Total posts: 1,950
Posted in:
Consider the audacity of your views. Do you think, seriously, that it was by accident that the right to bear arms was listed second only to the right to freely speak, think and communicate with the body politic? As if the framers somehow included language they felt unnecessary?
For a general summary, see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf.
Note that Stevens historically illiterate dissent, I am sure, was written by a law clerk who was likely as unpromising as Sotomayor's current clerk who leaked that long-awaited opinion correctly overturning Roe.
You will be shocked to learn, I am sure, that James Madison agrees with me (and Antonin Scalia, as luck may have it).
In Federalist No. 46, Madison conscientiously recognized the risks associated with a large, sustained army. And the risks were not merely practical, but political. Men armed in decentralized militias were a check against tyranny as much the militias themselves.
Madison underscored that an armed
citizenry was necessary to discount the possibility of federal
oppression, therein. The language "being necessary to the security of a free State," after all, refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," not "[a] well regulated militia":
Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Madison emphasized the importance of the American people's individual right to bear arms as a point of express contrast between the United States and "the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe," comprised of governments that "[we]re afraid to trust the people with arms," (quoting Federalist No. 46).
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.. . .Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
You should also refresh your recollection on what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29, since he makes exactly the same point I stated above. For example:
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions.. . .This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Your quote above simply relates to the burden of achieving a militia that was, in fact, "well regulated." It has nothing whatsoever to do with any restraint on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any such reading is absurd, to the point of being nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I'm not reading anything in the constitution nor federalist papers . . .
Have you read the federalist papers? Or any single one?
List them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The top 20 things I hate the most . . . ok, whatever.
- Tyranny (and its instrumentality, bureaucracy).
- Ignorance.
- Identity politics.
- Anthony Fauci.
- Joe Biden.
I'll think of others, later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
We should distinguish the two different levels of movement in play, implicated by your question:
- My move to the right (on an absolute scale); and
- The world's move to the left (on an absolute scale).
So, even though the extent to which I have moved is one thing, that movement looks a lot more significant than it actually is because of how far the Overton window has shifted in the opposite direction. That means that when the world went one direction, I remained in place; and then started moving right. Think of it like standing in the same place on the beach as the tide comes in, right before high tide, and then wading further out, deeper in. Relatedly, I need about a month on the beach.
> You drifted quite a bit to the right over the years. What would younger you think?
Younger me . . . when, exactly? I was a card-carrying Republican for much of my life. In fact, for the majority of my life that I was politically aware, I was at least Republican adjacent.
That changed in college. I was convinced I knew everything (#cringe) and consequently, was naive enough to be optimistic in the potential of federal (or state) government to meaningfully improve people's lives. I became, among other things, an advocate of gun control reform, bloviated/idiotic regulation of industry, state-ran social welfare programs and all kinds of other stupid things. Of course at the time, being convinced I knew everything (or at least more than 99/100 people I ever communicated with), I undertook the practice of what every other ivory tower "academic" does: used data to make arguments about policy. Mostly foreign policy, because that was what I was interested in. But domestic policy too, when the opportunity to grind particular axes arose.
There's a lot of pressure to conform in grad school, too. A *lot* of pressure. My colleagues were the pre-woke. Identity politics had not yet come to replace classically liberal Western values, yet. But those horsemen were on the horizon. I remember the first time in 2012 when our department designated a "safe space" for "marginalized groups." So called "ally" stickers and buttons started showing up. I was reading Dostoevsky at the time, and this passage has always stood out to me:
He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands.They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned, because everyone proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and they could not agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other.There were conflagrations and famine. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.
I had to take a "diversity and sensitivity" seminar, before they would even *let me teach* undergraduates. Things did not get less weird, though at least I understood what was happening because of my philosophy classes. I took a few fairly high-level seminars even as an undergraduate, one focusing on nihilism and postmodernism and others focusing on Nietzsche, Heidegger and Foucault. At that time, I wouldn't say I was "far left" but I was about as anti-authoritarian as one could be. My PhD advisor more or less insisted I stop wasting my time with "all that normative shit," so pivoted hard into the quant-focused. It was basically a remedial education in applied math. Our department head changed, however. I did not get along with her. She had a PhD in a fake subject who had managed to build an alleged academic career without understanding the concept of standard deviation. There were other developments, some of which I have discussed in other contexts, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Then as now I despised identity politics, and I was nauseated by the direction I could see much of the progressive left going. This would be the first harbinger of what was yet to come.
