straightUp Loc: California

Laugh all you want fool.


Wow, that's clever.


Uh... most people DO have reasons for doing things.


I love how you people are so willing to post your ignorance.


They defend people who ASK to be defended and they are constitutional lawyers... I suppose you think the U.S.Constitution is a communist plot, right?


Is this really the example you're going to use? Because it proves you're an idiot. It's not unconstitutional to evict a tenant from your property if said tenant isn't paying the rent but it *IS* unconstitutional to take legal actions against people based on their religion. You obviously can't see this objectively because your whole effort is to pile on assumptions about these people that you simply can't prove... The nice old lady that does no wrong and the "dangerous" Muslims (that want to terrorize American travelers) as if you you can read their minds.


They don't need to ask. Money is pouring in from people who believe in what they are doing. Especially since Trump got elected. (Thanks Trump!) The fact is, the ACLU is one of the few organizations that consistently defended American freedom. Not even the military can make that claim.


Thank you for telling us all about NAMBLA. Just so you know, I'm not into man-boy relationships but if that's your thing and you want to spread the word (which you just did) I will stand up for your right to talk about it because I advocate the freedom of speech. We have laws against underage sex, so I hope you can control yourself but I *will* stand up for your right to "talk" about it.

This is exactly what the ACLU case in MA was all about. The ACLU was NOT protecting the sexual exploits that NAMBLA advocates, in fact if you read the case, they clearly indicated their opposition to it. What the ACLU was defending was their right to free speech. This is one of the more difficult things to do... protect a persons right to talk about things you disagree with and that's why the ACLU is one of the few organizations with the integrity to do so. The ACLU has also defended the right to free speech on behalf of several white supremacist organizations... if THAT isn't a test of constitutional integrity... You sure as shit won't find anyone on the right protecting an opinion they disagree with.


The key here is "suspected". Have you ever heard the term "innocent until proven guilty?" The ACLU was defending the people who were not yet proven guilty and were being denied their constitutional rights by a piece of shit president.

My children, who like me live in America, are not any more scared of terrorism than I am. We all know we are far more likely to die from industrial pollution (200,000 deaths per year in the U.S.) than terrorism (6 deaths per year in the U.S). Then again, we use our brains to figure this shit out. We don't fall for the fear-tactics like all you chicken-shits on the right do


I suppose it would seem that way to a boy-banging moron like yourself.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Yada Yada yada. What's wrong with nationalism? Am I wrong for being a proud American? Am I wrong for clinging to my Texas heritage?
Are you wrong for wanting to impose your liberal California formula for right, and wrong on me? Yes. You are.

The entire country isn't California. Maybe it's time we split up. Leave each to their own.

straightUp Loc: California

I said "militant nationalism"... there's a difference and that's why I was being specific.


No more than someone being a proud homosexual... I personally don't understand it. I prefer to call myself a "grateful American" because I'm grateful to be living here where I can succeed on my merits and live in relative safety. Not everyone is so lucky. But I can't see the point in saying I'm proud about being born somewhere. That just sounds stupid to me. I'm proud of my success in business... I'm proud of being able to raise a family, but proud to be born somewhere? I dunno, I kinda think that credit goes to my parents. But that's just me, I don't see a problem with you being a proud American if that's how you feel.


Not anymore than a Muslim clinging to his.


Show me where I am imposing ANYTHING on you. I started this thread in the spirit of resistance not oppression and it's that call for resistance that you took offense to. What is that telling us?
Any concept of right and wrong that I have expounded during the course of this conversation is derived from the U.S.Constitution. I believe that document presides over the entire union including Texas.


I would LOVE that. In fact, I've made several posts over the years on this site, promoting the idea of a sovereign California Republic. There's been a lot of "Calexit" talk since our 100% Democratic government has been telling Trump to fuck off. It's very uplifting.

