Why the Trump team is different from all others

[American_Jihad]

Different and better...
Stephen Miller: A Second Thoughts Warrior
Why the Trump team is different from all others.
February 8, 2017
David Horowitz

Stephen Miller is President Trump’s senior advisor for policy and has been my friend since he was a student at Santa Monica High School in 2001, taking on his teachers and administrators for failing to respect country and flag in the wake of 9/11.

Steve was raised in a liberal Democratic California household and his second thoughts politically constitute one of the bonds of our friendship, which can serve to illuminate the unique character of this White House – widely misunderstood on the left and right – whose president and chief strategist, Steve Bannon, followed similar paths.

In the fourth year of the Obama era, I was the subject of a leftwing profile in Tabletmag.com titled, “David Horowitz Is Homeless.” It was an early example of what would now be called a “fake news” story, portraying me as a hapless figure suspended between the warring camps of left and right, unable to find a place in either. The false narrative was easy to expose. Through the David Horowitz Freedom Center my efforts were financially supported by over a hundred thousand conservative donors while the Restoration Weekend I hosted featured dozens of prominent conservative figures including now Vice President Mike Pence and soon to be Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Like all effective hit pieces, the Tablet story contained a kernel of truth. While conservatives and Republicans were generally supportive of me and my work, they also took a noticeable distance from the confrontational stances and actions that became my political signature.

In 2002, for example, I launched a campaign to end the leftist stranglehold on the curricula of our major liberal arts schools. I organized chapters of “Students for Academic Freedom” on college campuses across the country, and called for an Academic Bill of Rights that would require professors to present students with two sides of controversial issues in a fair-minded manner. This modest proposal was viciously condemned by the academic left, and in the heat of the battle that ensued, I found myself pretty much alone. Republicans and conservatives failed for the most part to rally around the proposal and mainly avoided association with the effort. After seven years of futility and isolation, I was forced to acknowledge that I had failed.

I had come into the political right vowing to be as aggressive in defense of America as we leftists had been in attacking her. What struck me at the outset was the absence of a war mentality among my new political friends – a mentality I knew as second nature for the left. Democrats were relentlessly on the attack, framing moral indictments of their political adversaries and denouncing them as oppressors of the weak and vulnerable.

By contrast, Republicans addressed their adversaries in the language of accountants complaining about tax-burdens and budget overages. I noticed, too, how thoroughly intimidated Republicans were by the left’s moral attacks; they seemed temperamentally incapable of returning fire with fire. While Democrats routinely referred to them as racists, sexists and homophobes, conservatives responded by calling their assailants “liberals.”

Unassimilated as I felt to this political environment, I was never entirely alone. Like-minded conservatives were attracted to my work, especially younger conservatives who had been schooled by their leftist antagonists in the art of political warfare and were ready to fight back. One of these was 17-year-old Stephen Miller.

XXXX -- Mod Edit American_Jihad You've been asked several times to just clip "fair use" from copyrighted sources. That's less than about 25% of the article.

University campuses are so dominated by a potentially violent political left that I am unable to visit them without bodyguards and a campus security presence. Without such protection, I could never get through a speech and never be sure of emerging from the event unscathed. This is not personal to me, but is true of all conservatives targeted by the left, many of whom like me have been physically attacked. When I do speak, I am always mindful to point out, however, that the vicious verbal attacks directed at me are really intended to intimidate my student hosts, who are regularly called racists and Islamophobes for inviting me and have to live with these stigmas long after I am gone. These slanders are an injustice to me but an even greater one to the students. Unfortunately, in the present political climate there is no campus authority – faculty or administrative – who will defend conservative students and their right to have their own opinions.

...

Over the years people would refer to my Freedom Center as a “think tank” and I would correct them, “No, it’s a battle tank,” because that is what I felt was missing most in the conservative cause — troops ready and willing to fight fire with fire. The Trump administration may be only a few weeks old, but it is already clear that the new White House is a battle tank. I am as proud as could be that my friend Steve Miller is one of its generals, and I no longer feel in any way homeless.

Stephen Miller: A Second Thoughts Warrior

 

[theHawk]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Different and better...
Stephen Miller: A Second Thoughts Warrior
Why the Trump team is different from all others.
February 8, 2017
David Horowitz

Stephen Miller is President Trump’s senior advisor for policy and has been my friend since he was a student at Santa Monica High School in 2001, taking on his teachers and administrators for failing to respect country and flag in the wake of 9/11.

