Why is white supremacy a right wing thing?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 130
#91
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,105
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Here are the main points of the bill:
  • The bill amends Section 103.085, Florida Statutes, by adding a new subsection (3), which provides that "a political party may not include the word 'Democratic' in the name of the party."
  • The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2022, if passed into law.
  • The bill provides for enforcement by the Division of Elections, which may assess a civil penalty against any political party that violates the prohibition.
This seems like obvious satire to make fun of the last 4 years of the Democrat party's obvious collusion with big tech to censor opposing thought. It was probably inspired by the Twitter files Congressional hearings going on currently mocking the party for trying to cancel politicians that had anything to do with Jan 6.

It's just as politically theatrical as the proposed legislation to bar Trump from running again.





#92
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,105
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
A county court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on Sept. 6, 2022, became the first in more than 150 years to disqualify a person from public office because they participated in an insurrection.

District Court Judge Francis Mathew found that Couy Griffin, a former county commissioner and founder of the group Cowboys for Trump, had participated in the violent U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. Mathew invoked a nearly forgotten part of the 14th Amendment, called Section 3, which can disqualify certain people from state or federal office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to the United States’ enemies.



#93
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,941
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
District Court Judge Francis Mathew is guilty of sedition against the United States of America and it would be no great injustice if he was "judicially" introduced to a bullet.
#94
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
District Court Judge Francis Mathew is guilty of sedition against the United States of America and it would be no great injustice if he was "judicially" introduced to a bullet.
WTF!?
#95
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,318
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
This seems like obvious satire to make fun of the last 4 years of the Democrat party's obvious collusion with big tech to censor opposing thought.
Quite a few points here.

Let's start by simply taking Florida Republican's word that this was meant for nothing more than to 'showcase the absurdity of the left'. That in and of itself is a pretty stunning admission of just how unserious they are about governing. Their defense in this case is literally that they are drafting and submitting legislation for no other purpose than to "own the libs". Do they seriously have nothing better to do? You would think after all of that complaining about gas prices, inflation, deficits, etc. That they would have real, actual work to do.

I don't of course take their word seriously, because it's just plain stupid. Everyone who knows anything about politics knows that the Democratic party of the 1860's was the conservative party of those days and the republicans were the liberal party, they have since switched sides so the republicans of today are far more aligned with the democrats they are pretending this is about. Political parties are not people, they're entities. The people running them are a completely different group and the values pushed by it have evolved to the point of unrecognizability. To argue that this has any relevance to cancel culture only demonstrates what a moron the person making that argument is.

Third, Florida Republican's complaining about cancel culture is beyond hypocritical given what they just did to Disney. And that's just one example. We can talk about M&M's, Colin Kaepernick, every politician that's ever said a bad thing about Donald Trump... Republicans love cancel culture every bit as much as those they accuse of spearheading it.

Fourth, where are the condemnations of this? Where are those voices out there assuring the people that they don't actually plan to outlaw the Democratic party? Maybe I'm missing them. If you can find them please forward.

Fifth, your whole argument about big tech and censoring thought is just absurd and the Twitter files is a complete joke. This topic needs a whole other thread which I'm sure someone already started.
#96
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,318
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
A county court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on Sept. 6, 2022, became the first in more than 150 years to disqualify a person from public office because they participated in an insurrection.

District Court Judge Francis Mathew found that Couy Griffin, a former county commissioner and founder of the group Cowboys for Trump, had participated in the violent U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. Mathew invoked a nearly forgotten part of the 14th Amendment, called Section 3, which can disqualify certain people from state or federal office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to the United States’ enemies.
Let me guess, this is your example of progressives trying to silence their political opposition?

I'm not about to write another long response that you will no doubt ignore or strawman 99% of, so perhaps instead I'll just ask... Please explain what your point is and explain why you think this example makes it.
#97
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,941
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Please explain what your point is and explain why you think this example makes it.
It is simply not possible to have a more obvious case of undermining democracy "silencing opposition" than using weapons to keep them off the ballot.
#98
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,105
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
the Twitter files is a complete joke.

