SCOTUS thread

[exGOPer]

I can't agree. And now you are reaching, really reaching back to the 60's. I can reach back too, to when the Democrats where the party of the old South, and most blacks were helped by, and gave their support to, Republicans. So, i don't think Republicans are driving away critical thinkers.

I can't take you seriously as a critical thinker when you don't even know history of Republican and Democratic party.

Here is George Wallace, a Democrat talking about segregation

I am a conservative. I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States. I am in this race because I believe the American people have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government.

He goes on to say

It is very appropriate that from this cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us time and again down through history. Let us rise to the call for freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.

So which party do you think he will be in current day and age?

 

[Cuddles]

That's your take because you don't understand enlightened centrism or both sideism. I am talking about privilege politics, the kind many progs practice because the end result doesn't have an effect on their own lives.

one of us doesn't anyway:

Irrelevant

hyperbole often helps ppl see simple concepts

Did the person watching have a say?

Is staying quiet not analogous to not voting? Would yelling squirrel/voting 3rd party change the murder dynamic?

First, conservatives don't believe in democracy or rights for most groups, so them going on a riot spree is nothing new or even a new threat.

Second, KNOWING the fact that conservatives don't believe in democracy or rights, progs letting Conservatives take power has the same effect as rolling back rights and democracy. You saw that TODAY with the SC decision.

and i've explained as much to Tony, it still is not equivalent to joining in the riot to overturn democracy which is why maggats are getting slapped w/insurrectionism and antifa isn't.

You still don't get it.

Cons never believed in those anyway, they have fought it every time. Why are you even bringing up isolated events that perfectly match conservative ideological patterns as if its an aberration.

I get it plenty. What you don't get is that the left can get worse, a lot worse, authoritarian worse, and comparing holding the vote to going nazbol is disingenuous. Again, read the Spanish's left backlash on clerical institutions as an example after the fascists tried and failed in their attempt of overturning an election.

 

[Good1]

It's a very simple old definition

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Wow. Well that's the first time i ever heard that definition before. It's sounds like you are describing human nature, for which i should be paid at least $60 an hour to analyze.

I always thought conservativism was kinda the opposite of liberalism in how best to spend, or not spend, the public money that comes in via taxes. Conservativism conserves the public pot, while liberalism would empty the pot and even borrow against the next generation to put more spendable cash in the pot. It's a fiscal term. You've shown how terms morph over time, as panderers push agendas.

Now i'm afraid to ask what a white is, so i can tell you if i am one.

 

[Good1]

I can't take you seriously as a critical thinker when you don't even know history of Republican and Democratic party.

Here is George Wallace, a Democrat talking about segregation

I am a conservative. I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States. I am in this race because I believe the American people have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government.

He goes on to say

It is very appropriate that from this cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us time and again down through history. Let us rise to the call for freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.

So which party do you think he will be in current day and age?

It's not obvious to you? The only party, today, with a strong contingent of segregationists is the Democrat party, mainly because they have been pandering to racists for a long time now. Johnson, a racist and a contemporary of Wallace, began, in earnest, the neo pandering pandemic.

 

[exGOPer]

one of us doesn't anyway:

View attachment 318012
View attachment 318013

hyperbole often helps ppl see simple concepts

But when did I claim to be a moderate and when did I claim to be moderate 'because both sides'?

You have completely botched what the term means. Did you not see me advocating for court expansion? But when I pointed out that it is not practical because of the balance of power, I become a moderate? Accepting realities makes you a moderate?

Is staying quiet not analogous to not saying anything? Would yelling squirrel/voting 3rd party change the murder dynamic?

Did you have the power to speak up? yes or no?

Voting gives you that power and if you choose to throw it away knowing fully well what it would do in real life, then you own responsibility for your actions.

and i've explained as much to Tony, it still is not equivalent to joining in the riot to overturn democracy which is why maggats are getting slapped w/insurrectionists and antifa isn't.

Antifa isn't because their numbers are tiny and like most leftist groups they are constantly fighting with each other. And that's not my analysis, that's according to Chomsky.

I get it plenty. What you don't get is that the left can get worse, a lot worse, authoritarian worse, and comparing holding the vote to going nazbol is disingenuous. Again, read the Spanish left backlash on clerical institutions for an example after the fascists tried and failed in their coup attempt.

But I didn't disagree that authoritarianism looks any different coming from right or left, we are talking even in the most liberal democracies where conservatives are always looking to bully some out group.

 

[exGOPer]

It's not obvious to you? The only party, today, with a strong contingent of segregationists is the Democrat party, mainly because they have been pandering to racists for a long time now. Johnson, a racist and a contemporary of Wallace, began, in earnest, the neo pandering pandemic.

So segregationist George Wallace who attacked liberals and the left would find a place in today's Democratic party?

 

[Good1]

Well George was not a good panderer. To be a good panderer, you have to be more subtle, and a little more slippery with the use of the English language. The push for segregation is happening, in the dark corners of the party body politique. You were not aware of this? The best segregation is when you can let the racists, who want to segregate, think it was their idea.

 

[exGOPer]

Well George was not a good panderer. To be a good panderer, you have to be more subtle, and a little more slippery with the use of the English language. The push for segregation is happening, in the dark corners of the party body politique. You were not aware of this? The best segregation is when you can let the racists, who want to segregate, think it was their idea.

You didn't answer my question, which party would he belong to as a conservative who hates liberals.

 

[Good1]

You didn't answer my question, which party would he belong to as a conservative who hates liberals.

You lack an anchor that prevents you from being confused by terms of use in political campaigns. Politics is like a MMA wrestling. The objective is to put down your opponent. One minute you are on one side of the ring, facing away from the spectator, another minute you are on the other side of the ring facing toward the spectator. Without an anchor you can be confused by the use of words and terms. It appears most Democrats lack an anchor. So i'm not sure i could help you for less than $60 an hour. I mean, you've already shown your propensity to be confused about the term conservative.

 

[exGOPer]

You lack an anchor that prevents you from being confused by terms of use in political campaigns. Politics is like a MMA wrestling. The objective is to put down your opponent. One minute you are on one side of the ring, facing away from the spectator, another minute you are on the other side of the ring facing toward the spectator. Without an anchor you can be confused by the use of words and terms. It appears most Democrats lack an anchor. So i'm not sure i could help you for less than $60 an hour. I mean, you've already shown your propensity to be confused about the term conservative.

You are evading again from answering a simple question and I understand why - your entire belief structure which you inherited from your peers cannot withstand any acceptance of contradiction or it would collapse.