Jaw-Dropping Liberalism

[NightFox]

I can prove that there is no Far Right.

Really? This ought to be good...Proving a negative that relates to a relative political perspective.

Good luck with that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can prove that there is no Far Right.

Really? This ought to be good...Proving a negative that relates to a relative political perspective.

Good luck with that.

No prob.

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)

There are so very many ways to prove same.....


2. Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.




3. Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com

So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.


I can give other examples as necessary.


If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

 

[NightFox]

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

By any objective measure Phelps and his crew of dingbats (for example) represent a FAR right (aka radical) deviation from the generally accepted existing political center (aka societal norm) so do any number of other radical right wing organizations (say hello to those pro-Sharia organizations while you're at it), to argue otherwise would be to contend that these miscreants aren't radicals (or aren't right wing) which would get you laughed out of any serious discussion even with a completely conservative audience.

So yeah it does in fact exist the only argument that remains is to what degree, you might argue that they represent an inconsequential minority with little to no influence on public policy but to say they don't exist at all is preposterous.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

By any objective measure Phelps and his crew of dingbats (for example) represent a FAR right (aka radical) deviation from the generally accepted existing political center (aka societal norm) so do any number of other radical right wing organizations (say hello to those pro-Sharia organizations while you're at it), to argue otherwise would be to contend that these miscreants aren't radicals (or aren't right wing) which would get you laughed out of any serious discussion even with a completely conservative audience.

So yeah it does in fact exist the only argument that remains is to what degree, you might argue that they represent an inconsequential minority with little to no influence on public policy but to say they don't exist at all is preposterous.

1. "By any objective measure Phelps and his crew of dingbats (for example) represent a FAR right (aka radical) deviation..."

You seem....confused.

Phelps was a Democrat.
"The founder of Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, notorious for leading hateful protests against gay rights, is actually a Democrat with long history of endorsing Democratic candidates."
Westboro Baptist Church Leader Fred Phelps a Democrat


" Fred Phelps is a lifelong Democrat who ran for Governor of Kansas three times…in 1990, 1994, and 1998. Fred Phelps ran as a Democrat. Fred Phelps is a Democrat who strongly supported Al Gore for years,..."
QUESTIONS: Is Fred Phelps a Democrat? Is Westboro Baptist a Democrat organization? Why did Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist picket Elizabeth Edwards' funeral on December 11th, 2010?


2. "...would get you laughed out of any serious discussion..."
Only by utter imbeciles.
Would you be one of those?


3. As you ignored the example I gave....perhaps you need further instruction.
No problem:
Let's take another example,.....

Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena.


"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly upheld the centuries-old tradition of offering prayers to open government meetings, even if the prayers are overwhelmingly Christian and citizens are encouraged to participate.

The 5-4 ruling, supported by the court's conservative justices and opposed by its liberals, was based in large part on the history of legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution." Supreme Court upholds prayer at government meetings



See this? "... legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution."

Clearly this is at the center of American tradition.

But... "Lawless Judges Have Created an America Where Praying Gets a Man Suspended from His Job

Yesterday, Joe Kennedy, an assistant high-school–football coach in Bremerton, Wash., was suspended. His offense? Kneeling for a short on-field prayer after football games. According to multiple news reports, for the last several years Kennedy has waited until each game ends and the players leave the field before walking to the 50-yard line and offering a quiet prayer for his students. He never asks anyone to join him, nor does he stop anyone who wants to do so."
Lawless Judges Have Created an America Where Praying Gets a Man Suspended from His Job


So....as far as the concept of prayer in the public arena, where do we find the radical position?
Hence, far left.




I'm still impatiently waiting to see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

By any objective measure Phelps and his crew of dingbats (for example) represent a FAR right (aka radical) deviation from the generally accepted existing political center (aka societal norm) so do any number of other radical right wing organizations (say hello to those pro-Sharia organizations while you're at it), to argue otherwise would be to contend that these miscreants aren't radicals (or aren't right wing) which would get you laughed out of any serious discussion even with a completely conservative audience.

