Shades Of Nazi Germany: Biden Wants Americans To Report / Turn In 'Radicalized' Friends And Family To His Govt

[colfax_m]

No false narrative. I said downplaying. One day of a protest that got out of hand is the end of the world to you, but months of lefty violence is ignored.

You first said support. Then you started walking it back.

Because fundamentally this is a dishonest argument. It doesn’t need to be honest, it just needs to convince someone like yourself that your desire for violence against others is justified.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Your still in a tizzy over one day of a protest getting out of hand while ignoring ongoing leftist violence.

Like I said. It’s not an honest argument. Not only is there a gulf between supporting and ignoring, but you accuse me of both falsely.

It doesn’t need to be an honest argument. You’re only trying to convince yourself.

The Jan 6th “protest” isn’t just an isolated incident. It’s just the most obvious manifestation of a shift away from democratic institutions for the purposes of maintenance of power. Our country is strong, but this does actually represent some threat to the nation’s health.

it is an incredibly isolated incident. 1 day. no actual impact to any government process.

Meanwhile idiots in Seattle and Portland took neighborhoods hostage for MONTHS.

Like I said. It’s only a manifestation of the underlying retreat from democratic ideals.

It didn’t spring into existence spontaneously and the retreat is still going on.

Says the person who supports government overreach into all aspects of people's lives.

All you have is hyperbole.

And all you have is not denying what I am accusing you of.

Do I really have to deny that I don’t want government into all aspects of people’s lives?

I would respond to serious accusations but you’re not being serious. Hyperbole isn’t serious.

When you want the feds to determine the things you listed, that's what you want.

That doesn’t even make sense.

I don’t want the feds controlling who gets married. I’m just happy that the states aren’t allowed to present same sex couples from getting married.

Saying you want limited government, but supporting intrusive state government isn’t being very honest.

That is the feds controlling who gets married. Even worse its a court doing it and not a legislature.

The decision should have just made States recognize any marriage license issued in another State just like they did before.

So Alabama wouldn't have to issue same sex marriage licenses, but they would have to recognize out of state ones like always.

When it comes to the 2nd amendment, your hypocrisy shows. In NYC you need to wait 3-6 months and pay over $400 to just keep a revolver in your house. How is that not infringement?

Allowing is not controlling.

Hypothetically if you want Alabama to determine that gay people can’t get married, and I don’t want them to have the power, between the two of us, I’m the one for a more limited government staying out of people’s business.

Forcing is controlling. The court forced Alabama to do something it didn't want to do.

Unless of course it's things like gun ownership keeping one's generated wealth and property rights.

Federal fiat is not limited government.

Okay. The court would also force Alabama to have probable cause and a warrant to search someone’s property.

But at the end of the day both of those actions would result in less intrusion into personal lives, not more.

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

That's actually not only in the Federal Constitution but Alabama's as well.

Please show me in the Constitution where gay people can marry, or where marriage is actually defined.

You missed the point.

Refusing to allow the government to do something is objectively an act which decreases government involvement in our lives.

Depends on the level of government and who or what is doing what to who or what.

State governments were forced to issue SSM licenses against their will. A better compromise would have just been to force them to accept out of State licenses as always and let them evolve on their own at their own pace when it comes to issuance.

Not really. It doesn’t matter what level of government, restricting their authority reduces their power over people.

That’s what happened with same sex marriage. It got the government out of the business of telling gay couples they couldn’t do something. It extended freedoms to people that were being denied it by the “will” of the state government.

By ignoring the constitution and the will of the people of the State.

It doesn’t matter what the will of the people is. Reducing their ability to enforce that will on others through government is reducing their involvement in other people’s lives.

Then why does your side point to polls and bitch about "true democracy" so much?

Why do you want to get rid of the Electoral College?

Ask people out west about how much the feds interfere with their property rights and then get back to me.

I don’t know what you mean exactly by true democracy. I don’t think a “true democracy” as I understand it is feasible. We will continue with a representative democracy out of sheer necessity.

The electoral college distorts the political landscape and I abhor it. It eliminates the voting power of political minorities in safe states. It over emphasizes the importance of swing states which are important only in that they are close political. And most of all, it entrenches the two party system.

I grew up in a rural farming community. The local government was very involved in our property rights. If your neighbor changes a water way, or doesn’t take care of their terraces, next thing you know during a heavy rain you’ve got a river down your field and soil erosion wiping out a chunk of your livelihood.

