Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OK... You're just another fuckin leftist parrot. It's none of your fuckin business anyway, you're a fuckin kraut. Worry about your own shithole country.
Maybe it once was that way, but today, that's not the case anymore. Today, the American right supports an authoritarian who attempts to stay in power via a coup when he's diselected.
The same President the American right cheered for when he abandoned the idea of supporting freedom and democracy in his foreign policy, when he buddied up with autocratic tyrants abroad, and who swallow all his propaganda lies who smear all his opponents as "communists".
It's pretty obvious that today's American right gives a hot shit about the values of freedom and constitution.
View attachment 502057
/ignore
Nope, but surely appears you did! Have you calmed down the violence in yer squirming brain yet?Hateway Pundit —- Again?
Serious question, did you run into a concrete pylon on a motorcycle doing 110 without a helmet?
Did an elephant step on your head? Did you lay in front of a bulldozer for a Marxist protest and it ran over your head?
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.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.Not really. It doesn’t matter what level of government, restricting their authority reduces their power over people.You missed the point.Okay. The court would also force Alabama to have probable cause and a warrant to search someone’s property.Allowing is not controlling.That doesn’t even make sense.Do I really have to deny that I don’t want government into all aspects of people’s lives?All you have is hyperbole.Like I said. It’s only a manifestation of the underlying retreat from democratic ideals.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.You first said support. Then you started walking it back.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.
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.
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.
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.
And all you have is not denying what I am accusing you of.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your link is a one sided view and doesn’t really have anything to do with CRT. As for the abhorrence of being kicked off a sports team for political views, I’ll let Kaepernick know this isn’t okay anymore.Gotcha. So it’s okay to silence people if you have a good reason to.What? Who believes they’re the “only side”? That doesn’t make sense. I know there are plenty of sides to all sorts of issues. And I know that some of them are objectively wrong and I think that some of them are subjectively (in my opinion) wrong.And “rightism” (or whatever) doesn’t believe only their side being right?What do you mean your worldview “allows others”?I don’t think you’re a very objective judge of your own triggered behavior. Especially given your reflexive hatred of those you consider to behave in a similar way.I’d say you go well over disdain and into unhinged violent fantasy territory.Yep. Fragile egos like yourself really get triggered when people challenge your beliefs.You’re a troll. That’s not a projection. The very fact that you’re projecting it makes you a troll.Nah. Just it’s nice when you reveal who you are.Way to be a butthurt wuss.
Or who I project. That's what idiots like you never get. My persona changes based on who I am replying to.
Since I have zero respect for you and idiots like bertie, you get what you get.
I troll YOU and morons like you. That's all you deserve.
Hence the trolling.
Responding with disdain is not being triggered. Try using the words right.
That’s definitely triggered behavior.
You would be wrong.
You can’t accept that you are like the people you hate. It’s protecting your own world view, and has that has a very strong capacity to deceive yourself.
I hate lying controlling SJW losers like you. Anger in the face of tyranny is no vice, complacency in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
My worldview allows others as long as they accept the validity of other worldviews, yours does not.
Current leftism is based on only your side being "right", and thus all other views must be suppressed.
They don't believe they are the only side. You don't see rightists as a mass pushing for silencing others like you do on the left.
And so do you.
But you want to see the right going after the “other side”, just look at their collective freak out of critical race theory.
LAWSUIT: U of Oklahoma volleyball player shut out of program due to rejection of 'social justice’
Critical race theory is a poison, the whole point is to stifle opinions and ideas from the "wrong type" of people.
Unlike you, the left isn’t using government authority to silence people. That’s the authoritarian right wing.
Of course you ignore my link because it doesn't fit your worldview.
The left gets to use the MSM, which is far more effective. Why is Trump still banned from Social Media?
Not allowing something to be taught in schools isn't silencing the proponents of the theory.
CRT can be boiled up into one concept "White people are Evil"
Why should that be taught in schools?
Preventing something to be taught in school is just as silencing as kicking someone off social media and is far worse given the fact that you’re using government to accomplish it.
I think it should be taught in school so idiots like yourself know what it is rather than your incorrect “boiled down” description.
Yep. 100%. I’m opposed to acts of violence.so you will condemn the violence committed by antifa and blm ?I don’t wish for violence on anyone. I don’t approve of violence on anyone.Mostly wishing for the violence they approve of from their own side to bite them in the ass.
However, you have certainly done your fair of wishing violence on me. Haven’t you?
Do we get to tell other people what they think now? Gotcha.Bullshit.
You don't care you just say it to get out of the moral SJW swamp.