Debatable. Journalists that hate Trump are very concerned about this.
#99
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Fifth, your whole argument about big tech and censoring thought is just absurd and the Twitter files is a complete joke. This topic needs a whole other thread which I'm sure someone already started.
DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL!!!!!!!
Topic's author
#100
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,309
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Whether self professed conservatives live up to the definition is an entirely different question.
Shouldn't conservatives live up to some standard?  I don't think the members of either party adhere to any sort of ethos 100% of the time (except for libertarians and westernites).  But I digress.
#101
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Fundamentally wrong. In fact, the reverse maxim is uniquely true. A free market allows for and is necessary for free speech, not the other way around.
  • The theory of Free Speech (no govt. interference in individual expression) goes back to the trial of Socrates, 499 BC.  The theory of a Free Market (no govt. interference in trade) begins with Smith, 1776.  Free speech existed a long time before free markets.  What evidence supports free markets enforce free speech as opposed to liberal govt.
A free market uniquely allows a world where an individual's ideas are manifested in the invented product and the individual consumers vote with their dollars.
  • Singapore is consistently listed as the most free market in the world but in SIngapore you can't gather in groups of 3 or more after 10pm without police permission, you can't watch the Big Bang Theory on TV because that show is too subversive,  you can't debate public policy in public except at one podium in one park in front of many government cameras on Sundays.   The government decides what the consumers vote on.  Clearly when big business says "free markets" they mean relatively unregulated int'l corporations, they clearly DON'T mean relatively unregulated citizenship (including free speech).  The avg American would find living in Singapore profoundly oppressive.  
A free market uniquely allows a world where an individual's ideas are manifested in the invented product and the individual consumers vote with their dollars.  America has lived under the thumb of corporate media and crony censorship for decades in defiance of the principles of a free market.
  • Free Speech explicitly describes the government's attitude toward regulating speech.  Corporate and crony limitation on speech is limited to corporate and crony property, authority.  A Free  Market guarentees that McDonald's has the right to refuse service to customers who swear.   A Freee Market guarentees that  Twitter has the right to refuse service to customers who lie.
  • The notion of "corporate and crony censorship" well-demonstates a lack of understanding of how free speech and free markets work.
Therefore; America is not very far behind that list of top 10 Democracies that have both no free market, nor free speech.
  • Stupid.  Let's see your list and examine how justified is your absurd claim.
  • In fact, of the only 11 market economies ranked more free than the US, only New Zealand, Switzerland, and Ireland also rank higher for Free Speech- all relatively homogenous isolated economies without as much internal dissent or external competition.   Certainly, the US was and has always been the only superpower, the only massive international power base that has managed very free markets and very free speech at the same time.  To say that the US ranks low in either free markets or free speech is to spread jealous  Russian lies.
  • If you think that the US has not achieved an unprecedented balance of speech and market on an unprecdented scale then we can safely dismiss your opinon as ignorant regarding economic history.
Without free speech, there is little that separates a Democracy from an oligarchic corporate Dictatorship.
  • i.e. Russia, 2001
In a crony market where the government colludes with media monopolies to prohibit speech, free competition may indeed be the only way to ensure that ideas the government does not like are still able to be heard. In such a market,
  • I guess you must be talking about how FOX colluded with the Trump admin to supress the outcome of the 2020 election.  A free market permits corporations to lie to citizens for political gain but a healthy democracy never does.  Democracy is the father of free markets, who's bones are free speech.
the government and media monopolies may use their power to limit the speech of individuals and groups that do not align with their interests,

  • In a free market, media  monopolies may use their power to limit the speech of individuals and groups that do not align with their interests.  If goverment moves to limit media power, the market is that much more regulated. 
  • WIth Freedom of Expresson, Governments may not use their power to limit the speech of individuals and groups that do not align with their interests.  The State of Tennesee, for example, may not limit the speech of Drag Queens for being Drag Queens. 
effectively creating a censorship regime.
  • as compared to who?
In such a society, America is doomed to join the list of 10 failed Orwellian Democracies
  • It never seems that you are arguing from a pro-American perspective.  Whatever your objectives- America is not meant to win by them, right?
The current attacks from both the left and the right over the Twitter files proves this is currently the case.
  • I didn't learn one new fact from Taibi's "Twitter files."  I think Twitter's public conduct was objectively more responsible, stable, profitable,  You  governance than Musk's present tyrrany there.  You know the First Ammendment's alive if a corporation is free to chastise the President. You know that Free Market is alive when the richest man in the country is allowed to tank a car company for the sake of vanity.
  • Ultimately, a truly free and open society is one where free competition and free speech are allowed to thrive, and where all individuals are able to participate in the marketplace of ideas
  • Let's agree that White Supremacists believe in neither free competition nor free speech for all.