We were firm Democrats, in no small part as we recognized our actions impact others.

What it does is stops large populations from imposing their will on smaller ones. People have State and local governments to handle the small shit, your side wants everything done at the national level.

Now we have people who hate farmers making farming rules, who hate meat making ranching rules.

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

Yes! It does stop large populations from imposing their will on smaller ones. In this case, it stops the people of Alabama from imposing their will on the gay couples of Alabama who want to get married.

I don't know about handling everything on the federal level, but sometimes it's necessary because the local level is too tightly controlled by majorities who don't give a shit about minority populations.

On what constitutional basis?

You can read Obergefell on your own, it's not my decision.

I'm speaking more about the principle. See, you seem to think that the extension of freedoms is really the impingement of other people's freedom to deny freedoms. You have a very twisted way of thinking about this.

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

Like how you want to deny a baker the freedom too keep their business and not participate in Same Sex Weddings due to religious beliefs?

You’re deflecting.

Nope, making a point to call out your view for what it is, hypocrisy.

It’s not. We are so far from the actual topic.

You seem to think that restriction of government authority is an attack on people’s “freedom” to impose their authority on others.

It’s so backwards it’s sad. But you’re not thinking straight. You’re knee jerk attacking anything I say.

All you do is praise government intervention when it supports something you approve of, and get mad when it goes against something you support.

You aren't for freedom, you are for only your side.

Right. And you support the ability of people to oppress others. Because when you’re the oppressor it feels like freedom.

 

[colfax_m]

The States are saying you can't use CRT as a teaching viewpoint, just like you can't use Nazism as a teaching viewpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

As applied to public K-12 schools, these laws might survive judicial review, because states enjoy broad constitutional authority over the curriculum. Public universities, however, are a different kettle of fish.

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that you support propagandization of schools because of your fragility.

 

[martybegan]

No false narrative. I said downplaying. One day of a protest that got out of hand is the end of the world to you, but months of lefty violence is ignored.

You first said support. Then you started walking it back.

Because fundamentally this is a dishonest argument. It doesn’t need to be honest, it just needs to convince someone like yourself that your desire for violence against others is justified.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Your still in a tizzy over one day of a protest getting out of hand while ignoring ongoing leftist violence.

Like I said. It’s not an honest argument. Not only is there a gulf between supporting and ignoring, but you accuse me of both falsely.

It doesn’t need to be an honest argument. You’re only trying to convince yourself.

The Jan 6th “protest” isn’t just an isolated incident. It’s just the most obvious manifestation of a shift away from democratic institutions for the purposes of maintenance of power. Our country is strong, but this does actually represent some threat to the nation’s health.

it is an incredibly isolated incident. 1 day. no actual impact to any government process.

Meanwhile idiots in Seattle and Portland took neighborhoods hostage for MONTHS.

Like I said. It’s only a manifestation of the underlying retreat from democratic ideals.

It didn’t spring into existence spontaneously and the retreat is still going on.

Says the person who supports government overreach into all aspects of people's lives.

All you have is hyperbole.

And all you have is not denying what I am accusing you of.

Do I really have to deny that I don’t want government into all aspects of people’s lives?

I would respond to serious accusations but you’re not being serious. Hyperbole isn’t serious.

When you want the feds to determine the things you listed, that's what you want.

That doesn’t even make sense.

I don’t want the feds controlling who gets married. I’m just happy that the states aren’t allowed to present same sex couples from getting married.

Saying you want limited government, but supporting intrusive state government isn’t being very honest.

That is the feds controlling who gets married. Even worse its a court doing it and not a legislature.

The decision should have just made States recognize any marriage license issued in another State just like they did before.

So Alabama wouldn't have to issue same sex marriage licenses, but they would have to recognize out of state ones like always.

When it comes to the 2nd amendment, your hypocrisy shows. In NYC you need to wait 3-6 months and pay over $400 to just keep a revolver in your house. How is that not infringement?

Allowing is not controlling.

Hypothetically if you want Alabama to determine that gay people can’t get married, and I don’t want them to have the power, between the two of us, I’m the one for a more limited government staying out of people’s business.

Forcing is controlling. The court forced Alabama to do something it didn't want to do.

Unless of course it's things like gun ownership keeping one's generated wealth and property rights.

