CDZ Endorsing State Retaliation

[Lastamender]

The world of words and language?

Are you really contending that being punished for exercising a right isn't a violation of that right? I don't follow that logic at all.

Jan 6th. is a fine example of that.

 

[dblack]

Those rights are taken from us at the point of a gun.

Disney went begging to The State for its special dispensations as a matter of volition.

So are you saying only those who go begging must surrender their rights? How do we track that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My question is - are we ready to endorse that kind of government?

Your question is moot.

Republicans have not only endorsed such a policy but have been aggressively practicing it.

Using the power of the state is consistent with the authoritarian right’s efforts to compel conformity and punish dissent.

 

[Oddball]

So are you saying only those who go begging must surrender their rights? How do we track that?

You don't track it....You just don't go expecting favors, believing there won't be strings attached....You'll always be in a subservient postilion.

Alsoplustoo, this covers the privileges and immunities extended to the legal fiction we know as "corporation".....That charter can be revoked at any time, for any capricious reason, as well.

 

[Oddball]

Your question is moot.

Republicans have not only endorsed such a policy but have been aggressively practicing it.

Using the power of the state is consistent with the authoritarian right’s efforts to compel conformity and punish dissent.

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.

 

[dblack]

You don't track it....

Ok, so we're back to everyone who gets benefits from the state must surrender their rights. Again, no thanks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, the question for discussion is: are we ready to endorse retaliatory government? Should we allow government, local, state, federal or whatever, to punish political opposition with legal action? Is it ok for our leaders to "punch back" via the power of the state?

The better question is how do we oppose retaliatory governance now that Republicans have embraced it.

The purpose of Republican retaliatory governance is to silence political opposition, disrupt the political process, and undermine our democratic institutions.

Indeed, DeSantis and the Republican legislature has approved one of the more reprehensible manifestations of partisan gerrymandering further increasing Republicans’ strangle-hold on State government.

‘Should we allow’ is long gone, it’s far too late for such discussion; Republican retaliatory governance is a fait accompli, and there’s little, if anything, that can be done about it.

 

[Oddball]

Ok, so we're back to everyone who gets benefits from the state must surrender their rights. Again, no thanks.

If you do it as act of volition, then you've put yourself in a subservient position as an act of will.....That's your funeral.

That's the nature of the beast, not subject to my approval or disapproval....Liking it or not liking it doesn't change it.

 

[eagle1462010]

The better question is how do we oppose retaliatory governance now that Republicans have embraced it.

The purpose of Republican retaliatory governance is to silence political opposition, disrupt the political process, and undermine our democratic institutions.

Indeed, DeSantis and the Republican legislature has approved one of the more reprehensible manifestations of partisan gerrymandering further increasing Republicans’ strangle-hold on State government.

‘Should we allow’ is long gone, it’s far too late for such discussion; Republican retaliatory governance is a fait accompli, and there’s little, if anything, that can be done about it.

Pot paints kettle black with your party. Anytime you want to not allow us bs bring it.

 

[Oddball]

The better question is how do we oppose retaliatory governance now that Republicans have embraced it.

The purpose of Republican retaliatory governance is to silence political opposition, disrupt the political process, and undermine our democratic institutions.

Indeed, DeSantis and the Republican legislature has approved one of the more reprehensible manifestations of partisan gerrymandering further increasing Republicans’ strangle-hold on State government.

‘Should we allow’ is long gone, it’s far too late for such discussion; Republican retaliatory governance is a fait accompli, and there’s little, if anything, that can be done about it.

Tea Party Patriots were unavailable for comment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The issue under discussion is whether retaliatory government is something we should allow. Regardless of your opinion of the Florida/Disney situation. Should a sitting government be allowed to punish businesses or individuals for opposing them? Please try to answer the question and avoid trolling.

This question should be rhetorical - sadly it’s not, every American should answer ‘no’; of course, that’s not the case.