#102
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,941
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
You know the First Ammendment's alive if a corporation is free to chastise the President.
You know the 1st amendment is dead and the federal government is captured by subversive traitors when they use government force to violate the 1st amendment to the detriment of the president, their nominal boss.

This is not a "two negatives make a positive" situation. It's so much more terrifying than a simple case of a unified executive branch violating the 1st amendment.

"chastise" they didn't chastise, they were under the command of federal sleeper agents censoring people. If they had tweeted chastisement this would be a non-issue.

Violating the 1st Amendment and thereby violating the oath of office is not equivalent to "chastising".  And since the purpose of such illegal oathbreaking is to alter the constitutional election process, it is by the low bar set by recent trials INSURRECTION!

All I'm saying is... they're traitors by their own standards. So hang the traitors.
#103
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
are you talking about something specific or just ranting?  Federal sleeper agents=QAnon true believer
#104
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,941
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
You would know if you actually were paying attention to the twitter files instead of lying about it and claiming you knew everything already.

James Baker for example.

Sleeper = doesn't act as agent until the right time
Coordinating with handlers at the FBI for censorship and censoring the twitter files even as Musk was demanding transparency = 10^-9 chance of coincidence.
#105
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->
@<<<oromagi>>>
You would know if you actually were paying attention to the twitter files instead of lying about it and claiming you knew everything already.

James Baker for example.

Sleeper = doesn't act as agent until the right time
Coordinating with handlers at the FBI for censorship and censoring the twitter files even as Musk was demanding transparency = 10^-9 chance of coincidence.
  • What censorship are you talking about?  Try hard to be specific.
  • In a free country, Twitter gets to print whatever it want and it gets to refuse to print whatever it wants.  Twitter gets to talk to the FBI about what it doing or never talk to the FBI, whatever.  None of that amounts to government censorship.
  • How is this conspiracy theory related to topic- white supremacy=right wing?

#106
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,105
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
  • The theory of Free Speech (no govt. interference in individual expression) goes back to the trial of Socrates, 499 BC.  The theory of a Free Market (no govt. interference in trade) begins with Smith, 1776.  Free speech existed a long time before free markets.  What evidence supports free markets enforce free speech as opposed to liberal govt.
The theory for governments to restrict economic freedom while allowing speech for the masses has existed up until Marie Antoinette said "let them eat Cake."


#107
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,105
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
  • The theory of Free Speech (no govt. interference in individual expression) goes back to the trial of Socrates, 499 BC.  The theory of a Free Market (no govt. interference in trade) begins with Smith, 1776.  Free speech existed a long time before free markets.  What evidence supports free markets enforce free speech as opposed to liberal govt.
  • The theory for governments to restrict economic freedom while allowing speech for the masses has existed up until Marie Antoinette said "let them eat Cake."
  • The list of top 10 failed Democracies are countries where the government owns and manages the speech venues, not the free market.
  • Most people in Socrates time who spoke freely either took the hemlock or would not be able to speak or vote without property.
Singapore is consistently listed as the most free market in the world but....
They are objectively not a free market if they own the venues of speech as in the top 10 failed Democracies. Singapore has many articles critical of this.
#108
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,318
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL!!!!!!!
Show me one valid point advanced by the Twitter files. Just. One.

I'll wait.
#109
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,318
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Shouldn't conservatives live up to some standard?  I don't think the members of either party adhere to any sort of ethos 100% of the time (except for libertarians and westernites).  But I digress.
Hypocrisy is not about failing to live up to someone else's defined ethos, it's about living up to the ethos you profess.