Federal fiat is not limited government.

Okay. The court would also force Alabama to have probable cause and a warrant to search someone’s property.

But at the end of the day both of those actions would result in less intrusion into personal lives, not more.

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

That's actually not only in the Federal Constitution but Alabama's as well.

Please show me in the Constitution where gay people can marry, or where marriage is actually defined.

You missed the point.

Refusing to allow the government to do something is objectively an act which decreases government involvement in our lives.

Depends on the level of government and who or what is doing what to who or what.

State governments were forced to issue SSM licenses against their will. A better compromise would have just been to force them to accept out of State licenses as always and let them evolve on their own at their own pace when it comes to issuance.

Not really. It doesn’t matter what level of government, restricting their authority reduces their power over people.

That’s what happened with same sex marriage. It got the government out of the business of telling gay couples they couldn’t do something. It extended freedoms to people that were being denied it by the “will” of the state government.

By ignoring the constitution and the will of the people of the State.

It doesn’t matter what the will of the people is. Reducing their ability to enforce that will on others through government is reducing their involvement in other people’s lives.

Then why does your side point to polls and bitch about "true democracy" so much?

Why do you want to get rid of the Electoral College?

Ask people out west about how much the feds interfere with their property rights and then get back to me.

I don’t know what you mean exactly by true democracy. I don’t think a “true democracy” as I understand it is feasible. We will continue with a representative democracy out of sheer necessity.

The electoral college distorts the political landscape and I abhor it. It eliminates the voting power of political minorities in safe states. It over emphasizes the importance of swing states which are important only in that they are close political. And most of all, it entrenches the two party system.

I grew up in a rural farming community. The local government was very involved in our property rights. If your neighbor changes a water way, or doesn’t take care of their terraces, next thing you know during a heavy rain you’ve got a river down your field and soil erosion wiping out a chunk of your livelihood.

We were firm Democrats, in no small part as we recognized our actions impact others.

What it does is stops large populations from imposing their will on smaller ones. People have State and local governments to handle the small shit, your side wants everything done at the national level.

Now we have people who hate farmers making farming rules, who hate meat making ranching rules.

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

Yes! It does stop large populations from imposing their will on smaller ones. In this case, it stops the people of Alabama from imposing their will on the gay couples of Alabama who want to get married.

I don't know about handling everything on the federal level, but sometimes it's necessary because the local level is too tightly controlled by majorities who don't give a shit about minority populations.

On what constitutional basis?

You can read Obergefell on your own, it's not my decision.

I'm speaking more about the principle. See, you seem to think that the extension of freedoms is really the impingement of other people's freedom to deny freedoms. You have a very twisted way of thinking about this.

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

Like how you want to deny a baker the freedom too keep their business and not participate in Same Sex Weddings due to religious beliefs?

You’re deflecting.

Nope, making a point to call out your view for what it is, hypocrisy.

It’s not. We are so far from the actual topic.

You seem to think that restriction of government authority is an attack on people’s “freedom” to impose their authority on others.

It’s so backwards it’s sad. But you’re not thinking straight. You’re knee jerk attacking anything I say.

All you do is praise government intervention when it supports something you approve of, and get mad when it goes against something you support.

You aren't for freedom, you are for only your side.

Right. And you support the ability of people to oppress others. Because when you’re the oppressor it feels like freedom.

So all government action is oppression?

How righty of you.

 

[martybegan]

The States are saying you can't use CRT as a teaching viewpoint, just like you can't use Nazism as a teaching viewpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

As applied to public K-12 schools, these laws might survive judicial review, because states enjoy broad constitutional authority over the curriculum. Public universities, however, are a different kettle of fish.

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that you support propagandization of schools because of your fragility.

CRT is propagandization, and it singles out one group as the root of all evil, white kids, males in particular.

 

[colfax_m]

No false narrative. I said downplaying. One day of a protest that got out of hand is the end of the world to you, but months of lefty violence is ignored.

You first said support. Then you started walking it back.

Because fundamentally this is a dishonest argument. It doesn’t need to be honest, it just needs to convince someone like yourself that your desire for violence against others is justified.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Your still in a tizzy over one day of a protest getting out of hand while ignoring ongoing leftist violence.

Like I said. It’s not an honest argument. Not only is there a gulf between supporting and ignoring, but you accuse me of both falsely.