Seriously, 350 million people is far too many for a functioning democracy, the representation sucks. Breaking from the union would bring it down to just 34 million for us. So from a representational stand point we'd be a lot better off. So would Texas if you left the union. So would ANY state for that matter. The problem for most states would be economic but our states are among the very few that can stand on it's own economically. California would qualify for membership in the G8.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

What about the conservative people there?

JW

straightUp wrote:
Oh really? So only conservatives are allowed to define American values? Is that it?

So you start with more typical Liberal deflection by specious argumentation. I didn’t say anyone got to define America’s values. I said Liberals don’t have that authority. The whole point of American values is personal and national life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those things were defined as America came into being. There are some very fundamental requirements for maintaining those things in society and those too, are American values, self reliance, respect for another’s needs, and bowing to the rule of law.

straightUp wrote:
Yes, you have that right, as much as you think we don't. I think a big problem here is that you really don't know what our values are. Certainly, the prevalence of lies on the right about liberals being communists confirms this.

More specious bullshit. It would probably be best that you not attempt putting words in my mouth. Unless I tell you what I think, you have no means of knowing. I have never said Liberals were Communists; Progressives clearly are Marxists as is anyone who subscribes to the idea that society OWES anything to those who haven’t the willingness or ability to provide for themselves. Social largesse is a trait of an advancing humanity but it is by no means society’s obligation nor is it the obligation of any individual. That goes to self-reliance.

straightUp wrote:
Traditional American culture *IS* my culture. If you think yours is different then I don't know what to tell you.

Really? Traditional American culture is fundamentally Judeo-Christian and English common law based. Abortion, homosexuality, atheism and many other Leftist peccadilloes are not a part of Judeo-Christian philosophy or to be found in English common law. You have supported such things in the past on this board so I must assume that is what you include in your “traditional” culture.

I am agnostic and pro-choice so I recognize that my views are not entirely traditional. I do not claim traditional American values because some of my views are clearly not traditional.

I am not suggesting that you need to give up your points of view that happen to be contrary to fundamental American values but you are required by personal integrity to acknowledge that your values are hardly traditionally American. Failing that, at least intellectual honesty demands that acknowledgement.

The Right wants to reinstil traditional American values into the public spirit. They have every right to try.

In the event that you elect to point out that American culture includes freedom of Religion; American law supports freedom of religion but American culture does not, outside of the legal mandate.

straightUp wrote:
And yet it's your side that insists on establishing rules about who people can marry, what women can do to their bodies, what people are allowed to consume... If that's not subjugation what is? So don't don't talk to me about hypocrisy when you're so blatantly guilty of your own accusations.

Apparently you don’t understand the concept of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is condemning in others what is commonly your own doing.

Regulation of human behavior is a function of culture and the law. America is founded on Judeo-Christian priniciples. There is no hypocrisy in complying with America’s founding principles.

Hypocrisy is perverting American culture and calling it ‘traditional’.

straightUp wrote:
…they keep asking Congress to add new laws to force people into compliance with the way they think everyone should live. That doesn't happen on the left... unless you count our proposals that everyone pitch in and help the less fortunate... an idea which you folks seem to hate with a passion. Which is weird because you folks claim to be such good Christians, so I wouldn't think helping the less fortunate would be such a violation of "your" culture.

Point one: Christians are always willing to help the less fortunate. Conservatives resent being forced to contribute their earnings to failed programs that produce no positive results for society for the money invested.

Point two: The Right doesn’t try to pass laws to force people to live in ways of the Right’s choosing. The Right tries to pass laws to negate the perversion of American society that seems to be the goal of the Left. Passing laws to protect traditional values is the right of anyone, just as attempting to change them is also the right of anyone. What the people want should be reflected in the prime society not dictated by some unelected activist judge.

straightUp wrote:
… we've learned that you aren't willing to let people live how they want.

Once more, live as you choose but allow others who disagree with you to live as they choose. That means, if you choose a lifestyle that is repugnant to me, stay the Hell out of my life. If my choices are repugnant to you, I will happily stay out of yours.

straightUp wrote:
I wish it were that easy.

