should be the most important people in their lives, no doubt, the fact they also have the responsibility alone makes that clear enough to me. But to me, a child should be confronted with many more influences outside the parents. And in some sense a patchwork family is a much better preparation for life than permanently being under the parents' thumb. Which is why I personally can not support policies that grant parents more rights and more influence, up to them dictating what the child can and can not hear and be taught. I think that does more harm than good.
Should my views shape laws and policies? Probably not, I am aware or that. :) But it's my stance on that particular issue and it will be hard to convince me I'm objectively wrong and the conservative viewpoint is demonstrably the right one.
Now there's way more to say to clarify, but length is a concern and this is way off from the original topic. Which is why I will leave this as some kind of unfinished symphony and won't address the other part of your post, for I can not really disagree all that much with it.
- Just to quickly address the historical component, I usually find both perspectives to be exaggerated. Eg the founders weren't despicable monsters because of slavery existing in their time (it's probably more appropriate to measure folks against the average morals of their respective time), but to me it's also weird to treat the convictions of people that stem from a time where slavery was normal to be the benchmarks of wisdom for centuries to come. I feel neither conservative nor liberal in that regard.
(09-14-2023, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Both parties have embraced some pretty awful policy positions, most notably the GOP on abortion and the Dems on the rule of law. They both deserve our scorn, and yes I believe in equal measure. I know that hurts some people here, not you btw, who may honestly believe they're on the side of the "good guys", but that's a sop and it's always been a sop. Both parties are dog shit, as are most of their candidates. Your only real hope is to reside in a purple enough state that prevents the worst extremes of both parties from reaching public office. Because once you get too red or too blue you're in for a treat.
What awful policy position have the Dems embraced on "the rule of law"?
(09-14-2023, 06:11 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: The governor of New Mexico actually DID what the other Democrat governors WANT to do.
You're not wrong. I think the backlash against her from the left is that she's revealing more of the endgame then they were ready for. Just like fake Hispanic Beto, he gave up the real objective too early.
(09-12-2023, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was really hoping someone else would post this. I'm known as the 2A guy here and my bringing this up will trigger some predictable responses. That said, this is far to egregious an action to not discuss here.
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has banned all carrying of firearms in Albuquerque in response to recent shootings by criminals. In so doing she deliberately acknowledges that she is violating the Constitution and states n amendment is "absolute" nor is her oath to the Constitution.
EDIT: Start the video at 1:09 for the relevant bit, for some reason time stamps won't embed here.
Thankfully people who aren't rampant authoritarians such as local law enforcement and the DA's office have flat out said they will not enforce this ban, calling it blatantly unconstitutional. Even far left anti-gunners Ted Lieu and David Hogg are on record saying this is a blatantly unconstitutional action.
"I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution," California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu tweeted.
So, let's put our money where our mouth is. The governor flat out admitted she was intentionally violating the Constitution, because she has that power. She should not only be ousted from office but any applicable criminal charges should be filed as well. We hear a lot about protecting our democracy here. This is a clear threat to our system of government and our rights. I'm sure we're all in agreement, yes?
Are any of them part of a well regulated militia?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
(09-14-2023, 06:49 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: Are any of them part of a well regulated militia?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Indeed they are, all of them. You are part of one too.
But since you're playing the predictable anti-gun card let me further explain.
The 2A states a well regulated (meaning in good working order given the definition of that term when the 2A was written) militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Because this is important "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Does the 2A state that being part of a militia is necessary to bear arms? No, it clearly does not. It states that such a militia is important, hence the people owning arms shall not be infringed. This is not a qualifier for anyone who actually understands the English language, but a justification.
Let's put it this way, using the 1A as an example. The ability of a citizen to publicly disagree with their government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed.
Now kindly tell me, is criticizing the government the only reason for being able to exercise the right to free speech, or an important justification for why free speech shall not be infringed? You'll need better arguments than tired talking points on this issue.
Lastly, do you agree with the New Mexico governor's actions?