It doesn’t need to be an honest argument. You’re only trying to convince yourself.

The Jan 6th “protest” isn’t just an isolated incident. It’s just the most obvious manifestation of a shift away from democratic institutions for the purposes of maintenance of power. Our country is strong, but this does actually represent some threat to the nation’s health.

it is an incredibly isolated incident. 1 day. no actual impact to any government process.

Meanwhile idiots in Seattle and Portland took neighborhoods hostage for MONTHS.

Like I said. It’s only a manifestation of the underlying retreat from democratic ideals.

It didn’t spring into existence spontaneously and the retreat is still going on.

Says the person who supports government overreach into all aspects of people's lives.

All you have is hyperbole.

And all you have is not denying what I am accusing you of.

Do I really have to deny that I don’t want government into all aspects of people’s lives?

I would respond to serious accusations but you’re not being serious. Hyperbole isn’t serious.

When you want the feds to determine the things you listed, that's what you want.

That doesn’t even make sense.

I don’t want the feds controlling who gets married. I’m just happy that the states aren’t allowed to present same sex couples from getting married.

Saying you want limited government, but supporting intrusive state government isn’t being very honest.

That is the feds controlling who gets married. Even worse its a court doing it and not a legislature.

The decision should have just made States recognize any marriage license issued in another State just like they did before.

So Alabama wouldn't have to issue same sex marriage licenses, but they would have to recognize out of state ones like always.

When it comes to the 2nd amendment, your hypocrisy shows. In NYC you need to wait 3-6 months and pay over $400 to just keep a revolver in your house. How is that not infringement?

Allowing is not controlling.

Hypothetically if you want Alabama to determine that gay people can’t get married, and I don’t want them to have the power, between the two of us, I’m the one for a more limited government staying out of people’s business.

Forcing is controlling. The court forced Alabama to do something it didn't want to do.

Unless of course it's things like gun ownership keeping one's generated wealth and property rights.

Federal fiat is not limited government.

Okay. The court would also force Alabama to have probable cause and a warrant to search someone’s property.

But at the end of the day both of those actions would result in less intrusion into personal lives, not more.

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

That's actually not only in the Federal Constitution but Alabama's as well.

Please show me in the Constitution where gay people can marry, or where marriage is actually defined.

You missed the point.

Refusing to allow the government to do something is objectively an act which decreases government involvement in our lives.

Depends on the level of government and who or what is doing what to who or what.

State governments were forced to issue SSM licenses against their will. A better compromise would have just been to force them to accept out of State licenses as always and let them evolve on their own at their own pace when it comes to issuance.

Not really. It doesn’t matter what level of government, restricting their authority reduces their power over people.

That’s what happened with same sex marriage. It got the government out of the business of telling gay couples they couldn’t do something. It extended freedoms to people that were being denied it by the “will” of the state government.

By ignoring the constitution and the will of the people of the State.

It doesn’t matter what the will of the people is. Reducing their ability to enforce that will on others through government is reducing their involvement in other people’s lives.

Then why does your side point to polls and bitch about "true democracy" so much?

Why do you want to get rid of the Electoral College?

Ask people out west about how much the feds interfere with their property rights and then get back to me.

I don’t know what you mean exactly by true democracy. I don’t think a “true democracy” as I understand it is feasible. We will continue with a representative democracy out of sheer necessity.

The electoral college distorts the political landscape and I abhor it. It eliminates the voting power of political minorities in safe states. It over emphasizes the importance of swing states which are important only in that they are close political. And most of all, it entrenches the two party system.

I grew up in a rural farming community. The local government was very involved in our property rights. If your neighbor changes a water way, or doesn’t take care of their terraces, next thing you know during a heavy rain you’ve got a river down your field and soil erosion wiping out a chunk of your livelihood.

We were firm Democrats, in no small part as we recognized our actions impact others.

What it does is stops large populations from imposing their will on smaller ones. People have State and local governments to handle the small shit, your side wants everything done at the national level.

Now we have people who hate farmers making farming rules, who hate meat making ranching rules.

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

Yes! It does stop large populations from imposing their will on smaller ones. In this case, it stops the people of Alabama from imposing their will on the gay couples of Alabama who want to get married.

I don't know about handling everything on the federal level, but sometimes it's necessary because the local level is too tightly controlled by majorities who don't give a shit about minority populations.

On what constitutional basis?