So yeah it does in fact exist the only argument that remains is to what degree, you might argue that they represent an inconsequential minority with little to no influence on public policy but to say they don't exist at all is preposterous.

Gee....looks like our pal NightFox went night-night.

I'm gonna assume that he couldn't meet the challenge that I offered..." see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing."


That doesn't mean that I can't provide lots more examples of positions that show that the Right is consistent with American traditions, values, and history ....hence, represent that center.

There is no 'Far Right.'

Let's take the most central of American values: free speech.

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."


Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
Hence, far left.



Any who have fallen for the Leftist attempt to claim that there is a "Far Right," see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

 

[regent]

So far it seems the far right controls the application of labels and names to fit their agenda, and all they have to do is to define the far right to fit their argument.

 

[Slade3200]

All you do is proof there IS a far right... You display it with your posts. It is a silly argument anyways. When you have a spectrum there HAS to be "far" or extreme followers on each end, just as there has to be moderates that take the positions of both sides.

There is no Far Right....only a Far Left.

Sooo....you don't want to challenge me to prove it?

So sorry, you're missing a supreme intellectual exposition.

I already proved you wrong... On a spectrum you have the ends and the middle. You can't prove that there is no end.

Stop tap-dancing.

I can prove that there is no Far Right.

Seems to me you recognize that I can.

Im not surprised that you believe that... I"m sure you have a copy and paste argument that "proves" that up is down and 2+2=5

well actually, 2+2=5 is a liberal saying. It was actually stated by them as fact. no shit.

Then they were wrong. I'm not trying to prove a point that every liberal is always right and every conservative is always wrong. Both have smart people and smart ideas and the both have complete idiots that spew garbage.

 

[Slade3200]

All you do is proof there IS a far right... You display it with your posts. It is a silly argument anyways. When you have a spectrum there HAS to be "far" or extreme followers on each end, just as there has to be moderates that take the positions of both sides.

There is no Far Right....only a Far Left.

Sooo....you don't want to challenge me to prove it?

So sorry, you're missing a supreme intellectual exposition.

I already proved you wrong... On a spectrum you have the ends and the middle. You can't prove that there is no end.

Stop tap-dancing.

I can prove that there is no Far Right.

Seems to me you recognize that I can.

Im not surprised that you believe that... I"m sure you have a copy and paste argument that "proves" that up is down and 2+2=5

And.....are you attempting to use 'cut and paste' as a pejorative (you better look that up)?


Here's what Cornell says about that:
1. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(LibGuides: Critically Analyzing Information Sources: Critical Appraisal and Analysis)


And this on writing research papers:
2. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml
websites.wnc.edu/~kille/Fred/researchpaper.rtf

You may learn that when you get to college.

It's a lazy tactic in a discussion board that wastes time and space. Use your brain, make a point, provide a link if you need to back up or source your information. I'm not here to read long bloated arguments

 

[Slade3200]

I'm liberal own 10 guns, don't have a problem with certain control measures, don't see any serious democratic leader trying to take guns away. That's NRA BS you're being brainwashed by

They get spanked whenever they try.

When have they tried? That is a false narrative you've been brainwashed into believing

They've done it here in this state dumbfuck. All transfers must be registered by the state. There's nothing constitutional about it. Many states won't allow carrying. States impose magazine limits, etc. All efforts by liberals to chew down our rights. Thanks for proving you're an idiot.

Thats not taking guns away. You fight a strawman. Registration and background checks are forms of control so that crazy or violent people don't get guns. If you want to stand up for the rights of criminals and mental patients to carry then thats your choice but it doesn't make sense to me.

...except we've seen how it works everywhere else so I have to reject your spin for what it is.

And there's the strawman. Thank you

 

[Slade3200]

I can prove that there is no Far Right.