Just reminding you that your tolerance for dissent is dependent on whether you agree with the dissenter.Your link is a one sided view and doesn’t really have anything to do with CRT. As for the abhorrence of being kicked off a sports team for political views, I’ll let Kaepernick know this isn’t okay anymore.Gotcha. So it’s okay to silence people if you have a good reason to.What? Who believes they’re the “only side”? That doesn’t make sense. I know there are plenty of sides to all sorts of issues. And I know that some of them are objectively wrong and I think that some of them are subjectively (in my opinion) wrong.And “rightism” (or whatever) doesn’t believe only their side being right?What do you mean your worldview “allows others”?I don’t think you’re a very objective judge of your own triggered behavior. Especially given your reflexive hatred of those you consider to behave in a similar way.I’d say you go well over disdain and into unhinged violent fantasy territory.Yep. Fragile egos like yourself really get triggered when people challenge your beliefs.You’re a troll. That’s not a projection. The very fact that you’re projecting it makes you a troll.Nah. Just it’s nice when you reveal who you are.Way to be a butthurt wuss.
Or who I project. That's what idiots like you never get. My persona changes based on who I am replying to.
Since I have zero respect for you and idiots like bertie, you get what you get.
I troll YOU and morons like you. That's all you deserve.
Hence the trolling.
Responding with disdain is not being triggered. Try using the words right.
That’s definitely triggered behavior.
You would be wrong.
You can’t accept that you are like the people you hate. It’s protecting your own world view, and has that has a very strong capacity to deceive yourself.
I hate lying controlling SJW losers like you. Anger in the face of tyranny is no vice, complacency in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
My worldview allows others as long as they accept the validity of other worldviews, yours does not.
Current leftism is based on only your side being "right", and thus all other views must be suppressed.
They don't believe they are the only side. You don't see rightists as a mass pushing for silencing others like you do on the left.
And so do you.
But you want to see the right going after the “other side”, just look at their collective freak out of critical race theory.
LAWSUIT: U of Oklahoma volleyball player shut out of program due to rejection of 'social justice’
Critical race theory is a poison, the whole point is to stifle opinions and ideas from the "wrong type" of people.
Unlike you, the left isn’t using government authority to silence people. That’s the authoritarian right wing.
Of course you ignore my link because it doesn't fit your worldview.
The left gets to use the MSM, which is far more effective. Why is Trump still banned from Social Media?
Not allowing something to be taught in schools isn't silencing the proponents of the theory.
CRT can be boiled up into one concept "White people are Evil"
Why should that be taught in schools?
Preventing something to be taught in school is just as silencing as kicking someone off social media and is far worse given the fact that you’re using government to accomplish it.
I think it should be taught in school so idiots like yourself know what it is rather than your incorrect “boiled down” description.
Wow, really going with a pro athlete doing things during a game vs a person just having viewpoints outside the groupthink?
Pathetic.
So we should teach religion in school? Masturbation to 5 year olds?
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 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.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.Not really. It doesn’t matter what level of government, restricting their authority reduces their power over people.You missed the point.Okay. The court would also force Alabama to have probable cause and a warrant to search someone’s property.Allowing is not controlling.That doesn’t even make sense.Do I really have to deny that I don’t want government into all aspects of people’s lives?All you have is hyperbole.Like I said. It’s only a manifestation of the underlying retreat from democratic ideals.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.You first said support. Then you started walking it back.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.
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.
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.
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.
And all you have is not denying what I am accusing you of.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL! Biden didn't need to say a word. Americans have been turning in those traitors for the last five months.
BIG BROTHER: Biden Administration Wants
Americans To Report ‘Radicalized’ Friends
And Family To Government
For four years, the left insisted that Trump was a fascist dictator. Even people in politics and media echoed this falsehood.
Now we have the Joe Biden administration urging Americans to snitch on their family and friends to the government.
(This could be considered a little 'over-kill' since the FISA Court proved the FBI has been illegally, Un-Constitutionally committing FISA Court Fraud and spying on Americans, reporters, the media, Congress, USSC Justices, political party Candidates and their trams...and are still doing it under Wray.)
President Joe Biden’s administration announced their plans to create ways for Americans to report radicalized friends and family to the government, in an effort to fight domestic terrorism.
Biden doesn't need to ask anyone to rat on their friends or family - he just needs to turn on his TV and watch foreign/Democrat-funded and protected domestic terrorists Antifa & BLM constantly looting, destroying, burning , attempting to burn federal agents alive, injuring 14 Secret Service members, permanently closing minority-owned small businesses and racking a combined total of BILLIONS of dollars in damage to communities all over the US.
- Perhaps someone should report VP Harris for heping bail these domestic terrorists out of jail to return to committing act of terrorism...and for calling on these domestic terrorists to continue committing violence after the election, which they have done?!
BIG BROTHER: Biden Administration Wants Americans To Report 'Radicalized' Friends And Family To Government | The Gateway Pundit | by Mike LaChance
For four years, the left insisted that Trump was a fascist dictator.www.thegatewaypundit.com
exactly. and that that didnt agree went to concentration camps/ its coming. america wake up.Most conservatives in the USA are not violent extremists either, but some are.
What Biden said is no different than what Republicans said about violent extremists Muslims.
Sadly, most of you Nazi democrats are violent extremists, some overtly, many covertly.
What Biden said is no different than what Hitler said about Jews.
Do we get to tell other people what they think now? Gotcha.Bullshit.
You don't care you just say it to get out of the moral SJW swamp.