You can read Obergefell on your own, it's not my decision.

I'm speaking more about the principle. See, you seem to think that the extension of freedoms is really the impingement of other people's freedom to deny freedoms. You have a very twisted way of thinking about this.

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

Like how you want to deny a baker the freedom too keep their business and not participate in Same Sex Weddings due to religious beliefs?

You’re deflecting.

Nope, making a point to call out your view for what it is, hypocrisy.

It’s not. We are so far from the actual topic.

You seem to think that restriction of government authority is an attack on people’s “freedom” to impose their authority on others.

It’s so backwards it’s sad. But you’re not thinking straight. You’re knee jerk attacking anything I say.

All you do is praise government intervention when it supports something you approve of, and get mad when it goes against something you support.

You aren't for freedom, you are for only your side.

Right. And you support the ability of people to oppress others. Because when you’re the oppressor it feels like freedom.

So all government action is oppression?

How righty of you.

Nope. The reason you mourn Obergefell is because it restricted the right of the majority to impose their will on a minority. To you, that felt like a restriction of freedom whereas it was actually an extension of it.

 

[colfax_m]

The States are saying you can't use CRT as a teaching viewpoint, just like you can't use Nazism as a teaching viewpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

As applied to public K-12 schools, these laws might survive judicial review, because states enjoy broad constitutional authority over the curriculum. Public universities, however, are a different kettle of fish.

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that you support propagandization of schools because of your fragility.

CRT is propagandization, and it singles out one group as the root of all evil, white kids, males in particular.

It doesn’t. It teaches history through a lens of motivations for one group to promote their own power structure.

If you don’t like history, you cover it up. Isn’t that right?

 

[martybegan]

No false narrative. I said downplaying. One day of a protest that got out of hand is the end of the world to you, but months of lefty violence is ignored.

You first said support. Then you started walking it back.

Because fundamentally this is a dishonest argument. It doesn’t need to be honest, it just needs to convince someone like yourself that your desire for violence against others is justified.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Your still in a tizzy over one day of a protest getting out of hand while ignoring ongoing leftist violence.

Like I said. It’s not an honest argument. Not only is there a gulf between supporting and ignoring, but you accuse me of both falsely.

It doesn’t need to be an honest argument. You’re only trying to convince yourself.

The Jan 6th “protest” isn’t just an isolated incident. It’s just the most obvious manifestation of a shift away from democratic institutions for the purposes of maintenance of power. Our country is strong, but this does actually represent some threat to the nation’s health.

it is an incredibly isolated incident. 1 day. no actual impact to any government process.

Meanwhile idiots in Seattle and Portland took neighborhoods hostage for MONTHS.

Like I said. It’s only a manifestation of the underlying retreat from democratic ideals.

It didn’t spring into existence spontaneously and the retreat is still going on.

Says the person who supports government overreach into all aspects of people's lives.

All you have is hyperbole.

And all you have is not denying what I am accusing you of.

Do I really have to deny that I don’t want government into all aspects of people’s lives?

I would respond to serious accusations but you’re not being serious. Hyperbole isn’t serious.

When you want the feds to determine the things you listed, that's what you want.

That doesn’t even make sense.

I don’t want the feds controlling who gets married. I’m just happy that the states aren’t allowed to present same sex couples from getting married.

Saying you want limited government, but supporting intrusive state government isn’t being very honest.

That is the feds controlling who gets married. Even worse its a court doing it and not a legislature.

The decision should have just made States recognize any marriage license issued in another State just like they did before.

So Alabama wouldn't have to issue same sex marriage licenses, but they would have to recognize out of state ones like always.

When it comes to the 2nd amendment, your hypocrisy shows. In NYC you need to wait 3-6 months and pay over $400 to just keep a revolver in your house. How is that not infringement?

Allowing is not controlling.

Hypothetically if you want Alabama to determine that gay people can’t get married, and I don’t want them to have the power, between the two of us, I’m the one for a more limited government staying out of people’s business.

Forcing is controlling. The court forced Alabama to do something it didn't want to do.

Unless of course it's things like gun ownership keeping one's generated wealth and property rights.

Federal fiat is not limited government.

Okay. The court would also force Alabama to have probable cause and a warrant to search someone’s property.

But at the end of the day both of those actions would result in less intrusion into personal lives, not more.

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

That's actually not only in the Federal Constitution but Alabama's as well.