I was still pretty far to the left in law school. I also leaned heavily into the anti-Trump everything that characterized politics in this country. While I correctly predicted within a week that Trump announced his candidacy for president that he would get the Republican nomination, I never envisioned the possibility he would actually win. There were some things he said which I liked, but I found him to be intolerable in nearly all respects. I drank the Russiagate kool aid with the best of them. I read the polemics, closely followed the Muller report and spent hundreds of hours on the Russiagate everything. If not thousands. Plus I spoke Russian and have read like everything written in the English language about Soviet-era espionage in the United States. And much published in Russian. (NOTE: as an undergrad, I had a professor who graduated from Moscow State University, who had access to the Soviet archives back in that brief moment in time when they were unsealed during Gorbachev's last days and when Yeltsin was in power. For a moment in time, all that the USSR recorded was laid bare before the world. Now, the archives are sealed once more (or at least anything interesting).) Then I read the Muller report, after having been in the private sector for a few years. This would be the second harbinger.
How I see the world now is defined by the pandemic. The details could fill a thousand pages, but there were two moments in time that, even now, I remember like being struck by lightning. The first was reading Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London's March 2020 publication, purportedly modeling scenarios for non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (i.e., lockdowns). This was not just incompetence, because these people were not merely incompetent. This was fraud. This was knowing, deliberate and willful misrepresentation. This was the kind of "modeling" you might laugh over John Perkins talking about in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." The second was reading the public response to John Ionidis' criticisms of, among others, Neil Ferguson and Imperial's purported analysis. Ionidis was not only right, he had the data to back up what he was saying (however small the represented cohorts may have been). The case for lockdowns was so vapid, weak and inane, however, I naively thought it would be summarily disregarded. Ferguson's paper was such obvious bullshit anyone with a high-school student's understanding of statistics could see through it. Yes. It really is that obvious. But not according to the so called field of public health and its representative in chief, Fauci, who bears nearly sole, proximate responsibility for the pandemic led the country's response to it. All that followed was perfectly Kafkaesque. Seeing Anthony Fauci so flagrantly disregard the scientific evidence on lockdowns, masks and out-of-patent compounds with clinically demonstrated anti-viral activity shattered any remaining Aaron Sorkin-type West Wing illusion of government's ability to do anything effectively, much less competently or well.
Everything else that has followed since then, just confirms what I saw. The difference between lockdowns and Russiagate was the illusion of credibility. I drank the Russiagate kool aid based on what I assumed the evidence was even though I never saw it. There sure was a lot of smoke, or at least it seemed like there was. But with lockdowns, there was no illusion. There was only a bright shining lie.
If my younger self knew what I knew now, I would have never called myself a democrat. I would have been ashamed to ever carry such a designation.
Now, I'm a one-issue voter. If you voted for lockdowns, you are disqualified from holding public office. If you are a member of the field of public health and supported them, you should face professional censure. But the problem is systemic. The NIAID, specifically, and HHS, generally, allowed a man like Anthony Fauci to not only gain rank but remain in place to maintain control over biopharma research public expenditures. The amount of power that single position holds set the stage for a slime ball like that to occupy it. Restricting the size and scope of government is the single most significant challenge we face as a people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
A militia, in 1776, was comprised of ordinary people who answered the call to arms solely in response to an imminent threat. The colonies, unlike other colonial powers, were highly averse to maintaining standing armies. The other option is a militia. To have a militia implies that arms --- and not just any arms, but arms of sufficient force to repel an external invasion --- were meant to be held in private citizens' hands, at all times and without exception. According to the framers.