Steve was raised in a liberal Democratic California household and his second thoughts politically constitute one of the bonds of our friendship, which can serve to illuminate the unique character of this White House – widely misunderstood on the left and right – whose president and chief strategist, Steve Bannon, followed similar paths.

In the fourth year of the Obama era, I was the subject of a leftwing profile in Tabletmag.com titled, “David Horowitz Is Homeless.” It was an early example of what would now be called a “fake news” story, portraying me as a hapless figure suspended between the warring camps of left and right, unable to find a place in either. The false narrative was easy to expose. Through the David Horowitz Freedom Center my efforts were financially supported by over a hundred thousand conservative donors while the Restoration Weekend I hosted featured dozens of prominent conservative figures including now Vice President Mike Pence and soon to be Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Like all effective hit pieces, the Tablet story contained a kernel of truth. While conservatives and Republicans were generally supportive of me and my work, they also took a noticeable distance from the confrontational stances and actions that became my political signature.

In 2002, for example, I launched a campaign to end the leftist stranglehold on the curricula of our major liberal arts schools. I organized chapters of “Students for Academic Freedom” on college campuses across the country, and called for an Academic Bill of Rights that would require professors to present students with two sides of controversial issues in a fair-minded manner. This modest proposal was viciously condemned by the academic left, and in the heat of the battle that ensued, I found myself pretty much alone. Republicans and conservatives failed for the most part to rally around the proposal and mainly avoided association with the effort. After seven years of futility and isolation, I was forced to acknowledge that I had failed.

I had come into the political right vowing to be as aggressive in defense of America as we leftists had been in attacking her. What struck me at the outset was the absence of a war mentality among my new political friends – a mentality I knew as second nature for the left. Democrats were relentlessly on the attack, framing moral indictments of their political adversaries and denouncing them as oppressors of the weak and vulnerable.

By contrast, Republicans addressed their adversaries in the language of accountants complaining about tax-burdens and budget overages. I noticed, too, how thoroughly intimidated Republicans were by the left’s moral attacks; they seemed temperamentally incapable of returning fire with fire. While Democrats routinely referred to them as racists, sexists and homophobes, conservatives responded by calling their assailants “liberals.”

Unassimilated as I felt to this political environment, I was never entirely alone. Like-minded conservatives were attracted to my work, especially younger conservatives who had been schooled by their leftist antagonists in the art of political warfare and were ready to fight back. One of these was 17-year-old Stephen Miller.

When we met in 2001, Steve was engaged in a battle with his high school authorities over their failure to stand up for the country in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. At the time, the nation was unusually united in rallying around the flag to defend the homeland, and schools had been directed to have students say the Pledge of Allegiance on a daily basis. Santa Monica was one of the most leftwing cities in the nation, and Santa Monica High refused to do so. One teacher even placed an American flag on the floor for his students to walk over and show their disrespect. Steve responded to this outrage with a one-man protest. He went on the Larry Elder Show, on KABC’s primetime hour, to launch a public campaign. I supported his effort with my online site Frontpagemag.com.

Even then I was impressed by how articulate and smart this young man was, and that he pulled no punches, so unusual in the conservative circles I was familiar with. Steve was so effective that he was eventually called on the carpet by the Superintendent of Schools who accused him of being personally responsible for the failure of the Santa Monica School bond issue on the November ballot – the first time that had happened in Santa Monica’s history.

Steve formed a chapter of our Students for Academic Freedom at Santa Monica High, and invited me to come to campus to speak. The event was initially blocked by the school administration, which forced Steve to undertake another battle, this time for free speech, a battle he eventually won. Over a hundred students attended my speech which was recorded by a film class. But the leftist faculty in charge of the class, apparently unable to handle its content, destroyed the film without explanation.

When Steve graduated, and informed me that he had been accepted by Duke University, I was relieved. Throughout these battles he had fought I had always wondered how he was going to get the faculty recommendations he needed to be accepted by a first-rate college, given the hostility of his school authorities.

In one of the Platonic Dialogues, Socrates observes that before a person can be judged to be courageous one has to ascertain whether the person was aware of the risks and possible consequences of his actions. Steve was an extraordinarily bright and ambitious young man with a promising future, and well aware of the obstacles he might be creating for himself. He went ahead with his protests anyway because he cared about his country more.

