The Right Has A Really Screwed Up Understanding Of What Exoneration Is (Page 10): SYBIL...

BIRDMAN

permafrost wrote:

Gosh, crazy.. you truly need to leave your bubble now and then.. you are going away faster then you should..

SYBIL

American Vet

permafrost wrote:

Gosh, crazy.. you truly need to leave your bubble now and then.. you are going away faster then you should..

What are your thoughts on these ‘obvious facts’ you ignorant ape?

Unprecedented inflation rates (just “temporary”)
Southern border crisis – flooded with i*****l a***ns and f******l
Sending billions to Iran
Afghan debacle – leaving American allies and equipment to the Taliban
Return to energy dependence – having to beg the Saudi’s to produce more
Sending our oil reserves to China
Crime surge
War on parents
Crazy l*****t policies (“birthing people”)
Pathetic foreign policy – weapons sent to Ukraine ending up on the black market
Wanted to have a “Ministry of T***h”
Looks for dead Congress critters

Oh wait - you will use your usual response of some weak insults as opposed to addressing the issues. Pretty pathetic - but you are entirely too stupid to try and think of anything else.

BIRDMAN

American Vet wrote:

B What are your thoughts on these ‘obvious facts’... (show quote)

Sorry I’ll tell you his thoughts. It’s Trump’s fault. I’ve never seen somebody with such a bad case of TDS.

robertv3

permafrost wrote:

You could not be more wrong.. Or maybe as a right ... (show quote)

Politically "Conservative" would correspond to trying to keep the status quo, or to be apathetic about changing anything, so they would have continued to be ruled by King George of England.

This is my opinions (plus some logic, plus digesting the news), but it seems logical that politically "Conservative", which so often means "maintain status quo", would correspond to maintaining the rule of King George in that time, since that was the status quo.

( (editing): However, I have to qualify what I mean about status quos. Politically Conservative people have a tendency to be "socially conservative"; but they don't mind dismantling, damaging, or o*******wing a democracy here or elsewhere. The status quos that political Conservatives tend to rally behind are the things that let privileges remain where they are (the rich stay rich or get ever richer) and that would have society remaining like it was in the 50s or wh**ever their generation thinks were the good old days, rather than to let it change.
)

Political "Conservatives" of today talk about "freedom" but that talk seems relatively vague, empty, or meaningless alongside their stronger characteristic of trying to maintain status quos (of privilege and social orders). Freedom for Kyle Rittenhouse to carry a gun anywhere (typical of the kind of gun freedom that the vocal political Conservatives tend to favor) tends to result in injuries and effectively less real freedom for some other people to be out on the streets safely. So when Conservatives talk about "freedom" it's not clear that they mean real freedom for everybody. But the desire to maintain status quos (of privilege and of society) seems more clearly a characteristic of political Conservatives.

"Democrats of the south" -- yes, I think that when the KKK was starting up, the political party most aligned with it in the South was called the Democrat party. And yes, "h**e groups" and groups somewhat like the KKK _these_ days tend to be closer to the Republican party now rather than the Democrat party now. Either the KKK-like groups moved from Democrat to Republican, or more likely the old Democrat party of the South evolved into a different kind of Democrat party and the Republican party evolved into a different kind of Republican party.

BIRDMAN

robertv3 wrote:

Politically "Conservative" would correspond to trying to keep the status quo, or to be apathetic about changing anything, so they would have continued to be ruled by King George of England.

This is my opinions (plus some logic, plus digesting the news), but it seems logical that politically "Conservative", which so often means "maintain status quo", would correspond to maintaining the rule of King George in that time, since that was the status quo.