It is that easy. We owe each other nothing except obedience to the law. I owe you no wedding cakes, no wedding photography, no apartment, nothing beyond ordinary courtesy excepting the dictates of the law.

You owe me the same. I am entirely satisfied with that. You should be as well.

straightUp wrote:
The reality is that most of the GDP in this country comes from "blue" regions not "red" ones. Your fantasy, which I'm very familiar with, is based on the misconception that we are anti-business, which is not true and that we are all "looking for free stuff" which is not true either.

Well, that is not entirely true. But what is true is that almost all of the food produced in this country comes from red states.

How about we do this: You stop shipping us goods you produce. We stop shipping you what we produce. We won’t lack for medical attention or consumer goods. We’ll be able to move into the blue parts of the country in about two months.

straightUp wrote:
…Give me ONE actual example of ANY of the assertions you've made.... in your own words ( I don't want to follow some link to some virus infested fake news site).

I’m not sure what assertions you are referring to;

That you insist on subjugating the Right? Forcing homosexuality into the mainstream of society by force of law. Fining Christian businesses out of existence for following their faith. Murdering police officers. Destroying industries by EPA regulation. Destroying businesses and lives by rioting. Attempting to destroy the Trump Presidency.

The rest, if any, I have addressed in this response.

PeterS

Hey, whatever it takes to get people out to vote. People need to understand that 50.1% will win any election.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

Yea , keep that approach ,, it worked out so well for ya last Nov. looking forward to 2018 .. Thank you .. You guys are the best ,, Goooo Hillary !

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

I applaud your comment , well said .

straightUp Loc: California

You mean the largest population of conservatives in the union? They would also be the luckiest. But if they want to move to Nevada or Idaho they can. If they want to stay in California they can do that too. California breaking free doesn't mean the conservatives won't have a voice anymore. In fact, California conservatives often win elections. How else do you think California runs into budget problems?

straightUp Loc: California

Exactly... which is why I responded the way I did to your equally specious argument that lefties "don't define American values". That is exactly what you said, you hypocrite. It just so happens that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ARE the values that liberals hold in highest esteem. In fact these values were established by a group of Whigs (liberal colonists) who were writing a declaration of independence from the mother country that the Tories (conservatives colonists) remained loyal to (monarchy being a traditional value at the time). All this 20th century nonsense about liberals being authoritarians is derived from decades of right-wing brainwashing through talk radio, conservative publications and more recently right-wing web sites most of which is sponsored by corporate interests... the same cooperate interests in fact that Jefferson warned us about when he said ... "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." Which is exactly what contemporary conservatives that think the government should be run like a business are allowing.


You can call it what you want, but it's true and you know it.


You can't possibly think that these anonymous conversations are that personal. Get real. You said "Those of us, also American citizens, who see *your* values as detrimental to our way of life..." Is that a personal assessment about me or a generalization about liberals? I don't have time for cheap shots JW. Stick to the points being made.


Progressives are not Marxist and they never were. The idea that society OWES anything to those who haven't the ability to provide for themselves is shared by many, many ideologies throughout history including a number of religious ones (Islam comes to mind). It's a noble concept that is usually promoted by those who take pride in being able to help others in need and it's not perceived as a debt but as a moral obligation. Then you have those who don't want to help others or they don't want to be part of a system that helps others and for obvious reasons they shift the focus onto recipients of aid where they deride them as "unwilling" bums that don't deserve anything. There is no ideology in existence that promotes the idea that bums should be coddled.

Marxism is about giving workers a fair share in there efforts. It comes from a time when workers were exploited, working long hours in horrible conditions for scrip while the owners who were unwilling to take part in the labor took all the profits. So if anything it's a departure from the idea that the unwilling should get anything. Progressives are the American answer to the same problem but instead of giving the factory to the workers, the owner keeps the factory but has to negotiate what is deemed "fair pay" and "fair conditions" with the laborers.

So there's some much needed 101 for ya.

Now, this might blow your mind but this liberal has to go to work, so I'll come back to the rest of your bullshit later.

