Some Schmo wrote:There are only two real options to explain his posting. He's either a troll, or dumb enough to believe his ____.
Either way, I pity the fool who takes that jackass seriously. Then again, most of those fools have made a career out of being willingly fooled.
I've actually come to terms with the fact that a large number of people in this country are too easily fooled to ever feel good about getting this nation back on track. There are people who actually believe Drumpf. That's everything you need to know about the quality of their perception.
I look forward to the defense of the next Rapublican up for election. How fun for our country, that we get to argue over the value of having alleged rapists in positions of power.
The Dog is either a traitor or deeply stupid. I've granted him the courtesy of allowing for his impaired condition so that he can go on pretending to be a patriot.
He likes Trump and Kav because they stroke his Bro Spot. He's an especially tough guy when he's dissing raped women. I took care of veterans like Dog who have no honor but I never confused them with the others.
Re the cultural war, which is apparently bananas and a nonexistent figment of my imagination, here's an interesting video.
"A young woman discusses the shame she feels for wanting a family, her contempt for victim culture, and the relationship between responsibility and meaning"
Water Dog wrote:Re the cultural war, which is apparently bananas and a nonexistent figment of my imagination, here's an interesting video.
"A young woman discusses the shame she feels for wanting a family, her contempt for victim culture, and the relationship between responsibility and meaning"
You can always find an example of some lost soul somewhere doing something that you believe justifies your rationale. Much more difficult is the task of logically explaining your rationale.
honorentheos wrote:His argument later in the thread about this is rather bizarre, in my opinion. He argues that liberals are using individual liberty as a trojan horse to eventually force abortion on people who otherwise wouldn't seek them. AND, AND! Liberals are luring kiddies into their perverted sexual dreamscape of debauched perversions where gay sex and abortions on demand are all part of a culture liberals intend to impose on all god-fearing Americans. So this justifies ACTUALLY imposing cultural norms and beliefs on people through laws that limit personal liberty because that's a particular group's heritage and culture currently.
It's bananas.
Was it not clear that I was being hyperbolic? My reaction to lefty fears that republicans aim to impose an anti-abortion federal theocracy was to point out similar fears had by those on the right about mandatory abortions. I was being sarcastic. But, I was also alluding to those very real discussions which take place among the left.
Well, your hyperbole and sarcasm were just deft rhetorical devices to dovetail Leftist real politick and humor.
I suppose some people are too stupid to understand things like nuance, comedy, performance art, and the integration of all three to produce a 'Daily Show Effect' when discussing current events. It's really sad that the Left is so fully infused with damned morons that they miss clear and obvious writing.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Libs want to erode those cultural boundaries. Bit by bit weaken the local governments and make them subject to the increasingly large and powerful federal government. And now, on this very thread, people are calling for an end to the Senate. They want the senate to be gone. Just have a House only. Y'all want to do away with republicanism and have a pure population based democracy where the cultural norms desired by people in New York gets to be imposed on people in North Dakota.
When conservatives on the Supreme Court interpreted state laws or contracts that mandate union shop for pubic sector unions as unconstitutional, thus kneecapping public sector unions in some states, was that an example of the conservative Federal government respecting states' self-determination or no?
I ask, because we're about to get a ambitiously activist conservative court with Kavanaugh's addition and you're still locked in a naïve, ahistorical view that conservatives are about localism. More accurately, most just want the highest level of government they control to be politically determinant. Sort of like how the South rebelled against the Union for "states rights" even though they successfully pushed the federal fugitive slave act a few years earlier.
You also continue to confuse federalism with being a republic. There are parliamentary democracies that are republics water dog. Ask yourself if they have a monarch. If they don't, you are probably looking at a republic.
Libs want to erode those cultural boundaries. Bit by bit weaken the local governments and make them subject to the increasingly large and powerful federal government. And now, on this very thread, people are calling for an end to the Senate. They want the senate to be gone. Just have a House only. Y'all want to do away with republicanism and have a pure population based democracy where the cultural norms desired by people in New York gets to be imposed on people in North Dakota.
When conservatives on the Supreme Court interpreted state laws or contracts that mandate union shop for pubic sector unions as unconstitutional, thus kneecapping public sector unions in some states, was that an example of the conservative Federal government respecting states' self-determination or no?
I ask, because we're about to get a ambitiously activist conservative court with Kavanaugh's addition and you're still locked in a naïve, ahistorical view that conservatives are about localism. More accurately, most just want the highest level of government they control to be politically determinant. Sort of like how the South rebelled against the Union for "states rights" even though they successfully pushed the federal fugitive slave act a few years earlier.
You also continue to confuse federalism with being a republic. There are parliamentary democracies that are republics water dog. Ask yourself if they have a monarch. If they don't, you are probably looking at a republic.
Republicans are now big government. The Tea Party briefly took that on as its challenge originally but it was quickly subverted into an anti-Obama backlash movement. Trump threw his populist surfboard onto that wave and rode it here.
They will go on cutting taxes and increasing the deficit without thought for the future any more than they care about climate change or population pressures.
I say the above as a staunch proponent of federalism. Just because I think the Senate math is unfair and unsustainably dangerous doesn't mean I don't favor federalist reasoning. Beyond federalism, I strongly favor states distribute as much power to the local level as is feasible while protecting people's rights. Time and time again I have seen so called "states rights" Republicans betray that once elected. The Walker admin in my state was particularly bad about passing a raft of laws to seize local control away to crush enclaves of liberal decision making.
"State rights" and "local control" unfortunately has been a cynical rallying cry to invalidate laws they don't like with a heavy focus on cultural opposition to attempts to thwart discrimination. The real-deal libertarianish types and federalists are a minority.
Maksutov wrote:The Dog is either a traitor or deeply stupid.
I'll go with Occam's Razor and say it's both.
Give him credit for one thing. Dogs’s posts are often rich in content representing the bellwether talking points being freshly foisted upon the more dependably dim witted portion of the electorate. They tend not to get much traction here because they’ll actually be debated in this environment rather than swallowed whole and regurgitated without question, the latter being the case within his true target market.
And he does this while attempting to assert that disinformation campaigns don’t work. Lol. Wrong audience again.
Gotta love the way these guys operate.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Water Dog wrote:... now, on this very thread, people are calling for an end to the Senate. They want the senate to be gone. Just have a House only. ...
Please link to a post on this thread in which someone has suggested abolishing the Senate.
For the record, I think that would be a crazy and dangerous thing to do. Pretty well all democratic countries have two-chamber legislatures, and there is no reason for the US to be an exception The question is, rather, what (in the 21st century, not the late 18th) is the best system for electing senators.
And I am sceptical that the best possible system in the 21st century will necessarily be one in which the electors of North Dakota have a voice twenty times as loud as the residents of New York.
The framers of the constitution were willing to accept some disproportion in the electoral weights of different states for what they saw as worthy ends, but the disproportion between the states in their days was much less than it is today.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
