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

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Well, now that's a lie - but you're a Nazi so lying is what you do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope, but surely appears you did! Have you calmed down the violence in yer squirming brain yet?
There may be a few drugs that could help you get to that happy place!

Wow, the Nazi rolls out the every witty..

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Democrats are an Orwellian nightmare come true.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit.

You don't care you just say it to get out of the moral SJW swamp.

Do we get to tell other people what they think now? Gotcha.

We get to say what people present, and call them on their bullshit.

Or in this case you see what I present and tell me I believe the opposite.

This is your bullshit, Marty.

No, it's calling your bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

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

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All you have is hyperbole.

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

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

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

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

That doesn’t even make sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allowing is not controlling.

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

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

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

Federal fiat is not limited government.

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

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

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

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

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

You missed the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

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

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

On what constitutional basis?

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

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

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

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

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

The government bans teaching religion and other things in school by the fact of being able to control curriculums.

CRT is nothing more than a religion disguised as academic buffoonery.

It's Calvinism. Some people by birth are good, some are evil and nothing can change that.

 

[colfax_m]

The government bans teaching religion and other things in school by the fact of being able to control curriculums.

No. It bans promoting religion in school. You idiots can’t even get this shit straight.

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

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

 

[colfax_m]

Bullshit.

You don't care you just say it to get out of the moral SJW swamp.

Do we get to tell other people what they think now? Gotcha.

We get to say what people present, and call them on their bullshit.

Or in this case you see what I present and tell me I believe the opposite.

This is your bullshit, Marty.

No, it's calling your bullshit.

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

That’s okay now.

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

 

[martybegan]

The government bans teaching religion and other things in school by the fact of being able to control curriculums.

No. It bans promoting religion in school. You idiots can’t even get this shit straight.

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

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

You can teach about Religion, you can't teach religion. You can teach about CRT but in these States you can't teach CRT is a fact.

CRT as I said is nothing but Calvinism for the modern woke idiot.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit.

You don't care you just say it to get out of the moral SJW swamp.

Do we get to tell other people what they think now? Gotcha.

We get to say what people present, and call them on their bullshit.

Or in this case you see what I present and tell me I believe the opposite.

This is your bullshit, Marty.

No, it's calling your bullshit.

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

That’s okay now.

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

You can tell all you want, you would still be an idiot and I would still laugh at anything you post.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All you have is hyperbole.

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

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

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

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

That doesn’t even make sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allowing is not controlling.

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

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

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

Federal fiat is not limited government.

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

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

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

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

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

You missed the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

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

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

On what constitutional basis?

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

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

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

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

You’re deflecting.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

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

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All you have is hyperbole.

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

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

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

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

That doesn’t even make sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allowing is not controlling.

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

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

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

Federal fiat is not limited government.

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

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

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

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

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

You missed the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

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

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

On what constitutional basis?

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

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

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

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

You’re deflecting.

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

 

[colfax_m]

You can teach about CRT but in these States you can't teach CRT is a fact.

That’s a lie.

Actually probably not a lie. I doubt you know you’re lying. You’re just making shit up to suit your agenda and might not even be aware of it.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All you have is hyperbole.

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

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

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

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

That doesn’t even make sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allowing is not controlling.

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

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

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

Federal fiat is not limited government.

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

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

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

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

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

You missed the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

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

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

On what constitutional basis?

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

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

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

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

You’re deflecting.

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

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

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

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

 

[martybegan]

You can teach about CRT but in these States you can't teach CRT is a fact.

That’s a lie.

Actually probably not a lie. I doubt you know you’re lying. You’re just making shit up to suit your agenda and might not even be aware of it.

Prove it's a lie.

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

 

[colfax_m]

Bullshit.

You don't care you just say it to get out of the moral SJW swamp.

Do we get to tell other people what they think now? Gotcha.

We get to say what people present, and call them on their bullshit.

Or in this case you see what I present and tell me I believe the opposite.

This is your bullshit, Marty.

No, it's calling your bullshit.

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

That’s okay now.

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

You can tell all you want, you would still be an idiot and I would still laugh at anything you post.

Laugh all you want. The second you start trolling is the second I know I’ve won.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

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

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All you have is hyperbole.

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

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

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

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

That doesn’t even make sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allowing is not controlling.

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

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

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

Federal fiat is not limited government.

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

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

Kinda like the difference between positive and negative rights.

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

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

You missed the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And those firm democrats are probably republicans now.

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

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

On what constitutional basis?

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

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

What Scalia called "Jiggery Pokery"?

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

You’re deflecting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit.

You don't care you just say it to get out of the moral SJW swamp.

Do we get to tell other people what they think now? Gotcha.

We get to say what people present, and call them on their bullshit.

Or in this case you see what I present and tell me I believe the opposite.

This is your bullshit, Marty.

No, it's calling your bullshit.

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

That’s okay now.

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

You can tell all you want, you would still be an idiot and I would still laugh at anything you post.

Laugh all you want. The second you start trolling is the second I know I’ve won.

That you keep coming back for more and more shows that you lost.

Om nom nom nom nom.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

The concepts are forbidden from being part of a course.

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