( (editing): However, I have to qualify what I mean about status quos. Politically Conservative people have a tendency to be "socially conservative"; but they don't mind dismantling, damaging, or o*******wing a democracy here or elsewhere. The status quos that political Conservatives tend to rally behind are the things that let privileges remain where they are (the rich stay rich or get ever richer) and that would have society remaining like it was in the 50s or wh**ever their generation thinks were the good old days, rather than to let it change.
)

Political "Conservatives" of today talk about "freedom" but that talk seems relatively vague, empty, or meaningless alongside their stronger characteristic of trying to maintain status quos. Freedom for Kyle Rittenhouse to carry a gun anywhere (typical of the kind of gun freedom that the vocal political Conservatives tend to favor) tends to result in injuries and effectively less real freedom for some other people to be out on the streets safely. So when Conservatives talk about "freedom" it's not clear that they mean real freedom for everybody. But the desire to maintain status quos seems more clearly a characteristic of political Conservatives.

"Democrats of the south" -- yes, I think that when the KKK was starting up, the political party most aligned with it in the South was called the Democrat party. And yes, "h**e groups" and groups somewhat like the KKK _these_ days tend to be closer to the Republican party now rather than the Democrat party now. Either the KKK-like groups moved from Democrat to Republican, or more likely the old Democrat party of the South evolved into a different kind of Democrat party and the Republican party evolved into a different kind of Republican party.

img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

robertv3 wrote:

Politically "Conservative" would correspond to trying to keep the status quo, or to be apathetic about changing anything, so they would have continued to be ruled by King George of England.

This is my opinions (plus some logic, plus digesting the news), but it seems logical that politically "Conservative", which so often means "maintain status quo", would correspond to maintaining the rule of King George in that time, since that was the status quo.

( (editing): However, I have to qualify what I mean about status quos. Politically Conservative people have a tendency to be "socially conservative"; but they don't mind dismantling, damaging, or o*******wing a democracy here or elsewhere. The status quos that political Conservatives tend to rally behind are the things that let privileges remain where they are (the rich stay rich or get ever richer) and that would have society remaining like it was in the 50s or wh**ever their generation thinks were the good old days, rather than to let it change.
)

Political "Conservatives" of today talk about "freedom" but that talk seems relatively vague, empty, or meaningless alongside their stronger characteristic of trying to maintain status quos (of privilege and social orders). Freedom for Kyle Rittenhouse to carry a gun anywhere (typical of the kind of gun freedom that the vocal political Conservatives tend to favor) tends to result in injuries and effectively less real freedom for some other people to be out on the streets safely. So when Conservatives talk about "freedom" it's not clear that they mean real freedom for everybody. But the desire to maintain status quos (of privilege and of society) seems more clearly a characteristic of political Conservatives.

"Democrats of the south" -- yes, I think that when the KKK was starting up, the political party most aligned with it in the South was called the Democrat party. And yes, "h**e groups" and groups somewhat like the KKK _these_ days tend to be closer to the Republican party now rather than the Democrat party now. Either the KKK-like groups moved from Democrat to Republican, or more likely the old Democrat party of the South evolved into a different kind of Democrat party and the Republican party evolved into a different kind of Republican party.

img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)

Well stated and very clear.. thank you... I very much agree with your analyses..

BIRDMAN

permafrost wrote:

Well stated and very clear.. thank you... I very much agree with your analyses..

SYBIL

Slapyomomma Loc: Lone Star State

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

I have one right now needs testing. I'll be happy to donate it for testing, but I would like it back. Hickory makes good kindling if it fails the test.

Deal!! I'll be sure to not make contact with the frontal lobe area..... Extra thick on the caveDems

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

American Vet wrote:

B What are your thoughts on these ‘obvious facts’... (show quote)

Don't be too hard on permie he doesn't care how many i******s come across the border just as long as there are enough to get the USA fundamentally changed into a one party government socialist nation.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

robertv3 wrote:

You wrote: "All v**er laws are, by definition, v**er suppression laws." But: What about v****g rights laws? For example, there's "the V****g Rights Act of 1965". How would you characterize that law? I don't think it's a "v**er suppression law", but it is a "v**er law" in that it's about v**ers and v****g. It actually outlaws some v**er suppression.

There are exceptions to every rule. However, I would characterize the V**er Rights Act as an anti-discrimination act rather than a v**er rights act. Written to protect certain minorities from certain state's discriminatory laws, regardless of the name of the law.