Whatever distinctions in operation may distinguish firearms of the 18th century from the present, they were the most portable and lethal weapons available to anyone at that time (just as firearms tend to be now). The point was that militias were the less worse alternative, in the framers' view.
The argument that we no longer require a militia because we have a profoundly well equipped standing military holds no currency, either. If you were wondering, which I assume you were. That is because the point of a militia was to distribute lethal power among individuals who, and by implication away from centralized (read: federal) government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You conceded that localized gun control laws fail, based on inflow of out of state firearms.
You stated that concession, after acknowledging certain categories of evidence do not indicate past improvement.
Your response to this is to dismiss all evidence and data, in favor of discussion that you think "address the core beliefs" of folks with opinions on these issues (which you define as outside the scope of anything constituting "evidence"). Not to change your position.
And yet, you wonder why this approach cannot be taken seriously.
Alas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I am here in search of rational arguments that go against my position.
We await you finding them with bated breath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When you have evidence to support any probability of changing any outcome with respect to gun violence based on any policy you propose, you might be in a less worse position to at least say something passably coherent on the subject. But at this time, I have seen nothing whatsoever to indicate as much.
Now that we've established you have no idea what logical fallacies are, perhaps you'll want to focus on the prior issue, related to gun control.
Going down these idiotic tangents are unsatisfying. Have you noticed how every time you go down that path, wherein you bitch and moan about how much of an asshole you think I am, I always respond by treating you with even less respect than I did before?
There was a time I'd play those games. Now, I'm disinclined.
If you want me to respect your opinions/perspective, or at least treat you like something other than an ankle-biting pomeranian, make arguments based on facts and evidence. Then, you will find that I respond with facts and evidence.
But these idiotic little games? Play them and you'll find nothing but derision from me.
Created:
Posted in:
There is nothing more important than limiting the power of the state.
This should be a reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
nope, I mostly just watch Tim Pool and Lex Fridman.
Or Joe Rogan, on Spotify.
Or ... wait for it ... Steve Bannon, on his podcast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sheamus. Oh yes, I know him well.
Tim Pool is a national treasure.
Created:
Posted in:
What does "well regulated" mean?
What it means in context; i.e., not what you think it means.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What crisis.
The one you missed, because you were too busy being misdirected by other interests.
How your attention is focused on political issues - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo4yZ_bM8io&ab_channel=KelseyUuskallio
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
How do you feel about the news of DDO going offline for good tonight?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Thoughts on Buttigieg?
Buttigieg is an establishment whore and a trojan horse to the so-called "progressive movement."
Pelosi used Buttigieg to manipulate young, stupid and woke "identity politics"-inclined young progressives, to sabotage Bernie Sanders in Iowa, just as she and so many others have done so many times before.
This idea of voting for someone, not because of what is in their head or in their heart, but what color their skin is, who they want to have sex/romantic relations with, what is between their legs or what purported "gender" they hold themselves out as being is an abomination to everything this country stands for.
I remember a time when one man once had a dream that people would, in fact, be judged not by any such identity, but by the content of their character. But that was at a time that integrity mattered. Now integrity is replaced with identity.
A pathetic shame on us all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Novice_II
Will you ever debate again?
Probably not here, but maybe. There are some topics I'd be willing to debate.
Can we reasonably say systemic racism is a conspiracy theory?
Yes, because that is exactly what it is. Though, it is also other things . . . for example, so called "systemic racism" is, on a psychological level, at least also a paranoid ideation and delusion.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You are talking to a guy who would get rid of essentially all gun regulation in this country.
Created:
Semi-automatic weapons are, indeed, more dangerous in a so-called "mass shooting" context. The reason why is obvious to anyone who has ever fired a fully automatic weapon. Full auto weapons are terribly inefficient, waste ammunition and lend themselves to wasted ammunition.
Created:
Posted in:
The essential problem with so-called gun control regulation is that, counterintuitively, such policies do not control guns. These policies control people, only in cohorts inclined to follow the law (however idiotic or ill advised the law may be). Among cohorts not so inclined, these policies have no effect whatsoever.
Much to the dismay of law-makers, criminals remain uninhibited in their criminality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Well it is about mental health because mentally healthy people don’t do this.