Just reminding you that your tolerance for dissent is dependent on whether you agree with the dissenter.Your link is a one sided view and doesn’t really have anything to do with CRT. As for the abhorrence of being kicked off a sports team for political views, I’ll let Kaepernick know this isn’t okay anymore.Gotcha. So it’s okay to silence people if you have a good reason to.What? Who believes they’re the “only side”? That doesn’t make sense. I know there are plenty of sides to all sorts of issues. And I know that some of them are objectively wrong and I think that some of them are subjectively (in my opinion) wrong.And “rightism” (or whatever) doesn’t believe only their side being right?What do you mean your worldview “allows others”?I don’t think you’re a very objective judge of your own triggered behavior. Especially given your reflexive hatred of those you consider to behave in a similar way.I’d say you go well over disdain and into unhinged violent fantasy territory.Yep. Fragile egos like yourself really get triggered when people challenge your beliefs.You’re a troll. That’s not a projection. The very fact that you’re projecting it makes you a troll.Nah. Just it’s nice when you reveal who you are.Way to be a butthurt wuss.
Or who I project. That's what idiots like you never get. My persona changes based on who I am replying to.
Since I have zero respect for you and idiots like bertie, you get what you get.
I troll YOU and morons like you. That's all you deserve.
Hence the trolling.
Responding with disdain is not being triggered. Try using the words right.
That’s definitely triggered behavior.
You would be wrong.
You can’t accept that you are like the people you hate. It’s protecting your own world view, and has that has a very strong capacity to deceive yourself.
I hate lying controlling SJW losers like you. Anger in the face of tyranny is no vice, complacency in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
My worldview allows others as long as they accept the validity of other worldviews, yours does not.
Current leftism is based on only your side being "right", and thus all other views must be suppressed.
They don't believe they are the only side. You don't see rightists as a mass pushing for silencing others like you do on the left.
And so do you.
But you want to see the right going after the “other side”, just look at their collective freak out of critical race theory.
LAWSUIT: U of Oklahoma volleyball player shut out of program due to rejection of 'social justice’
Critical race theory is a poison, the whole point is to stifle opinions and ideas from the "wrong type" of people.
Unlike you, the left isn’t using government authority to silence people. That’s the authoritarian right wing.
Of course you ignore my link because it doesn't fit your worldview.
The left gets to use the MSM, which is far more effective. Why is Trump still banned from Social Media?
Not allowing something to be taught in schools isn't silencing the proponents of the theory.
CRT can be boiled up into one concept "White people are Evil"
Why should that be taught in schools?
Preventing something to be taught in school is just as silencing as kicking someone off social media and is far worse given the fact that you’re using government to accomplish it.
I think it should be taught in school so idiots like yourself know what it is rather than your incorrect “boiled down” description.
Wow, really going with a pro athlete doing things during a game vs a person just having viewpoints outside the groupthink?
Pathetic.
So we should teach religion in school? Masturbation to 5 year olds?
Regardless, she probably has a pretty good court case. it reminds me a bit of the Mahanoy vs BL case that is being argued before SCOTUS this year. She's defended by the ACLU which I'm a supporter of.
Either way, outlawing an idea from school is actual government censorship. Kicking someone off a social media platform is not.
But the Left wasn’t done yet. Black Lives Matter and the Duluth chapter of the NAACP went after the country club in Duluth that was slated to host our event there tomorrow with, among other things, a Facebook campaign. The club caved under the pressure. We found another venue, a Holiday Inn, but they gave in too, within a matter of hours after the far Left began applying pressure.
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 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.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.Not really. It doesn’t matter what level of government, restricting their authority reduces their power over people.You missed the point.Okay. The court would also force Alabama to have probable cause and a warrant to search someone’s property.Allowing is not controlling.That doesn’t even make sense.Do I really have to deny that I don’t want government into all aspects of people’s lives?All you have is hyperbole.Like I said. It’s only a manifestation of the underlying retreat from democratic ideals.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.You first said support. Then you started walking it back.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.
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.
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.
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.
And all you have is not denying what I am accusing you of.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or in this case you see what I present and tell me I believe the opposite.Do we get to tell other people what they think now? Gotcha.Bullshit.
You don't care you just say it to get out of the moral SJW swamp.
We get to say what people present, and call them on their bullshit.
You can read Obergefell on your own, it's not my decision.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 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.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.Not really. It doesn’t matter what level of government, restricting their authority reduces their power over people.You missed the point.Okay. The court would also force Alabama to have probable cause and a warrant to search someone’s property.Allowing is not controlling.That doesn’t even make sense.Do I really have to deny that I don’t want government into all aspects of people’s lives?All you have is hyperbole.Like I said. It’s only a manifestation of the underlying retreat from democratic ideals.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.You first said support. Then you started walking it back.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.
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.
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.
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.
And all you have is not denying what I am accusing you of.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Still has nothing to do with the fact that the right is now using the government to ban speech because you don't agree with it.no, tolerance for dissent is when you disagree with the dissenter.
Being for free speech of only speech you agree with isn't free.
The ACLU won't support her, she isn't on the right side.
They are not Americans.
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.