Really? This ought to be good...Proving a negative that relates to a relative political perspective.

Good luck with that.

No prob.

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)

There are so very many ways to prove same.....


2. Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.




3. Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com

So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.


I can give other examples as necessary.


If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

That's one of the dumbest arguments I've heard... where did you find it? Or did your brain come up with it?

You can't just say that the center is the "far right" so there is no far right. Are you joking? Was that really your big revelation?!

There is Anti and there is Pro for every issue. There are those that are "for" some elements of an issue and against others. They are called moderates. They are in the center.

 

[Clementine]

1. There are simply so very many ways to prove that Liberalism truly is a mental aberration that it takes some effort to decide which permutation to point to to prove the contention.

2. Here's one way:
"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion."
Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia

Fox's latest centerpiece, the Tucker Carlson Show, regularly uses this methodology, and the following couldn't be more instructive of Liberalism's method:
In the assault on tradition and the values that made this nation 'the shining city on the hill' Liberals come up with some view that....

...at first....

...normal folks say 'can't be...can't happen.....they couldn't possibly....'

...but they do.

And come up with some made-up slurs, like 'homophobia' or something.

3. First it was acceptance of 'transgenderism'....and now.....

....ready?...

...a demand...DEMAND....they they be considered attractive by all!




4. "The new rules don't seem to comport with the high school biology you once learned...

..remember when the goal for 'transgender rights' was acceptance....then it was legal enforcement of transgender identity....punishment for those who don't use the right pronouns or eagerly share bathrooms.....

Now we're advancing toward mandatory transgender dating....."


5. Transgender activist Zinia Jones:
Zinnia Jones

✔@ZJemptv
I don't see a problem with telling straight guys who are exclusionary of trans women partners that they should try to work through that

6:51 PM - 1 Jul 2017


And
Zinnia Jones

✔@ZJemptv
Being exclusionary of trans women partners should be an outlier and marginal position for straight men, not some commonplace expectation

6:52 PM - 1 Jul 2017


and....

Zinnia Jones

✔@ZJemptv
These angry declarations that they have some absolute right to not want to be with trans women are just misplaced and inappropriate

6:53 PM - 1 Jul 2017






Today you will say..'nooo....that's an absurd position.'

Tomorrow you may lose your job or face contumely if you don't toe that line.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Soon, birth certificates will be changed and anyone who exposes a transgender will be subject to jail time. Asking someone if they were previously a different sex will be deemed hate speech.

Reminds me of the college that made it a serious infraction to 'flinch' when touched by a gay person. This happened at the same time that a straight guy would have been expelled for touching the arm of a woman or looking at her for more than 2 straight seconds.

There just aren't enough safe spaces in the world. The only solution is for people to toughen up and prepare themselves for the fact that others may not be attracted to them, agree with them, or even like them. People might insult you. Of course, if you're a snowflake, you will remain in a constant state of umbrage because millions of people just won't agree with you.

 

[Slade3200]

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

By any objective measure Phelps and his crew of dingbats (for example) represent a FAR right (aka radical) deviation from the generally accepted existing political center (aka societal norm) so do any number of other radical right wing organizations (say hello to those pro-Sharia organizations while you're at it), to argue otherwise would be to contend that these miscreants aren't radicals (or aren't right wing) which would get you laughed out of any serious discussion even with a completely conservative audience.

So yeah it does in fact exist the only argument that remains is to what degree, you might argue that they represent an inconsequential minority with little to no influence on public policy but to say they don't exist at all is preposterous.

Gee....looks like our pal NightFox went night-night.

I'm gonna assume that he couldn't meet the challenge that I offered..." see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing."


That doesn't mean that I can't provide lots more examples of positions that show that the Right is consistent with American traditions, values, and history ....hence, represent that center.

There is no 'Far Right.'

Let's take the most central of American values: free speech.

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."


Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
Hence, far left.