We'd like to think so. But the evidence doesn't exactly bear that out.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
Why did non Spiritual Christianity win out over gnosticism?
The gnostics had a lot of radical ideas. Many of those radical ideas threatened church power, but the gnostics were significantly divided among themselves. They were not only outsiders (relative to Nicene Christianity), but outsiders who could not coordinate effectively among themselves. Catholic theology won out, as a result. But that didn't happen until the 4th century, after the Roman Empire's decline (which also probably had something to do with why the gnostics declined at the rate they did).
Created:
Posted in:
Once you have learned what an argument from ignorance is, we may proceed. Perhaps.
Created:
Posted in:
For you to act as if you have insight superior to mine into the meaning of the words I used to communicate is beneath idiocy. You are informed of what I said, because I said it. And if you had any doubt as to what I said, I clarified despite the fact that there was no objective reason for me to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's a common tactic for 2A advocates to address each gun safety proposal one by one, and then because each individual proposal fails on it's own to completely solve the issue, argue no proposal is worth pursuing.
That is such a nonsensical, incoherent interpretation of what I have said. I question whether we are even speaking in a mutually intelligible language at times. I have not argued that any policy that fails to "completely" solve a purported crisis must be rejected. Rather, the examples I laid out above stand for the proposition that it is unequivocally wrong to simply assume that anything you come up with will actually achieve anything at all in the way of bringing about intended results.
So, based on your discussion above, your understanding of what even is a "fallacy" is suspect, if not questionable. There is, however, a name for precisely the species of fallacious reasoning you're engaging in here: the appeal to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance (also known as an "argument from ignorance") argues that a proposition must be true because it has not been proven false or there appears to be no evidence against it. It's the same nonsense every single time there's a high profile incident involving guns, and what the so called president is arguing right now. Let's put this in your ballpark, so we're both on the same page, though.
The gun control argument from ignorance is this: "If by implementing [policy (x)], we intend to achieve [result (a)], then [policy (x)] must necessarily achieve [result (a)]."
. . . even though there is no evidence whatsoever that [result (a)] actually will result from [policy (x)].
And that is why these discussions are so unsatisfying. For the same reason, they will always be unsatisfying to you, because you either flat-out refuse, or are otherwise incapable, of distinguishing between the concept of an "intent" and a "result." Thomas Sowell explained it in as simple a way as can be described, which I am pretty sure I've either linked here or in a related thread before.
It is possible this concept is so abstract it can't be grasped by lay people. I guess I have to make room for that possibility. After all, for inexplicable reasons, lay people --- on the left at least --- always seem to think not only that the proper response to any purported crisis is to "solve" by passing legislation at the national level, but to assume that the purported crisis itself even can be solved at the national level, or by any level of government. That is all such incalculably myopic stupidity.
Then, if anyone even tries to break down the problem into component parts that might possibly, to some very limited extent be solved at that or any other level of government, the left-wing response is always the same: "You don't want [result (a)], therefore you're a bad person!" It's either "support my stupid, half-baked political idea" or "die in a fire."
I assume I've already lost you by now. Like, if you're even following along at this point . . . I'd be shocked.
No one is claiming any individual fix will stop all mass shootings, we don't judge progress by perfection.
No, we judge progress by measurable change --- which remains unachieved, to the extent tried, anywhere under comparable conditions. Your fallacy is also to assume that by doing the same failed thing over and over again, a different result might be achieved on one of those occasions.
Outlawing guns or adding hoops to jump through makes them harder to get.
I legitimately do not care because your arguments are incoherent. If you want to address gun violence, come up with a policy for which there is evidence to support the probability of its success. Such evidence does not include innuendo, speculation or other partisan nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm okay with removing the 2nd amendment from the US Constitution
It turns out that you have no power whatsoever to limit the scope of other's constitutional rights. And frankly, what a great country we live in for that to be so.