University campuses are so dominated by a potentially violent political left that I am unable to visit them without bodyguards and a campus security presence. Without such protection, I could never get through a speech and never be sure of emerging from the event unscathed. This is not personal to me, but is true of all conservatives targeted by the left, many of whom like me have been physically attacked. When I do speak, I am always mindful to point out, however, that the vicious verbal attacks directed at me are really intended to intimidate my student hosts, who are regularly called racists and Islamophobes for inviting me and have to live with these stigmas long after I am gone. These slanders are an injustice to me but an even greater one to the students. Unfortunately, in the present political climate there is no campus authority – faculty or administrative – who will defend conservative students and their right to have their own opinions.

...

Stephen Miller is President Trump’s senior advisor for policy and has been my friend since he was a student at Santa Monica High School in 2001, taking on his teachers and administrators for failing to respect country and flag in the wake of 9/11.

Steve was raised in a liberal Democratic California household and his second thoughts politically constitute one of the bonds of our friendship, which can serve to illuminate the unique character of this White House – widely misunderstood on the left and right – whose president and chief strategist, Steve Bannon, followed similar paths.

In the fourth year of the Obama era, I was the subject of a leftwing profile in Tabletmag.com titled, “David Horowitz Is Homeless.” It was an early example of what would now be called a “fake news” story, portraying me as a hapless figure suspended between the warring camps of left and right, unable to find a place in either. The false narrative was easy to expose. Through the David Horowitz Freedom Center my efforts were financially supported by over a hundred thousand conservative donors while the Restoration Weekend I hosted featured dozens of prominent conservative figures including now Vice President Mike Pence and soon to be Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Like all effective hit pieces, the Tablet story contained a kernel of truth. While conservatives and Republicans were generally supportive of me and my work, they also took a noticeable distance from the confrontational stances and actions that became my political signature.

In 2002, for example, I launched a campaign to end the leftist stranglehold on the curricula of our major liberal arts schools. I organized chapters of “Students for Academic Freedom” on college campuses across the country, and called for an Academic Bill of Rights that would require professors to present students with two sides of controversial issues in a fair-minded manner. This modest proposal was viciously condemned by the academic left, and in the heat of the battle that ensued, I found myself pretty much alone. Republicans and conservatives failed for the most part to rally around the proposal and mainly avoided association with the effort. After seven years of futility and isolation, I was forced to acknowledge that I had failed.

I had come into the political right vowing to be as aggressive in defense of America as we leftists had been in attacking her. What struck me at the outset was the absence of a war mentality among my new political friends – a mentality I knew as second nature for the left. Democrats were relentlessly on the attack, framing moral indictments of their political adversaries and denouncing them as oppressors of the weak and vulnerable.

By contrast, Republicans addressed their adversaries in the language of accountants complaining about tax-burdens and budget overages. I noticed, too, how thoroughly intimidated Republicans were by the left’s moral attacks; they seemed temperamentally incapable of returning fire with fire. While Democrats routinely referred to them as racists, sexists and homophobes, conservatives responded by calling their assailants “liberals.”

Unassimilated as I felt to this political environment, I was never entirely alone. Like-minded conservatives were attracted to my work, especially younger conservatives who had been schooled by their leftist antagonists in the art of political warfare and were ready to fight back. One of these was 17-year-old Stephen Miller.

When we met in 2001, Steve was engaged in a battle with his high school authorities over their failure to stand up for the country in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. At the time, the nation was unusually united in rallying around the flag to defend the homeland, and schools had been directed to have students say the Pledge of Allegiance on a daily basis. Santa Monica was one of the most leftwing cities in the nation, and Santa Monica High refused to do so. One teacher even placed an American flag on the floor for his students to walk over and show their disrespect. Steve responded to this outrage with a one-man protest. He went on the Larry Elder Show, on KABC’s primetime hour, to launch a public campaign. I supported his effort with my online site Frontpagemag.com.

Even then I was impressed by how articulate and smart this young man was, and that he pulled no punches, so unusual in the conservative circles I was familiar with. Steve was so effective that he was eventually called on the carpet by the Superintendent of Schools who accused him of being personally responsible for the failure of the Santa Monica School bond issue on the November ballot – the first time that had happened in Santa Monica’s history.

Steve formed a chapter of our Students for Academic Freedom at Santa Monica High, and invited me to come to campus to speak. The event was initially blocked by the school administration, which forced Steve to undertake another battle, this time for free speech, a battle he eventually won. Over a hundred students attended my speech which was recorded by a film class. But the leftist faculty in charge of the class, apparently unable to handle its content, destroyed the film without explanation.

When Steve graduated, and informed me that he had been accepted by Duke University, I was relieved. Throughout these battles he had fought I had always wondered how he was going to get the faculty recommendations he needed to be accepted by a first-rate college, given the hostility of his school authorities.

In one of the Platonic Dialogues, Socrates observes that before a person can be judged to be courageous one has to ascertain whether the person was aware of the risks and possible consequences of his actions. Steve was an extraordinarily bright and ambitious young man with a promising future, and well aware of the obstacles he might be creating for himself. He went ahead with his protests anyway because he cared about his country more.

University campuses are so dominated by a potentially violent political left that I am unable to visit them without bodyguards and a campus security presence. Without such protection, I could never get through a speech and never be sure of emerging from the event unscathed. This is not personal to me, but is true of all conservatives targeted by the left, many of whom like me have been physically attacked. When I do speak, I am always mindful to point out, however, that the vicious verbal attacks directed at me are really intended to intimidate my student hosts, who are regularly called racists and Islamophobes for inviting me and have to live with these stigmas long after I am gone. These slanders are an injustice to me but an even greater one to the students. Unfortunately, in the present political climate there is no campus authority – faculty or administrative – who will defend conservative students and their right to have their own opinions.

...

Over the years people would refer to my Freedom Center as a “think tank” and I would correct them, “No, it’s a battle tank,” because that is what I felt was missing most in the conservative cause — troops ready and willing to fight fire with fire. The Trump administration may be only a few weeks old, but it is already clear that the new White House is a battle tank. I am as proud as could be that my friend Steve Miller is one of its generals, and I no longer feel in any way homeless.

Stephen Miller: A Second Thoughts Warrior

It was like deja vu, just reading your OP...



Thanks, that was interesting... and helps explain why the alt. lefters are making complete asses of themselves chasing down rabbit holes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

 

[theHawk]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

 

[theHawk]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

You don't see any difference in abortion and eating hamburger meat? That explains a lot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

You don't see any difference in abortion and eating hamburger meat? That explains a lot.

I see a difference. That isn't the point here. I mean, seriously I can see you want deflect here.

If a person is "pro-life", shouldn't the by pro-life?

 

[emilynghiem]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

the DIFFERENCE, frigidweirdo
is when the rightwing including prolife
"go too far" with their beliefs so that this risks violating the Constitution,
they CAN BE CHECKED by CITING AND ENFORCING THE CONSTITUTION, where they DO respond and check themselves.

That's why there are prochoice Republicans and conservatives able to balance the prochoice beliefs and need for due process with their "right to life" beliefs equally protected under the same laws as BELIEFS.

NOT SO WITH PROCHOICE LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS.

frigidweirdo look at the ACA mandates that violated and penalized free choice of citizens because "compelling govt interest" was more important politically. That is the equivalent of putting the right to life of unborn before the equal civil liberties and due process of women affected by abortion laws. the LEFT did the same with "the right to health care" putting THAT BELIEF before the civil liberties and due process of "not just women but ALL CITIZENS NATIONWIDE".

To be fair frigidweirdo when I have explained to my fellow Democrats about NOT passing penalizing mandates and restrictions "that take away civil liberties from law abiding citizens WITHOUT DUE PROCESS" -- there are SOME who will listen and accept that argument.

I find MORE rightwing who will listen to the prochoice argument and include that under Constitutional principles. But I find it HARDER and more RARE to explain DUE PROCESS to liberals who just believe in mandating laws through federal govt that endorse their beliefs. Then complain when the rightwing threatens to do that through govt.

There is a HUGE difference if the rightwing will at least respect the Constitution BEFORE political party and beliefs; but the leftwing is so dependent on party, they use party agenda and majority rule based on that to OVERRIDE Constitutional arguments.

I find more people on the left depending on party power to bypass or override the Constitutional process.

The places I have caught rightwing going too far (such as with the right to life beliefs, or not treating Muslims the same as Christians in terms of religious freedom) they tend to check themselves when confronted with Constitutional standards.

Too many on the left tend to put Party power and beliefs over the Constitution.

Obama and Pelosi pushing ACA mandates above and against all Constitutional arguments in opposition is a prime example.

How can anyone argue about right to life beliefs being pushed onto the public, without criticizing the left for pushing right to health care beliefs and policies that IMPOSED federal tax penalties on free choice for ALL CITIZENS.