Any who have fallen for the Leftist attempt to claim that there is a "Far Right," see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

What's up with the long rants. Keep it simple stupid... KISS.

Far right would be anybody wanting to ban Muslims, jail women for having an abortion, make gay marriage illegal... do I really need to keep going?

 

[Slade3200]

Being empathetic to your fellow man is a mental disorder?

Sooooo.....you got Caitlyn Jenner's number?


You two have decided on "We've Only Just Begun" as your first song?


Dang, you're a good Liberal.

libtarts are heading to a future where he'll be banging Lassie and they'll/left-wing be OK with it...

Do you feel good when you make idiotic statements like that?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Being empathetic to your fellow man is a mental disorder?

Sooooo.....you got Caitlyn Jenner's number?


You two have decided on "We've Only Just Begun" as your first song?


Dang, you're a good Liberal.

libtarts are heading to a future where he'll be banging Lassie and they'll/left-wing be OK with it...

I hate mistreatment of animals so I seriously doubt it.

 

[American_Jihad]

Being empathetic to your fellow man is a mental disorder?

Sooooo.....you got Caitlyn Jenner's number?


You two have decided on "We've Only Just Begun" as your first song?


Dang, you're a good Liberal.

libtarts are heading to a future where he'll be banging Lassie and they'll/left-wing be OK with it...

Do you feel good when you make idiotic statements like that?

You libtarts are a sick bunch of twisted bastards so it could be the norm kinda like your transgender b/s that the tax payer should never pay for...

 

[PoliticalChic]

So far it seems the far right controls the application of labels and names to fit their agenda, and all they have to do is to define the far right to fit their argument.

There is no Far Right in this country.

Only a Far Left, instituted by Joseph Stalin's BFF, Franklin Roosevelt.


The Right endorses the Constitution.
Roosevelt ended that.

1. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.

A radical and Progressive position.

He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."

2. Under Franklin Roosevelt the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...

Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.


3. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,
"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.

Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???

Oh...wait....that too.



Anything in this post you can deny??


Of course not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can prove that there is no Far Right.

Really? This ought to be good...Proving a negative that relates to a relative political perspective.

Good luck with that.

No prob.

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)

There are so very many ways to prove same.....


2. Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.




3. Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com

So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.


I can give other examples as necessary.


If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

That's one of the dumbest arguments I've heard... where did you find it? Or did your brain come up with it?

You can't just say that the center is the "far right" so there is no far right. Are you joking? Was that really your big revelation?!

There is Anti and there is Pro for every issue. There are those that are "for" some elements of an issue and against others. They are called moderates. They are in the center.

There is no Far Right, as I proved.

If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There are simply so very many ways to prove that Liberalism truly is a mental aberration that it takes some effort to decide which permutation to point to to prove the contention.

2. Here's one way:
"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion."
Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia

Fox's latest centerpiece, the Tucker Carlson Show, regularly uses this methodology, and the following couldn't be more instructive of Liberalism's method:
In the assault on tradition and the values that made this nation 'the shining city on the hill' Liberals come up with some view that....

...at first....

...normal folks say 'can't be...can't happen.....they couldn't possibly....'

...but they do.

And come up with some made-up slurs, like 'homophobia' or something.

3. First it was acceptance of 'transgenderism'....and now.....

....ready?...

...a demand...DEMAND....they they be considered attractive by all!




4. "The new rules don't seem to comport with the high school biology you once learned...

..remember when the goal for 'transgender rights' was acceptance....then it was legal enforcement of transgender identity....punishment for those who don't use the right pronouns or eagerly share bathrooms.....

Now we're advancing toward mandatory transgender dating....."


5. Transgender activist Zinia Jones:
Zinnia Jones

✔@ZJemptv
I don't see a problem with telling straight guys who are exclusionary of trans women partners that they should try to work through that

6:51 PM - 1 Jul 2017


And
Zinnia Jones

✔@ZJemptv
Being exclusionary of trans women partners should be an outlier and marginal position for straight men, not some commonplace expectation

6:52 PM - 1 Jul 2017


and....

Zinnia Jones

✔@ZJemptv
These angry declarations that they have some absolute right to not want to be with trans women are just misplaced and inappropriate

6:53 PM - 1 Jul 2017






Today you will say..'nooo....that's an absurd position.'

Tomorrow you may lose your job or face contumely if you don't toe that line.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Soon, birth certificates will be changed and anyone who exposes a transgender will be subject to jail time. Asking someone if they were previously a different sex will be deemed hate speech.

Reminds me of the college that made it a serious infraction to 'flinch' when touched by a gay person. This happened at the same time that a straight guy would have been expelled for touching the arm of a woman or looking at her for more than 2 straight seconds.

There just aren't enough safe spaces in the world. The only solution is for people to toughen up and prepare themselves for the fact that others may not be attracted to them, agree with them, or even like them. People might insult you. Of course, if you're a snowflake, you will remain in a constant state of umbrage because millions of people just won't agree with you.

There is hope!

Right after the election, I started a thread ...[You White Folks Are Gonna Benefit...

...with the hope and advice to Democrats to reform themselves, become less radical, and more pro-American.

Today in the NYTimes...


"Back to the Center, Democrats
The path back to power for the Democratic Party today, as it was in the 1990s, is unquestionably to move to the center and reject the siren calls of the left, whose policies and ideas have weakened the party.

.... the last few years of the Obama administration and the 2016 primary season once again created a rush to the left. Identity politics, class warfare and big government....

...Democrats lost over 1,000 legislative seats across the country and control of both houses of Congress during the Obama years. And in special elections for Congress this year, they failed to take back any seats held by Republicans."
Opinion | Back to the Center, Democrats



Throw the radicals out!!!

Democrats......return to your roots!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

By any objective measure Phelps and his crew of dingbats (for example) represent a FAR right (aka radical) deviation from the generally accepted existing political center (aka societal norm) so do any number of other radical right wing organizations (say hello to those pro-Sharia organizations while you're at it), to argue otherwise would be to contend that these miscreants aren't radicals (or aren't right wing) which would get you laughed out of any serious discussion even with a completely conservative audience.

So yeah it does in fact exist the only argument that remains is to what degree, you might argue that they represent an inconsequential minority with little to no influence on public policy but to say they don't exist at all is preposterous.

Gee....looks like our pal NightFox went night-night.

I'm gonna assume that he couldn't meet the challenge that I offered..." see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing."


That doesn't mean that I can't provide lots more examples of positions that show that the Right is consistent with American traditions, values, and history ....hence, represent that center.

There is no 'Far Right.'

Let's take the most central of American values: free speech.

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."


Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
Hence, far left.



Any who have fallen for the Leftist attempt to claim that there is a "Far Right," see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

What's up with the long rants. Keep it simple stupid... KISS.

Far right would be anybody wanting to ban Muslims, jail women for having an abortion, make gay marriage illegal... do I really need to keep going?

Gads, you're a moron.

The Right endorses the Constitution, which gives the President the power to set foreign policy for the purpose of protecting the people of America.Maintaining our sovereignty is a traditional American value....nothing 'far' about it.

To prove what a lying oaf you are, find any Right wing leader who has demanded 'jailing women for having an abortion."



"make gay marriage legal" is far from a traditional American value.
1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important ....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.
To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)

There are so very many ways to prove same.....


2. Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.




3. Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com

So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.


I can give other examples as necessary.


If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.



Keep trying....and wipe that drool off your chin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Being empathetic to your fellow man is a mental disorder?

Sooooo.....you got Caitlyn Jenner's number?


You two have decided on "We've Only Just Begun" as your first song?


Dang, you're a good Liberal.

libtarts are heading to a future where he'll be banging Lassie and they'll/left-wing be OK with it...

There is no foreseeable end to their attempt to end tradition, morality or even common sense.