On the subject of gun violence, everything you have written is no more than shallow partisan gobbledygook on your best day. In reality, it's speculative nonsense that repeats the same errors the illiterate have made when and to the extent they have attempted to implement technocratic changes at the policy level to redress social issues. Frankly, I don't see anything that might suggest you understand any aspect of this issue at any level.
Suppose we implement background checks across the board, in response to the demands of democrats to "close" the so called "gun show loophole" --- which is in fact no such thing. Then what? The most recent school shooting involved a passed background check, before the transaction in which the shooter purchased the gun was complete.
Assuming I'm still playing in your ballpark, you next should argue that clearly the current background checks are inadequate because they allowed this person to purchase one. Ok, then what would adequate background checks look like? We could have that debate, but you'd get lost in the weeds because we both know you don't understand the technology involved.
So maybe you drop the background checks issue, and you concede you really just want to make it harder to buy guns. Ok then, what about all the guns in circulation? Even if you prevented all future commercial sales of guns in this country, there are more than a billion of them floating around in civilian/private ownership alone. You're going to try and seize them? Good luck.
Blah blah blah . . . .
Etc. Etc. Etc.
And so, let's just skip to the end. On your best day, after we do that dance a few times on whatever pops into your brain in the moment, you then have to go straight for the "end the second amendment" approach, which I think is your ultimate position anyway since you're only talking about background checks as a pretext to facilitate that end. Once more, it turns out that you can't do that, for at least the same reason I said above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
why not for all purchases ?
Oh, yeah. Just give it time. Google "programmable digital currency," and despair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
welcome to "pre-crime"
We're a lot closer to a Minority Report-type predictive capability than most people realize. The problem is that the technology involved in making those predictions can, at best, has a lot of problems. First among them: it simply doesn't work as advertised. California's former bail model is a really excellent example. China's social credit score works in similar ways. Big data aggregators do similar things too.
I think most people who are familiar with the technology understand these challenges. It's the people who try to advertise or sell it that don't.
Here's a sampling of them. The language here is meant only to illustrate the concepts. There are specific, technical terms for the same but I'll leave that for another day.
- Over-inclusivity. Over-inclusivity means that of the set you identified, only a subset of the data-points you found were what you were actually looking for. So, that means that even to whatever extent you got it right, you also got it wrong a lot of the time too. This issue can be analogized to commercial fishing, involving casting a wide net and gathering more bycatch than fish you actually sought to catch.
- Under-inclusivity. Under-inclusivity means that of the set you searched, you only managed to actually identify a subset of what you were actually looking for. So, this means that to whatever extent you got it right, you failed to identify a lot more than you should have, which means you got it wrong a lot the time too. This issue can be analogized to looking for your lost keys under a street light because that's where the light is, even though you can't remember where you might have lost them. Even if you found something, you'll never be able to see anything beyond the narrow scope of what was initially illuminated.
- Mis-identification. Mis-identification means that of the set you searched, the things you found that you thought were what you were looking for, in fact were not what you were looking for. So, that means that to whatever extent you might have thought you got it right, on closer examination you actually got it wrong at least some if not most or all of the time. Think of this as buying a big bag of quarters, but measuring the quarters by volume rather than weight. Then when you get home to inspect your purchase, half the quarters are Canadian.
- Non-identification. Non-identification means that of the set you searched, the things you were looking for --- though within the scope of your data set --- were not identified as such. So, that means that to whatever extent you could potentially have gotten it right, you failed to do so at least some, most or maybe even all of the time. Think of this as trying to find race-based oppression, but only identifying a bunch of upper-middle class white girls at Berkeley who identify as "trans-racial," while failing to take note of Oakland's public high schools.
There is no evidence background checks reduce gun violence, or ever could do so. Even if there was, people need to seriously question whether implementing the infrastructure necessary to do it adequately is something we want to have in this country. Because it looks like China's social credit score.
Created:
The current "debate" over abortion in the United States is almost entirely nonsensical.
As the "leaked" draft opinion correctly indicates, abortion is not a historical norm of any kind in this country. Nor is it a constitutional right. That entire line of jurisprudence which found otherwise has instantiated this political disaster, inflaming the public on solely grounds without reprieve.
