Imagine owning Mike Tyson.
This is why some republicans in power are idiots
Posts
Total:
51
-->
@Wylted
you can read ex-slave narratives that were recorded in the new deal era. There are hundreds of them and they are publicly available. Lots of Stockholm syndrome type stuff “my master was so good and kind, he only beat us when he had to!” Reading a lot of those for the first time really blew me away. I guess even slaves are nostalgic for their youth.
I don’t see why anyone would ever defend slavery, even saying something like “the slaves loved their masters” while that was (surprisingly) true in a lot of cases it’s not really in good taste to bring up
-->
@badger
Imagine owning Mike Tyson.
H-here are your freedom papers Mike…no hard feelings haha r-right?
-->
@Wylted
Neither are Hispanics, asians, africans middle easterners or any variety of indian.
Wouldn't it be easier to say hate should not be tolerated by or for anyone?
-->
@fauxlaw
Wouldn't it be easier to say hate should not be tolerated by or for anyone?
It would be easier, but inaccurate
-->
@Wylted
How is thinking well of people inaccurate? Is someone else in charge of your thoughts?
-->
@fauxlaw
Some people are evil.
-->
@fauxlaw
@oromagiThat's wrong. The liberals didn't change, Trump changed.Liberals didn't change? You want to take a read of Roe v. Wade and its very limiting third trimester allowances for abortion, and then read the proposed legislation last year of NY and VA, allowing partial birth abortion as an allowed procedure?Both legislative bodies fortunately found common sense and turned both bills away; but to say liberals have not changed on the issue is a head in the sand.
I'd remind you that the majority that carried Roe contained 3 Nixon appointees, 2 Eisenhower appointees and the restriction of government from excessive interference in any citizen's healthcare decisions should satisfy any American Conservative's ideology just as much as any American Liberal. Liberals endorsed Roe as an advancement of civil rights for Women and that position has not changed, while the people and policies that endorsed Conservatism fifty years ago are entirely exiled from the rabid dogpack of radical extremism that is the American Right Wing today.
Roe made no mention of partial birth abortions and did not every try to decide on healthcare's behalf which medical procedures were acceptable. Rather, Roe allowed States to prohibit abortion in the third trimester so long as the mother's health was not an issue.
New York's 2019 Reproductive Health Act was not turned away and was entirely consistent with Roe so I can't figure out what bill you are talking about in New York.
Virginia's 2019 Repeal Act sought to bring Virginia abortion law closer to alignment with Roe to the extent that it removes a considerable degree of big government nonsense standing between a patient and her doctor. Since the Repeal Act only sought to limit government interference in a doctor's capacity to provide healthcare and a patient's private decision-making, I think political science would call that failed bill traditionally conservative in political outlook, however unpopular and offensive to the radicals of the Right.
Since Roe made no mention of partial birth abortion or indeed interfered in any way with what surgical procedures doctors could employ, I can't see any ground for your claim of some change in Liberal philosophy on this subject between Roe and today.
-->
@bmdrocks21
its the troubling ignorance Republicans demonstrate while actively outlawing the freedom of some groups to speak on unpopular topics.
I’m sure you’d be up in arms if tax dollars went to groups teaching federal workers or school children the benefits of segregation, wouldn’t you?
Well, I might be "up in arms" in the sense of making ready for a political fight , depending on circumstance but I would also be "up in arms" if my State legislature tried to pass a bill prohibiting any mention much less endorsement of segregation in schools. In my school district, my tax dollars regularly pay for the speaking fees of Klan members and other white supremacist groups who come to local high schools to speak annually, as well as for some rather expensive extra security for those speakers.
Traditionally, the protestors greatly outnumber the attendees at these talks but the public schools strongly endorse the right to unpopular speech and teach the necessity of listening to and engaging with even the most sinister of philosophies.
Keep in mind that CRT academics spend a lot more time criticizing classic American Liberals like me than they do the racism of the Right-wIngers, where they get no hearing anyway.
Critical race theory scholars question foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment, rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist approach of traditional civil-rights discourse. They favor a race-conscious approach to social transformation, critiquing liberal ideas such as affirmative action, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle with an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies.
It's not that Liberals are on the side of CRT, it's just that Liberals still believe in Freedom of Speech which is certainly not true of most Republicans outlawing particular unpopular words and ideas these days. You can't reconcile these anti-CRT bills with the First Amendment, period, so what are we teaching our children ultimately?
-->
@Wylted
Better to just get rid of party allegiance.I don't disagree, but you have no room to talk. It is funny how half of Trump's policies were popular with liberals until...