Please show me in the Constitution where gay people can marry, or where marriage is actually defined.

You missed the point.

Refusing to allow the government to do something is objectively an act which decreases government involvement in our lives.

Depends on the level of government and who or what is doing what to who or what.

State governments were forced to issue SSM licenses against their will. A better compromise would have just been to force them to accept out of State licenses as always and let them evolve on their own at their own pace when it comes to issuance.

Not really. It doesn’t matter what level of government, restricting their authority reduces their power over people.

That’s what happened with same sex marriage. It got the government out of the business of telling gay couples they couldn’t do something. It extended freedoms to people that were being denied it by the “will” of the state government.

By ignoring the constitution and the will of the people of the State.

It doesn’t matter what the will of the people is. Reducing their ability to enforce that will on others through government is reducing their involvement in other people’s lives.

Then why does your side point to polls and bitch about "true democracy" so much?

Why do you want to get rid of the Electoral College?

Ask people out west about how much the feds interfere with their property rights and then get back to me.

I don’t know what you mean exactly by true democracy. I don’t think a “true democracy” as I understand it is feasible. We will continue with a representative democracy out of sheer necessity.

The electoral college distorts the political landscape and I abhor it. It eliminates the voting power of political minorities in safe states. It over emphasizes the importance of swing states which are important only in that they are close political. And most of all, it entrenches the two party system.

I grew up in a rural farming community. The local government was very involved in our property rights. If your neighbor changes a water way, or doesn’t take care of their terraces, next thing you know during a heavy rain you’ve got a river down your field and soil erosion wiping out a chunk of your livelihood.

We were firm Democrats, in no small part as we recognized our actions impact others.

What it does is stops large populations from imposing their will on smaller ones. People have State and local governments to handle the small shit, your side wants everything done at the national level.

Now we have people who hate farmers making farming rules, who hate meat making ranching rules.

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

Yes! It does stop large populations from imposing their will on smaller ones. In this case, it stops the people of Alabama from imposing their will on the gay couples of Alabama who want to get married.

I don't know about handling everything on the federal level, but sometimes it's necessary because the local level is too tightly controlled by majorities who don't give a shit about minority populations.

On what constitutional basis?

You can read Obergefell on your own, it's not my decision.

I'm speaking more about the principle. See, you seem to think that the extension of freedoms is really the impingement of other people's freedom to deny freedoms. You have a very twisted way of thinking about this.

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

Like how you want to deny a baker the freedom too keep their business and not participate in Same Sex Weddings due to religious beliefs?

You’re deflecting.

Nope, making a point to call out your view for what it is, hypocrisy.

It’s not. We are so far from the actual topic.

You seem to think that restriction of government authority is an attack on people’s “freedom” to impose their authority on others.

It’s so backwards it’s sad. But you’re not thinking straight. You’re knee jerk attacking anything I say.

All you do is praise government intervention when it supports something you approve of, and get mad when it goes against something you support.

You aren't for freedom, you are for only your side.

Right. And you support the ability of people to oppress others. Because when you’re the oppressor it feels like freedom.

So all government action is oppression?

How righty of you.

Nope. The reason you mourn Obergefell is because it restricted the right of the majority to impose their will on a minority. To you, that felt like a restriction of freedom whereas it was actually an extension of it.

No, I thought it overreached on no constitutional basis. All it should have done is made States recognize any marriage license from another State, same as they did before.

States have differing views on things like age, blood tests, or even degrees of cousins that can marry. Yet that only applies to the issuance of the license in the given State. Said States have to honor a license from another State even if that license doesn't meet the States own requirements.

 

[martybegan]

The States are saying you can't use CRT as a teaching viewpoint, just like you can't use Nazism as a teaching viewpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

As applied to public K-12 schools, these laws might survive judicial review, because states enjoy broad constitutional authority over the curriculum. Public universities, however, are a different kettle of fish.

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that you support propagandization of schools because of your fragility.

CRT is propagandization, and it singles out one group as the root of all evil, white kids, males in particular.

It doesn’t. It teaches history through a lens of motivations for one group to promote their own power structure.

If you don’t like history, you cover it up. Isn’t that right?

And that one group being white cis males. The lens is nothing more than a way to take power without actually earning it.

It's racism "acceptable" to SJW trope assholes like you.

 

[colfax_m]

No, I thought it overreached on no constitutional basis.