Roe was legislation from the bench, by definition. Perhaps that set of policies has some merit, as Cass Sunstein suspected after the opinion initially issued so many years ago. From at least one perspective, I am sympathetic to it. For example, while constitutionally unavailing, Roe served as a check against state power in defense of privacy and liberty. Limiting the state's power is something I will always support.
But again, this is policy. And as policy, Roe is for the legislatures of the several states --- and not the federal judiciary. It is not, contrary to the vapid speculation from the Biden administration, a matter for the federal legislature, either. Not under the commerce clause or otherwise (the commerce clause being yet another means by which the federal government's imperialism has undermined our Republican governmental structure).
For all their sound and fury, I have yet to hear any voice objecting to merit of the argument. Rather, their "arguments" (and I use that term loosely) focus exclusively on some misguided notion that "abortion" will become "illegal."
Abortion will not become "illegal." Rather, the terms under which it may be legally permissible will be decided by the states, in much the same way that gun rights, certain criminal matters (like consumption of marijuana) and other health care rights are already regulated.
Those who inflict their outrage would do well to understand what they purport to have such strong opinions on, before inflicting their views on others.
Created:
This is deranged.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think Mayorkas should be disbarred for other reasons.
I think appointing Jankowicz is a reflection of what we've become.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
yeah I've seen that argument and it's not persuasive
if I was being paid, I'd argue the point ... but I'm not so I won't sorry
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
> When people like that get rank, they'll use it to unfairly promote others of their ilk (and of course help their buddies avoid punishment).
I agree. Hope that isn't pervasive as I think it is in the military, but I've been hearing very bad things for a long time now. The same thing is true of companies, law firms and other public organizations. There is no surer way to kill an organization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Why were you not allowed to carry a handgun? That's bizarre.
I've never fired an FN Scar, but they look neat in video games.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You have repeatedly talked past me. You ignored my point, and tried to turn it into what you were saying --- which was totally different. At this point I can't tell whether you actually don't understand the difference between what I said and what you wrote, or whether this is some idiotic game of yours.
Either way, you have on at least three occasions now indicated your refusal to deal in good faith here.
Come correct or stay home.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Biden absolutely has the authority to cancel student debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Rumors are swirling that Biden is considering canceling a large portion, or potentially all, of federal student debt.
It will never happen. Ever. It's a complete pipe dream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Sorry. I just don't take your thoughts on this matter seriously enough to expend the time to respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Your creative reimagination of what I said is not, and will never be, consistent with, implied by or otherwise acquiesced based on, what I said.
Clearly you think what I said is hypocritical. Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, which isn't working out as you'd hoped, why not just try to make your argument? Why not just make your case, instead of undertaking this bad faith nonsense?
Is making the argument too hard? Are you incapable? Is the only way you can "win" by acting dishonestly?
Come on, man.
Created:
Atlas Shrugged is better than The Fountainhead.
Created:
Even if speech is sometimes an act, the mere utterance of words is never "violence." The political left's inability to distinguish between words and violence is a learned cognitive deficit.
Created:
In the decade's most benevolent act of corporate charity, Elon Musk threw failed social media giant Twitter its last lifeline.
Musk's takeover, costing more than $40 billion USD, is the last hope for Twitter.
Yet, left-wing activists and hypocrites the world over, wretch at the prospect of "platforming" so-called "deplorables," including former president Donald Trump. They complain that the leadership changes will herald a new dawn of harassment, that is both psychologically and socially destructive. According to alleged "research," on Twitter in particular "we need some sort of online regulation of harassing speech."
One such hypocrite of the feckless and dishonest variety, Taylor Lorenz, reportedly indicated that if appropriate such regulations were in place, she would have avoided "severe PTSD" following criticism from Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald," in addition to "really bad" suicidal ideation.
Raving lunatic Robert Reich also cheered with glee when Twitter banned Trump, but now scoffs at the prospect of Twitter's loss of power to censor political views to which he objects.
Will Elon Musk take the now-slowly-dying Twitter private?
Will Elon Musk fire the current CEO and disband the Board?
We can only hope.
Created: