ldsuttonjr wrote:
How is that possible you might ask? Well, you have done everything in your power to destroy our country. From tearing down the police to tearing down our history, to tearing down our borders.
While the rhetoric of "tearing down the police" revs up the troops, the actual intent was to relieve the police of being social workers having to deal with domestic violence and mental issues. To do this, the intent was to create teams within the police to deal with these issues, not to totally disband the police forces. That would be folly.
As for tearing down our history, I assume that you mean the taking down of Confederate statues. I don't agree with that, but neither do I agree with the teaching of history that whitewashes the reasons behind the Civil War and the fact of s***ery. The statuary can be (in context) a teaching moment to keep another Civil War from happening.
As for border protection, I (and most people) don't agree with open borders, but we have to face reality. Much of the reason for people trying to gain entry to our country is economic, and since we did away with the Bracero (migrant farm labor) program, many farms have had to rely on undocumented labor to bring the crops to the market, since most Americans don't want to do the backbreaking manual labor involved in harvesting lettuce or picking tomatos.
Quote:
From systematically destroying our schools and brainwashing our kids into believing socialism is the answer to anything (despite being an unmitigated failure everywhere) while demonizing religion and faith, and glorifying a******n, violence, and thug culture.
I think that you are overplaying your hand when you say that the country is "destroying our schools and brainwashing our kids". The schools are almost totally controlled by the local school boards, who are elected by the populations of those localities. If there is blame to be placed on the quality of education, it is with those elected officials, not with a political party. The educational system has been "dumbed down" for the last fifty years, discarding cultural classes, eliminating political science and government education, and concentrating on STEM issues to the detrement of the society as a whole. Unbridled socialism is not an answer any more than unbridled capitalism is one. The middle road is the only way it works, and there are vocal fringes on both sides of the issue. There has to be compromise on what the kids get taught in order to be good citizens.
I think that "demonizing religion and faith" is a bit of an overreach. I tend to believe that there are certain moral values that all faiths and belief systems hold in common, and once we exceed those common beliefs, the government should stay out of trying to mandate those to the country at large.
As for "glorifying a******n, violence, and thug culture", both sides are guilty of keeping this front and center. A******n is considered by most as a personal issue, and the rift centers on when life begins … which many differ on that point. But that's a whole different discussion.
The violence comes from two sources: one being the issue of police brutality primarily against black citizens, and the other by (as you call them) "thugs" who just want to wreak havoc and destroy things for the hell of it. One is somewhat justified, considering the centuries of oppression that b****s have suffered in this country. Are there extremists in the B*M movement? Of course. Are there r****ts in the opposite camp? Absolutely. But the vast majority of both side just want an end to both the police brutality and the violence/thuggery.
Quote:
From calling us r****ts every time we expect everyone of any skin color to follow our laws equally, to telling us that our “tolerance” of lifestyles we don’t agree with isn’t nearly enough — no we must “celebrate” any lifestyle choice or g****r option (forget science) you throw in our direction or you think it’s fine to calls us h********c or some other degrading slur you decide is okay to call us — ironically all while lecturing us on h**e speech.
I'm not sure that your expectation of e******y under the law is the same as that of most Americans. There is s******c r****m in both the judicial system and in the economic system that works against minority populations. If you think otherwise, then you probably have r****t tendencies.
As for alternate lifestyles, nobody is forcing them down your throat. I don't think that anyone is forcing you to "celebrate" a lifestyle you don't agree with. You are perfectly free to not associate with them and hold their beliefs in contempt, so long as neither of you has an upper hand in the public square. Mere tolerance would be the minimum, but neither they nor you should be able to suppress their ability to live their lives as they wish.
When h********c pastors or network pundits rant on lifestyles they don't like (primarily on religious grounds), that can devolve into h**e speech, just as easily as an agnostic or atheist could spout off against religious believers … both can be h**eful, and both are protected under the Constitution.
Quote:
We’re also not interested in the fact that you think you can unilaterally decide that 250 years of the right-to-bear-arms against a tyrannical or ineffective government should be abolished because you can’t get the violence in the cities you manage under control.
If you read the Second Amendment, the full clause reads "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the part about a "well-regulated m*****a". At the time, every male citizen was the army, and they drilled in the town square every weekend. They were a 'well-regulated m*****a'. They had officers, and knew what the limits on their conduct were. In the aftermath of the Civil War, a standing army was instituted, but the amendment still held, even though there were no longer town and state m*****as, per se. The National Guard eventually took their place. What has been lost is the fact that the intent was to regulate the holding of firearms that have become mass casualty enablers to some kind of control.
I personally have no problem with sporting rifles and revolvers for self-defense, but having four AK-47's, two Glock semi-auto 9 mils, and a rocket launcher in your basement without your being 'well regulated' is somewhat of a stretch. If you happen to go off the rails and use these weapons to destroy large numbers of people, there's something wrong with the system. No, I'm not advocating that "they're coming to take your guns away". But I do not believe that weapons of war should be available to the general public.
I've taken up too much space already, except to say that much of the rest of the post is exaggeration in my opinion. But these points that I have rebutted stand on their own merits.
As always, your mileage may vary.