And I could produce numerous veterans who completely disagree with this guy. His being a former Marine in no way grants him a definitive authority on this subject. You guys all get your script with the same tired left wing talking points. Not an original though, or different phrasing to be found. Quite boring actually.
(09-14-2023, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed they are, all of them. You are part of one too.
But since you're playing the predictable anti-gun card let me further explain.
The 2A states a well regulated (meaning in good working order given the definition of that term when the 2A was written) militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Because this is important "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Does the 2A state that being part of a militia is necessary to bear arms? No, it clearly does not. It states that such a militia is important, hence the people owning arms shall not be infringed. This is not a qualifier for anyone who actually understands the English language, but a justification.
Let's put it this way, using the 1A as an example. The ability of a citizen to publicly disagree with their government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed.
Now kindly tell me, is criticizing the government the only reason for being able to exercise the right to free speech, or an important justification for why free speech shall not be infringed? You'll need better arguments than tired talking points on this issue.
Lastly, do you agree with the New Mexico governor's actions?
Funny. I don't remember joining a militia. So that argument is ridiculous.
We're not talking about the First Amendment. We're talking about the SECOND Amendment. Try to stay on point.
I heard the Sheriff refuses to enforce this order. Makes it strictly a political move on her part. We know the Dems want gun control. What else do they want to control? Maybe our religion.
(09-12-2023, 11:52 PM)Bengalion Wrote: The real problem is the media only wants to be up the arse of republicans. Bubba Clinton was banging a steady stream of women, helping Roger fly coke by the truckload into Mena, and God knows what else. Asa made about a dozen trips to China, sometimes with his very own Hunter, his son, and elsewhere around the world. Jim Guy Tucker was a crook and a cretin, and both Dale Bumpers and David Pryor were too. Was the media up their arse about what all they were doing? No! And we both know why.
Remember this: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” There will always be evil leftists attempting to sow chaos and decay. What is allowing them to succeed is the number of Americans now who refuse to engage in political thought or discourse. This is deliberate, of course. With the infiltration of the educational system by the left it is obvious that leaving citizens extremely ignorant about civics and economics has been a deliberate strategy.
But not having a foundation in basic understanding of how these disciplines work, along with the also deliberate undermining of traditional Judeo-Christian values, has produced an electorate that is unfit to choose leaders.
I think most here—who engage in politics to a degree that is orders of magnitude greater than the average citizen—would be shocked, appalled, and very frightened if they knew just how little the average voter understands about the elections they are voting in, the policies held by the candidates, and the likely implications of those policies. It's what allows the insanity to prevail.
"Shocked, appalled, and very frightened" is how I feel about religious extremists. I guess it's real easy to mix a political extremist with a little religion and "bam".
Sounds like you really support democracy and freedom of religion.........
(09-14-2023, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed they are, all of them. You are part of one too.
But since you're playing the predictable anti-gun card let me further explain.
The 2A states a well regulated (meaning in good working order given the definition of that term when the 2A was written) militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Because this is important "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Does the 2A state that being part of a militia is necessary to bear arms? No, it clearly does not. It states that such a militia is important, hence the people owning arms shall not be infringed. This is not a qualifier for anyone who actually understands the English language, but a justification.
Let's put it this way, using the 1A as an example. The ability of a citizen to publicly disagree with their government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed.
Now kindly tell me, is criticizing the government the only reason for being able to exercise the right to free speech, or an important justification for why free speech shall not be infringed? You'll need better arguments than tired talking points on this issue.
Lastly, do you agree with the New Mexico governor's actions?
I don't think I've ever seen it explained that way. And it makes a lot of sense.
When it comes to the 2A argument I just always want to know why can't I buy a thermonuclear weapon? If I'm competing against the same well regulated militia that is protecting this country... WTF? cant even buy grenades. If we are really going for the true nature of the amendment then we should be able to have nukes. If not then the fight over rifles and magazines and stuff just seems silly to me.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