Right. Because you’re concern is with the impairment of the “freedom” for states to oppress a minority.

 

[colfax_m]

The States are saying you can't use CRT as a teaching viewpoint, just like you can't use Nazism as a teaching viewpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

As applied to public K-12 schools, these laws might survive judicial review, because states enjoy broad constitutional authority over the curriculum. Public universities, however, are a different kettle of fish.

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that you support propagandization of schools because of your fragility.

CRT is propagandization, and it singles out one group as the root of all evil, white kids, males in particular.

It doesn’t. It teaches history through a lens of motivations for one group to promote their own power structure.

If you don’t like history, you cover it up. Isn’t that right?

And that one group being white cis males. The lens is nothing more than a way to take power without actually earning it.

It's racism "acceptable" to SJW trope assholes like you.

Yes. That is the group that has held the power in this country for a very long time. Viewing their actions as a means of maintenance of that power isn’t racist. It’s history.

 

[martybegan]

No, I thought it overreached on no constitutional basis.

Right. Because you’re concern is with the impairment of the “freedom” for states to oppress a minority.

Kind of like the freedom of States to oppress bakers and photographers?

 

[martybegan]

The States are saying you can't use CRT as a teaching viewpoint, just like you can't use Nazism as a teaching viewpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

As applied to public K-12 schools, these laws might survive judicial review, because states enjoy broad constitutional authority over the curriculum. Public universities, however, are a different kettle of fish.

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that you support propagandization of schools because of your fragility.

CRT is propagandization, and it singles out one group as the root of all evil, white kids, males in particular.

It doesn’t. It teaches history through a lens of motivations for one group to promote their own power structure.

If you don’t like history, you cover it up. Isn’t that right?

And that one group being white cis males. The lens is nothing more than a way to take power without actually earning it.

It's racism "acceptable" to SJW trope assholes like you.

Yes. That is the group that has held the power in this country for a very long time. Viewing their actions as a means of maintenance of that power isn’t racist. It’s history.

It's nothing but an attempted power grab.

According to CRT I have more institutional power than Oprah of Lebron James.

 

[initforme]

While I think hyper partisans on the left and right are fighting for something that doesn't exist and I don't respect them, I wouldn't turn them in. They are free to lose sleep over all this unimportant political hub bulbs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And don’t forget how many conservatives fought the inability to promote Christianity too.

Ban CRT if you want but that just demonstrates you support indoctrination which given the topic of this thread puts you farther on the spectrum of authoritarianism than me.

You Nazis promote Islam in public schools every day. Islam is our established national religion.

I just laugh at you Nazis when you accuse the Americans of doing what you do - I get Saul Alinsky and all, but you are absurd clowns.

I mean, nothing is as rich as you Nazis attacking lifelong Communist Noam Chomsky;

{
The 91-year-old writer co-signed a letter published by Harper’s Magazine which criticized cancel culture. It came just days after President Donald Trump named “cancel culture” in a speech in front of Mount Rushmore, condemning radical left-wing extremists seeking to end the careers of everybody who disagrees with them.

Chomsky’s decision to co-sign the letter was slammed by a substantial number of blue checkmarks on Twitter, resulting in a huge dogpiling of the legendary philosopher by left-wing activists from just about every section of society.}

Radical Leftists Attack NOAM CHOMSKY For Supporting Free Speech | American Political Daily

americanpoliticaldaily.com

But then freedom of speech was the first casualty as you vermin became the Reich.

From the Communist newspaper "The Atlantic"

{The ACLU insists that “preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” But more sensible thinkers grasp that quite the opposite is true. As Park notes, any defense of the status quo “perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal.” They’re not, and, in consequence, an arbiter is necessary. At first, that should be the ACLU, which should simply let some censorship be – or, even better, start endorsing it. And eventually, having been freed up by the ACLU’s backing away from what Park notes correctly is “only First Amendment case law,” the government itself should assume that role. Then, and only then, will some space have been cleared for the wise.}

The Most Shortsighted Attack on Free Speech in Modern U.S. History

A faction on the left wants to weaken the free-speech rights that protect marginalized people at the very moment when doing so would help Donald Trump to persecute them.

www.theatlantic.com

{
Adults, chronologically anyway, began embracing what they should have grown out of and joined the outrage mob. Ideological corporations like CNN and MSNBC took up the cause of being the nation’s tattletale, tracking down people who’d posted things deemed impure of thought by the progressive left and exposing them, leaving it to the mob to inform employers in the hopes of ruining lives.