My comment here wasn't that those who profess to be conservative actually are, it's that what I described is how conservatism is defined and broadly describes the political right. Let's not get wrapped up in black and white fallacies.
#110
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,318
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
they were under the command of federal sleeper agents censoring people.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the FBI pressured or coerced Twitter in any way. Twitter is a private company, free to grant the FBI's requests or not. Twitter chose to grant them. That's not a violation of the first amendment, it's an expression of it.
#111
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Have you not been watching or listening to the committee hearings where the two journalists have been questioned? You know, about the whistleblowers not only from within Twitter but also some federal agencies as well? 🤦‍♂️ FFS you’re sure daftly &  clueless. 
#112
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 566
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TWS1405_2
🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

'Daftly' is not a state of being but an adjective. You meant 'daft'.

Is TWS for troll white supremacist?
#113
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,941
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
Yea I've been through your brand of mental contortionism before with the Biden corruption stuff. Not interested in doing that again, at least no without some sign of a sane third party.

The state may not "request" censorship anymore than it may "request" restriction of religion, anyone who doesn't find that obvious is already stupider than Trump on his worst day. Anyone who is willing to accept that state of affairs after learning that a significant portion of upper management "were" high ranking agents of the state is stupider than Whoopi Goldberg on her worst day.

I cannot convey to you just how little interest I have in shoving once again the obvious line of implication under your noses to watch you hand waive and run around to the beginning to pretend like you heard nothing.
Topic's author
#114
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,309
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Hypocrisy is not about failing to live up to someone else's defined ethos, it's about living up to the ethos you profess.
I don't think it's hypocrisy, but it's a double standard.  Some double standards are justified (you can have consensual sex with your wife, but not with a 10 year old girl).  But other double standards make less sense.  If you believe in a double standard, justify it.


#115
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
'Daftly' is not a state of being but an adjective. You meant 'daft'.

Is TWS for troll white supremacist?

 It was meant as an adjective to describe his foolishness, stupidness (so-called state of being), as he was so clearly  clueless. 

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, you don’t know the difference between an adjective and a noun. 
#116
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7

Kilmeade speaks with Matt Taibbi regarding the hearings and the facts uncovered by the release of the Twitter files and whistleblowers (even from federal agencies) who have spoken with him. 

If you haven't been watching/listening to these hearings, you should. 
#117
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,105
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
jimmy dore has better coverage
#118
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yea I've been through your brand of mental contortionism before with the Biden corruption stuff. Not interested in doing that again, at least no without some sign of a sane third party.
  • Yeah, it is called rational inquiry and thinking for oneself
The state may not "request" censorship anymore than it may "request" restriction of religion, anyone who doesn't find that obvious is already stupider than Trump on his worst day.
  • Well, that's just super ingnorant of basic facts.  American Governments ask the press to kill or delay stories on a daily basis, some requests are honored, most aren't- but there's no harm with asking.   Thomas Jefferson asked reporters to delay their scoop on the Lewis and Clark expedition until Jefferson had a chance to ask Congress for funding.  Abraham Lincoln created a corp of trusted reporters who kill or leak stories at hist request- float trial baloons, spread rumors, etc.  Reporters like Walter Cronkite figured out where D-Day was landing weeks before June 6th but they sat on the story at government request.  Reporters knew the Manhattan Project was an atomic weapon more than a year before they went public.  Trump has editors of newspapers actually buying up stories for the sole purpose of making sure they never see the light of day.  FOX News was the only venue that knew Trump paid Stormy Daniels BEFORE the election, when Trump was still denying he'd ever met her and FOX killed that story for a year in exchange for leverage over Trump.  Apparently, Trump and Hannity discussed strategy almost every night for years.  Such horse-trading is how the Fourth Estate cooperates with the other three estates and is a part of that estate's power in the system of checks and balances.
Anyone who is willing to accept that state of affairs after learning that a significant portion of upper management "were" high ranking agents of the state is stupider than Whoopi Goldberg on her worst day.
  • I assume you are talking about Roger Ailes, Paul Ryan, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Karl Rove, etc.  It does seem excessively partisan but then, newsrooms have a right to seek the wisdom of experienced politicians when trying to navigate Washington politics.

#119
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,941
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
Why are you defending insurrectionists? How can you do that without shame?
#120
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Why are you defending insurrectionists? How can you do that without shame?
  • Can't tell what you are talking about....again.