Conservatives will naturally attempt to justify and defend the use of Republican retaliatory governance or lie that Republicans don’t engage in retaliatory governance, as we see in this thread.

 

[eagle1462010]

Oops wrong thread. See ya

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Forcing indoctrination in schools is a RELIGION..........A Cult. Is HAS NO PLACE IN SCHOOL.

It is for the parents to teach morality to the children............not a Teacher who tries to teach different genders to 5 year olds.

If the op CARED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION..........she would consider going after those who are abusing children..........and support the Gov't of Florida to ENACT LAWS to safe guard their children............Florida has done so and now they have a placed another law that basically gives money to Disney by not paying taxes to the state and locals..........To pay to defend against Disney attacking the laws of the State.

The PEOPLE OF FLORIDA HAVE SPOKEN..........You will not be allowed to Brain Wash our their children with WOKE RELIGION.

The Op does support LAWS UNDER A REPUBLIC..................Can the Op point to WHO DECIDES TAXATION ISSUES..........It isn't Disney.

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

 

[dblack]

If you do it as act of volition, then you've put yourself in a subservient position as an act of will.....That's your funeral.

That's the nature of the beast, not subject to my approval or disapproval....Liking it or not liking it doesn't change it.

We're talking about when, if ever, it's OK for the state to retaliate against political enemies by revoking "benefits". How can we know whether I given benefit was received due to and "act of volition"? Is applying for unemployment insurance an act of volition?

You seem to want to have it both ways.

 

[Oddball]

We're talking about when, if ever, it's OK for the state to retaliate against political enemies by revoking "benefits". How can we know whether I given benefit was received due to and "act of volition"? Is applying for unemployment insurance an act of volition?

You seem to want to have it both ways.

Unemployment payouts are a privilege...If they were a right, you wouldn't have to qualify for them and maintain that qualification

The very act of incorporating is a privilege granted by The State: a revocable privilege.

My understanding of the situation doesn't signal my approval.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you saying their reasons are unimportant? You do not want a dialogue?

The reasons are not justification to use the authority of the state to retaliate against political opponents.

The reasons may very well be important, the failure is the means by which to address those who oppose the perceived solution to the problem.

 

[dblack]

Unemployment payouts are a privilege...If they were a right, you wouldn't have to qualify for them and maintain that qualification

So, that sounds like a yes - applying for unemployment insurance surrenders one's rights. Should the government be allowed to cancel your unemployment benefits if you are protesting against the government while you're unemployed?

The very act of incorporating is a privilege granted by The State: a revocable privilege.

My understanding of the situation doesn't signal my approval.

Then what does? What signals your disapproval? "Should we" isn't a trap - it's a genuine query about your political convictions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the left punishes dissent all the time.

stop being 1 sided.

Opposing and denouncing rightwing racism, bigotry, and hate is not to ‘punish dissent.’

Opposing and denouncing rightwing lies is not to ‘punish dissent,’ such as the lie that school children are being ‘groomed’ to be gay or transgender.

And opposing and denouncing Republican retaliatory governance is not to ‘punish dissent.’

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So, that sounds like a yes - applying for unemployment insurance surrenders one's rights. Should the government be allowed to cancel your unemployment benefits if you are protesting against the government while you're unemployed?

Then what does? What signals your disapproval? "Should we" isn't a trap - it's a genuine query about your political convictions.

Unemployment is paid by your former employers who paid into it, is it not?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Opposing and denouncing rightwing racism, bigotry, and hate is not to ‘punish dissent.’

Opposing and denouncing rightwing lies is not to ‘punish dissent,’ such as the lie that school children are being ‘groomed’ to be gay or transgender.

And opposing and denouncing Republican retaliatory governance is not to ‘punish dissent.’

Stating anyone who disagrees with you is a racist is simply an ignorant statement but you make it over and over again. What RW lies? There are two genders, most people are straight. It’s OK to say that and it’s not sexist or racist.