This Nazi tactic has been institutionalized by groups like Media Matters (which is somehow a tax-exempt non-profit) and Sleeping Giants. Sleeping Giants exists explicitly to enforce conformity of speech in public. They go after websites publishing unacceptable words and have damaged many by getting cowardly corporations to block out their ability to sell ads.}

Liberal’s All-Out Assault On Free Speech

townhall.com

So lie some more, Nazi.

 

[colfax_m]

No, I thought it overreached on no constitutional basis.

Right. Because you’re concern is with the impairment of the “freedom” for states to oppress a minority.

Kind of like the freedom of States to oppress bakers and photographers?

Kinda, yeah. Anyone want to go back to the days of segregated businesses? Nope? Me neither.

 

[colfax_m]

The States are saying you can't use CRT as a teaching viewpoint, just like you can't use Nazism as a teaching viewpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

As applied to public K-12 schools, these laws might survive judicial review, because states enjoy broad constitutional authority over the curriculum. Public universities, however, are a different kettle of fish.

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that you support propagandization of schools because of your fragility.

CRT is propagandization, and it singles out one group as the root of all evil, white kids, males in particular.

It doesn’t. It teaches history through a lens of motivations for one group to promote their own power structure.

If you don’t like history, you cover it up. Isn’t that right?

And that one group being white cis males. The lens is nothing more than a way to take power without actually earning it.

It's racism "acceptable" to SJW trope assholes like you.

Yes. That is the group that has held the power in this country for a very long time. Viewing their actions as a means of maintenance of that power isn’t racist. It’s history.

It's nothing but an attempted power grab.

According to CRT I have more institutional power than Oprah of Lebron James.

CRT doesn't say anything about Marty as a person.

Your fragility is showing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just because your precedent is clear, I now get to tell you what you believe even if you say the literal opposite.

That’s okay now.

If you bitch about it, you’re a hypocrite.

Herr Nazi;

This is a message board. You are what you post. What you post is radical, racist, anti-liberty fascism. You are a Nazi democrat based on your posts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

A Reich propaganda piece saying that limitation of Reich indoctrination are bad.

Wow, I'm convinced.

Fuck the Amazon.ComPost

 

[martybegan]

No, I thought it overreached on no constitutional basis.

Right. Because you’re concern is with the impairment of the “freedom” for states to oppress a minority.

Kind of like the freedom of States to oppress bakers and photographers?

Kinda, yeah. Anyone want to go back to the days of segregated businesses? Nope? Me neither.

That was systemic segregation, enabled by a Supreme Court decision. It also involved race, and often point of sale services, i.e. actual public accommodations.

Actually the calls for segregation are coming from your side now

Yes, Black NYU Students Demanded Segregated Housing. No, the University Didn't Agree to It..

Smith College Introduces Segregated Residence Halls

 

[martybegan]

The States are saying you can't use CRT as a teaching viewpoint, just like you can't use Nazism as a teaching viewpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/laws-against-teaching-critical-race-theory-college-are-unconstitutional/

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

As applied to public K-12 schools, these laws might survive judicial review, because states enjoy broad constitutional authority over the curriculum. Public universities, however, are a different kettle of fish.

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that you support propagandization of schools because of your fragility.

CRT is propagandization, and it singles out one group as the root of all evil, white kids, males in particular.

It doesn’t. It teaches history through a lens of motivations for one group to promote their own power structure.

If you don’t like history, you cover it up. Isn’t that right?

And that one group being white cis males. The lens is nothing more than a way to take power without actually earning it.

It's racism "acceptable" to SJW trope assholes like you.

Yes. That is the group that has held the power in this country for a very long time. Viewing their actions as a means of maintenance of that power isn’t racist. It’s history.

It's nothing but an attempted power grab.

According to CRT I have more institutional power than Oprah of Lebron James.

CRT doesn't say anything about Marty as a person.

Your fragility is showing.

it defines me as what I am, not who I am. It says I'm an oppressor no matter what.

Just as Calvinism said the saved and the damned were pre-ordained, CRT says your race defines everything about you, and nothing can change it.

Of course they also expand that to sex, gender and whatever SJW trope they decide can use the help to squash any dissent.