The V**er Rights Act was done to give lawmakers the power to enforce the 15th Amendment. It was 95 years too late but at least it was done. A law to reign in and control some state's actions that were unconstitutional according to the 15th Amendment. Not an law controlling or not controlling v**ers. It was a anti-discrimination law rather than a v**er law. It was written against states that had passed many Jim Crow Laws that targeted certain minorities specifically to make v****g more difficult. It was a law to protect minority v**ers rights already given to them in the 15th Amendment.

Democrats have tried to distort that amendment and the 1965 law and expand the interpretation to be overly broad, first to suppress, then to expand, as Democrats are prone to do, and include things such as v**er ID's or v**er convenience. Which was not the purpose or intent of the law or the 15th Amendment.

robertv3

Strycker wrote:

There are exceptions to every rule. However, I wou... (show quote)

Thank you for that post. I don't really agree with some of it, but at least it's a mostly sensible post, obviously with some thought behind it.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

robertv3 wrote:

Politically "Conservative" would correspond to trying to keep the status quo, or to be apathetic about changing anything, so they would have continued to be ruled by King George of England.

This is my opinions (plus some logic, plus digesting the news), but it seems logical that politically "Conservative", which so often means "maintain status quo", would correspond to maintaining the rule of King George in that time, since that was the status quo.

( (editing): However, I have to qualify what I mean about status quos. Politically Conservative people have a tendency to be "socially conservative"; but they don't mind dismantling, damaging, or o*******wing a democracy here or elsewhere. The status quos that political Conservatives tend to rally behind are the things that let privileges remain where they are (the rich stay rich or get ever richer) and that would have society remaining like it was in the 50s or wh**ever their generation thinks were the good old days, rather than to let it change.
)

Political "Conservatives" of today talk about "freedom" but that talk seems relatively vague, empty, or meaningless alongside their stronger characteristic of trying to maintain status quos (of privilege and social orders). Freedom for Kyle Rittenhouse to carry a gun anywhere (typical of the kind of gun freedom that the vocal political Conservatives tend to favor) tends to result in injuries and effectively less real freedom for some other people to be out on the streets safely. So when Conservatives talk about "freedom" it's not clear that they mean real freedom for everybody. But the desire to maintain status quos (of privilege and of society) seems more clearly a characteristic of political Conservatives.

"Democrats of the south" -- yes, I think that when the KKK was starting up, the political party most aligned with it in the South was called the Democrat party. And yes, "h**e groups" and groups somewhat like the KKK _these_ days tend to be closer to the Republican party now rather than the Democrat party now. Either the KKK-like groups moved from Democrat to Republican, or more likely the old Democrat party of the South evolved into a different kind of Democrat party and the Republican party evolved into a different kind of Republican party.

img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)

The Detailed R****t History (And Present) Of The Democrat Party
The Democratic Party’s History of R****m
Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History
Democrats & Jim Crow: A Century of R****t History the Democratic Party Prefers You’d Forget
The Dark History of the Democratic Party
The Secret R****t History of the Democratic Party
Democrats: The Party of S******c R****m
(book) The True And Detailed R****t History Of The Democrat Party: 1830-2020

Violent Crime Skyrockets by 25 Percent under Biden's Watch
Biden's Crime Crisis
As Biden’s America becomes less safe, the violence and crime could cost Democrats
Record Homicides: Joe Biden Crime Surge
Trump vs Biden: Gun violence in Joe Biden's US sees a sharp escalation
Daily Beast: Biden Had It Right on Crime—in 1993. He’s in Trouble Now.
If violent crime rates keep rising like they have over the last year,
it will reaffirm long-held stereotypes about bleeding-heart liberalism.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris created this crime wave, now they must fix it

Joe Biden – The Mass Shooting President
According to CNN, the e******n of Joe Biden has set off a world record of mass shooting events in the USA that the world has never seen before, with “at least 147 mass shootings across the country since Joe took office – at least 45 such events in just the past 30-days.”

611 Mass Shootings Recorded So Far In 2022—Second-Worst Year For Gun Violence In Almost A Decade
Fact: Mass shootings soar since Joe Biden took office