You're not talking to "liberals". You're talking to me. So go on, explain to me how I have no room to talk. I'll wait.
-->
@Double_R
Name one of thing trump was accused of that was unethical, that you think was just the opposite team looking to defame him.
Now name one thing Bill Clinton did that was actually unethical that he was accused of doing.
-->
@Wylted
You made the claim. Do you have any substantiation for it or not?
Tell you what, why don't you give me an example that you think fits either scenario and I'll tell you what I actually think about it.
-->
@Double_R
I knew you would see similar witch hunts as different based on what political party each identifies with. . Thanks for confirming
-->
@Wylted
I knew you would see similar witch hunts as different based on what political party each identifies with. . Thanks for confirming
Sent this to the wrong person. It has nothing to do with anything I have said.
My comment was as follows…
Tell you what, why don't you give me an example that you think fits either scenario and I'll tell you what I actually think about it.
-->
@Double_R
Name one of thing trump was accused of that was unethical, that you think was just the opposite team looking to defame him.Now name one thing Bill Clinton did that was actually unethical that he was accused of doing.
Do I really have to go nk over the accusations that Bill Clinton raped people and that Trh mko p nk is a russian spy, instead of you not using some common sense here? Out of both witch hunts equivalent to what happened with the satanic panic, you think Trumpnis compromised and bill clinton would never rape a woman right?
-->
@Wylted
I don't disagree, but you have no room to talk. It is funny how half of Trump's policies were popular with liberals until he put an R behind his name and then we had liberals in congress vote against stuff they were pushing for just a few years before and conservatives opposed to things now pushing for them just because it was Trump.
I agree with this on the border and tariffs, what other policies are you speaking of?
-->
@Unpopular
I saw an internal democratic memo about it. Basically half of his policies are not a part of the republican platform and therefore something Democrats would support
you can read ex-slave narratives that were recorded in the new deal era. There are hundreds of them and they are publicly available. Lots of Stockholm syndrome type stuff “my master was so good and kind, he only beat us when he had to!” Reading a lot of those for the first time really blew me away. I guess even slaves are nostalgic for their youth.I don’t see why anyone would ever defend slavery, even saying something like “the slaves loved their masters” while that was (surprisingly) true in a lot of cases it’s not really in good taste to bring up
I agree with this post. It reminds me of saying an 8 year old girl is in love with a 20 year old man and calling that relationship complicated. You have to question the relationship dynamics. What is love to a slave? The relationship is inherently lopsided, the slave is inherently dependent on the master and needs them for survival, plus it's the only life they've ever known so I am not sure you could call that love, but maybe that is a more philosophical question than political one.
-->
@Wylted
I saw an internal democratic memo about it. Basically half of his policies are not a part of the republican platform and therefore something Democrats would support
If half of his policies are not a part of the platform why do you think so many Republicans embraced him? If Democrats rejected it because of the R behind his name, then isn't it also true that Republicans accepted it just because there is an R behind his name? Isn't that saying Republicans are just as brainwashed and ideologically driven as the other side? Thankfully I am not one of them.
I dont think it's true that Trump had a lot of Democrat policies. Democrats opposed Trump giving tax cuts to the rich and corporations, they opposed him wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country, they opposed him withdrawing from the climate agreement and rolling back climate regulations, and he did not get healthcare done which is a big priority for them. I am not sure there was much for Democrats to approve of besides minor improvements to criminal justice reform.
-->
@Wylted
Do I really have to go nk over the accusations that Bill Clinton raped people and that Trh mko p nk is a russian spy, instead of you not using some common sense here?
What you need to do is back up your claims with evidence. You claimed I had no room to talk about getting rid of party allegiance. Do you have any actual reason to believe this, or were you just making shit up and are now trying to find evidence to justify it?
Common sense is not an argument, it’s your excuse for not making an argument and instead acting like your point of view should be accepted by default. The problem is this is a debate site. Here you actually have to defend your BS.
you think Trumpnis compromised and bill clinton would never rape a woman right?
Trump has 26 accusers, has never in his life shown respect for women, was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting them and is a narcissist. And then there’s this really weird thing he has going on with his daughters. Yeah, he’s definitely a creep who I have little reason to doubt is guilty.
Clinton had his issues and has some accusers as well, so there’s definitely something wrong there. I know a lot less about his accusers because I was 20 years old last time he was relevant in politics so quite frankly, I didn’t care then and I have far less of a reason to care now.
Does that answer your question?
-->
@Wylted
I saw an internal democratic memo about it. Basically half of his policies are not a part of the republican platform and therefore something Democrats would support
There is no Republican platform, it’s just whatever Trump says.