Where was the due process for us in that case?

 

[owebo]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

No child, it's about destroying the left and their leviathan......

 

[frigidweirdo]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

the DIFFERENCE, frigidweirdo
is when the rightwing including prolife
"go too far" with their beliefs so that this risks violating the Constitution,
they CAN BE CHECKED by CITING AND ENFORCING THE CONSTITUTION, where they DO respond and check themselves.

That's why there are prochoice Republicans and conservatives able to balance the prochoice beliefs and need for due process with their "right to life" beliefs equally protected under the same laws as BELIEFS.

NOT SO WITH PROCHOICE LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS.

frigidweirdo look at the ACA mandates that violated and penalized free choice of citizens because "compelling govt interest" was more important politically. That is the equivalent of putting the right to life of unborn before the equal civil liberties and due process of women affected by abortion laws. the LEFT did the same with "the right to health care" putting THAT BELIEF before the civil liberties and due process of "not just women but ALL CITIZENS NATIONWIDE".

To be fair frigidweirdo when I have explained to my fellow Democrats about NOT passing penalizing mandates and restrictions "that take away civil liberties from law abiding citizens WITHOUT DUE PROCESS" -- there are SOME who will listen and accept that argument.

I find MORE rightwing who will listen to the prochoice argument and include that under Constitutional principles. But I find it HARDER and more RARE to explain DUE PROCESS to liberals who just believe in mandating laws through federal govt that endorse their beliefs. Then complain when the rightwing threatens to do that through govt.

There is a HUGE difference if the rightwing will at least respect the Constitution BEFORE political party and beliefs; but the leftwing is so dependent on party, they use party agenda and majority rule based on that to OVERRIDE Constitutional arguments.

I find more people on the left depending on party power to bypass or override the Constitutional process.

The places I have caught rightwing going too far (such as with the right to life beliefs, or not treating Muslims the same as Christians in terms of religious freedom) they tend to check themselves when confronted with Constitutional standards.

Too many on the left tend to put Party power and beliefs over the Constitution.

Obama and Pelosi pushing ACA mandates above and against all Constitutional arguments in opposition is a prime example.

How can anyone argue about right to life beliefs being pushed onto the public, without criticizing the left for pushing right to health care beliefs and policies that IMPOSED federal tax penalties on free choice for ALL CITIZENS.

Where was the due process for us in that case?

There problem with what you've just said is that often there isn't just a right wing v. left wing. There are individuals on either side,both "sides" contain people who do and who do not respect the constitution. Mostly I'd find that the majority on either side are more interested in their partisan bullshit politics game and winning, rather than doing the right thing. This is why I support changing how people vote by using Proportional Representation.

Maybe you find those on the left more willing to do the wrong thing because you talk more with those on the left in a manner which is argumentative, whereas I talk more with those on the right in such a way.

The problem is one that is major and affecting the whole country. It's driving the US down and down and down and down.

The point I made was that just because a person supports ONE THING that protects the constitution, doesn't mean much in this day and age when many people will support what is convenient for them. We don't need to be partisan ourselves in order to make this case, whether one side does it more than the other is impossible to tell, because people don't make statistics for such things. What we can see is that Hillary and Trump weren't exactly the best choices for president and yet most of the country voted for them.

 

[L.K.Eder]

what a great piece about david horowitz by david horowitz.

 

[FJO]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

So, you equate the life of an innocent child in the womb to the life of a cow or the life of a criminal?

Speaks volumes of the moral compass of a typical liberal.

 

[theHawk]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

You don't see any difference in abortion and eating hamburger meat? That explains a lot.

I see a difference. That isn't the point here. I mean, seriously I can see you want deflect here.

If a person is "pro-life", shouldn't the by pro-life?

Most of the religious pro-lifers are, they are against the death penalty as well.

I guess I am more anti-abortion, and for killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

 

[frigidweirdo]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

So, you equate the life of an innocent child in the womb to the life of a cow or the life of a criminal?

Speaks volumes of the moral compass of a typical liberal.

Funny how you first ask the question, and before you get an answer you then go on the attack.

Again, the point I was making was about "pro-life" not being pro-life at all. But then it doesn't surprise me that people go for the kill rather than actually look at the issue at hand. It's all about point scoring, isn't it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

You don't see any difference in abortion and eating hamburger meat? That explains a lot.