JW

When you address me, anonymous or not, you address me. If I mean you, I address you. If I generalize, I refer to Liberals or the Left. That is typically how communication is best effected and as for cheap shots, you certainly appear to have time for them. The one you employed above is pretty typical of your responses.

JW

Actually, everyone following Locke or Hobbes was/is a liberal. The Whigs were what today are called Republicans; at the time land owners and businessmen; formally called Republicans after 1860. The Tories were monarchists. The modern sense of terms, liberal and conservative, don't translate directly to colonial times. Spinning them that way is disingenuous.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Too late, Guido! The knuckle-draggers are in charge now and before you know it, we'll have you people digging the Keystone Pipeline by hand.

straightUp Loc: California

But it's not the only thing I have to say.
If you're so familiar with my responses, go back and find how many times I respond with cheap shots and nothing else to go with it. My exception is always the same and I'm always clear about it. I'll return a cheap shot with another one. I can play any rules you want. I'm not fussy.

As for addressing... good to know your quirk, I'll keep it in mind so not to offend you.

As for generalizing... here's what you said...
"Unless I tell you what I think, you have no means of knowing."
See, I actually agree with that.
Which is WHY I would THINK that someone with what SEEMS to be some rational insight, would suggest we should tap words to indicate if we're addressing each other personally. BTW, context is always handy... while discourse tours the cultural perspectives it can be assumed the point being made is about... cultural perspective, not personal traits, right? There's a lot more to language than a big collection of words my friend.

straightUp Loc: California

I agree.


I think you're doing the spinning; or maybe it's just tumbling. ;)

Look as you probably know, Whigs and Tories were parliamentary parties and yes, the Tories were more loyal to the Crown. But the point I want to make is that Tories and Whigs only existed in the colonial era, or at least until John Adams took over. During the colonial era it was the monarch that had the power to grant land. Whether the bequeathed parceled it out from there was his own business but nevertheless, there was a blend of aristocracy extending from these grants that made loyalty to the Crown a good business move. So to actually try and draw a contrast between landowners and monarchists is absurd.

Another irony, I'll point out while I sit down with my Jameson... Setting a Civil War context and suggesting the Republicans, who were very well known to be the political weapon of the North, were somehow the re-branded land owners... Are you not aware that the North was driven by industry (which at the time, required a large population of renters) while the south was driven by agriculture, which requires far fewer of them? Add the fact that all those renters in the cities up north actually vote and it becomes apparent that the land owners in the "Republican North" had diluted votes. Meanwhile in the south, of the few that don't actually own the land, even fewer could actually vote, leaving the land owners there with exceedingly powerful votes. So to imagine the contrast the way you portray it, doesn't line up with logic. It doesn't line up with history either. Historians often portray the North as liberal and the South as conservative. Industry was innovating the future and and the old estates of the south were protecting traditions of the past.

It's interesting that so few people can recognize the political division between the urban and the rural. It started with the Second Industrial Revolution, right around 1860 and it's been, probably the greatest divide ever since. People look at the map and see blue states and red states. It's not really like that at all... Better resolution gives you the real story... it's urban blue and rural red. The "blue states" just have the bigger cities. This has always been the cultural divide. The Republicans were mostly city dwellers, employed by fast moving industry... hungry for more people and more change. The land owners were rural manors with no room for new people, where the last traces of aristocracy lingered and change was resisted. And they called themselves Democrats.

I'm thinking the reason behind your paradox is that today urban power for the most part line up as Democrats while rural power tends to line up as Republican, so there appears to be a twist which did actually happen on the heels of LBJ's "Great Society". This is a fact that is currently being buried by the likes of Jonah Goldberg, so I figure I'd mention it. Otherwise you're just gonna keep trying to fit that square peg in the round hole.

...alright, no offense but I might not get to the rest of yer shit. I want to answer something Archie asked... so far, it's been the best response in this entire thread... He asks a real good question and I haven't responded yet.