I see a difference. That isn't the point here. I mean, seriously I can see you want deflect here.

If a person is "pro-life", shouldn't the by pro-life?

Most of the religious pro-lifers are, they are against the death penalty as well.

I guess I am more anti-abortion, and for killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

Most huh? Does seem to be the way I've seen it.

If you're anti-Abortion, then be anti-Abortion and not "pro-life", it would seem fair to make a label that fits, rather than choose one that sounds more "moral" than you actually pretend to be, right?

 

[theHawk]

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

You don't see any difference in abortion and eating hamburger meat? That explains a lot.

I see a difference. That isn't the point here. I mean, seriously I can see you want deflect here.

If a person is "pro-life", shouldn't the by pro-life?

Most of the religious pro-lifers are, they are against the death penalty as well.

I guess I am more anti-abortion, and for killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

Most huh? Does seem to be the way I've seen it.

If you're anti-Abortion, then be anti-Abortion and not "pro-life", it would seem fair to make a label that fits, rather than choose one that sounds more "moral" than you actually pretend to be, right?

I could care less what you call it. I am against murder of innocent unborn children. That has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty for adults who commit the most heinous crimes imaginable.

Let's look at the flip side, people who are against the death penalty for murderers, yet have no issues killing an unborn baby. It would seem that those types consider the act of being conceived more of a grievous action than an adult murdering another.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

You don't see any difference in abortion and eating hamburger meat? That explains a lot.

I see a difference. That isn't the point here. I mean, seriously I can see you want deflect here.

If a person is "pro-life", shouldn't the by pro-life?

Most of the religious pro-lifers are, they are against the death penalty as well.

I guess I am more anti-abortion, and for killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

Most huh? Does seem to be the way I've seen it.

If you're anti-Abortion, then be anti-Abortion and not "pro-life", it would seem fair to make a label that fits, rather than choose one that sounds more "moral" than you actually pretend to be, right?

I could care less what you call it. I am against murder of innocent unborn children. That has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty for adults who commit the most heinous crimes imaginable.

Let's look at the flip side, people who are against the death penalty for murderers, yet have no issues killing an unborn baby. It would seem that those types consider the act of being conceived more of a grievous action than an adult murdering another.

Well you couldn't care less about it, but the reality is that we're not discussing abortion here, we're discussing how people will flip flop on their "morals" and "principles" at the drop of a hat. One minute they're this, the next they've conveniently forgotten about it because it's not convenient for their next argument. I was using abortion as such an example, we don't need to get into the finer details of your views on abortion here.

So, does it have anything to do with the death penalty? Yes it does. How can you be pro-life and pro-executions and pro-war at the same time?

The ONLY way for this to be possible is if you're willing to compartmentalize your views, and argue using whatever you think will "win" you the argument, rather than actually standing behind some principles. So, back to the topic of conversation, if a guy comes out and fights for first amendment rights, this doesn't mean he is "pro-Constitution", it could easily mean that whatever he is arguing for is convenient for whatever it is he wants.

Don't you agree?

 

[ptbw forever]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

Equating anti-abortion stances to being against the death penalty(or even eating meat LOL) is nonsense.

With the death penalty you are punishing someone who has chosen to violate SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHT TO LIFE and eliminating a burden on society as a whole, that is super humanitarian.

 

[ptbw forever]

You don't see any difference in abortion and eating hamburger meat? That explains a lot.

I see a difference. That isn't the point here. I mean, seriously I can see you want deflect here.

If a person is "pro-life", shouldn't the by pro-life?

Most of the religious pro-lifers are, they are against the death penalty as well.

I guess I am more anti-abortion, and for killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

Most huh? Does seem to be the way I've seen it.

If you're anti-Abortion, then be anti-Abortion and not "pro-life", it would seem fair to make a label that fits, rather than choose one that sounds more "moral" than you actually pretend to be, right?

I could care less what you call it. I am against murder of innocent unborn children. That has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty for adults who commit the most heinous crimes imaginable.

Let's look at the flip side, people who are against the death penalty for murderers, yet have no issues killing an unborn baby. It would seem that those types consider the act of being conceived more of a grievous action than an adult murdering another.

So, does it have anything to do with the death penalty? Yes it does. How can you be pro-life and pro-executions and pro-war at the same time?

Just because someone values human life at face value doesn't mean that they have to value humans who have reduced their value to virtually zero through their own conscious choices.