"The move toward absolute safety-ism is the biggest threat to freedom of our time.
France just banned outdoor concerts and festivals, because - to quote the national-government level official making this call - "It is hot.""
"Daily reminder that Communism really was one of history's worst ideologies: 5-6 page Berlin Wall defense just dropped. https://twitter.com/cafreiman/status/1538486051286679554/photo/1"
"Another obvious point.
J6 was bad. But, is the claim that - if the 200-300 rioters actually fighting had somehow overcome every cop and Congress-critter in the building, and gotten someone to say Trump was POTUS or that they'd recount votes - that would then just BE the gov't?"
Will Reilley
19 comments:
Will Reilly, I guess...
"Another obvious point.
J6 was bad. But, is the claim that - if the 200-300 rioters actually fighting had somehow overcome every cop and Congress-critter in the building, and gotten someone to say Trump was POTUS or that they'd recount votes - that would then just BE the gov't?"
That would be missing the point. The bank robber who tried breaking in at night using a chisel to hammer away through the wall to gain entry is STILL guilty of attempted robbery. The armed idiot who tried to shoot a senator and missed is STILL guilty of attempted murder. The KKK who plot to drop a bomb in a black church are STILL guilty of terrorism, whether the bomb went off or not.
AND, the idiots who listened to lies from the president who encouraged them to stop the just and legal election of Joe Biden are STILL guilty of insurrection or an attempted coup or whatever the correct legal terminology is, EVEN IF they were to inept to pull it off. And the president who sowed the seeds of riots and a coup is ESPECIALLY guilty for his role in this point-by-point plan to overthrow the gov't.
That would be the most obvious point. Because how would it not be?
On an unrelated note: I'd love for you to address this SCOTUS ruling:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/supreme-court-religious-schools/index.html
Do you think conservatives will be glad to fund Satanist, Muslim, Mormon, Pastafarian Schools when they start opening up and asking for gov't funding? Do you think that's a good thing to do?
OR, if and when that happens, do you suspect that conservatives will try to limit these funds ONLY to Christian (and Jewish) schools?
"That would be missing the point."
Unless you are the person who defines what "The Point" is to the exclusion of all other possible points, then you would be wrong. I know it's hard for you to fathom, but some people look at things and come to different conclusions about what "The Point" is. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
Of course, he actually asked a question. He didn't "make a point". Maybe that's a little too nuanced for you.
What about the folks who listened to Trump when he told them to stay peaceful?
"this point-by-point plan to overthrow the gov't."
What "point by point plan to overthrow the gov't"? Where is this plan? What were the specific points? Who was in charge of making sure the plan was followed? Why was this plan such an abject failure?
"That would be the most obvious point. Because how would it not be?"
What? The existence of a magical, fictitious "point by point plan"/
Interseting. You expect me to drop everything, read an entire brand new SCOTUS ruling, and lay out every possible permutation and ramification of this brand new ruling, while you won't even answer all the questions you've been asked in the past few days.
FYI, I don't, can't, won't, wouldn't even dream of trying to speak for how "conservatives" might or might not act in the future. I don't claim to speak for every conservative, nor do I primarily identify as a part of a group. If I decide to dig into your off topic demand, I will only speak for myself.
I have no idea what a "Pastafarian" is in this context. I've heard the term used in conjunction with the atheist "Flying Spaghetti Monster" mockery. Given the fact that atheists have tried incredibly hard to deny that their belief system is a religion, I suspect that trying to be treated as a religion would not be something they'd seek.
What plan? Watch/read/listen to the hearings... listen to the Trump allies and GOP people being questioned. They're telling us all about it. It's in the news. Surprised you hadn't heard.
Besides, he did it publically. For months, Trump KEPT undermining the election saying the ONLY way he'd lose would be if the results were rigged. He played a con on a bunch of not very bright people and got rich doing it.
Again, it's all in the news.
"AND, the idiots who listened to lies from the president who encouraged them to stop the just and legal election of Joe Biden are STILL guilty of insurrection or an attempted coup or whatever the correct legal terminology is, EVEN IF they were to inept to pull it off. And the president who sowed the seeds of riots and a coup is ESPECIALLY guilty for his role in this point-by-point plan to overthrow the gov't."
First, I apologize for the tone of my comments in the other thread. But I have to address this bullshit and likely will every time this clown dares to speak in this manner about the issue:
While "idiots" were clearly present, given they acted like a bunch of "progressives" instead of typical Trump supporters, the vast majority of Trump supporters are not in the least "idiots". An "idiot" is a guy who actually believed Biden was a better choice and then actually voted for him.
No one listened to any "lies" that any Trump-hater has proven was a lie. The opinions of millions regarding the election having been stolen, if even anyone cared enough about "our democracy" to sincerely and objectively investigate the MANY claims of fraud and irregularity to prove the opinions wrong, are not "lies" by definition, nor are the falsehoods until proven so. Again, no one seems to care enough to prove anything that might be true and significant.
What the president did was to encourage the people...to affirm their rights as American citizens...to peacefully and patriotically...petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Like too many, Dan clearly believes that a legitimate grievance can't be in regard to the result of an election and whether or not that election was legit.
They were NOT guilty of an insurrection or an attempted coup...those who attempted a coup are running the hearings...they simply were pissed and got carried away, likely upon being incited by Fed plants among the crowd...like Ray Epps, who actually tried to incite the people and is on various video recordings doing so and is not languishing in jail.
The most culpable are those who are seeking yet another way to find something for which they can arrest Trump, or to at least prevent him from ever again holding public office, for they were part and parcel in instilling the sentiment which rationalized "whatever it takes" and the election fraud which provoked the Jan 6 disturbance.
"What plan?"
You literally claimed that there was a "point by point plan to overthrow the gov't.", I haven't seen any evidence of such a specific plan. If you're going to make claims about things this specific, you should probably be prepared to prove them.
It's so freaking hilarious when you do your little double standard thing.
It seems strange that this "plot to overthrow the government" rested on a couple of hundred unarmed, uncoordinated, idiots dressed in Halloween costumes.
WATCH THE HEARINGS. They're laying out what is obscenely obvious, point by point. He laid the groundwork of lies about "the election might be stolen..." Then, when it looked like it wasn't going his way, he immediately claimed "the election was stolen..." He was advised by his own people that he lost. He KNEW that he lost. AND STILL he falsely claimed the election was stolen. He then asked the useful idiots to make donations to "stop the steal," and asked they give to the Election Defense fund. There WAS NO FUND. Point by point, stupidly false claim by stupidly false claim, he abused the system and a bunch of useful idiots (the majority of the GOP who actually believes the election was stolen!) to undermine trust in our election system.
This is a dangerous plan that he's implemented. Watch the hearings. Open your mind. Step out of your comfort zone and echo chambers and START actively opposing the useful idiots in your own party. Like Glenn, like Marshal, like Neil. Etc. Speak out and save your soul and your intellectual integrity.
And NO, you ignorant chump: He did NOT plot to overthrow the gov't with hundreds of white supremacists and other idiots. He is STILL plotting to overthrow the gov't with the MAJORITY of the GOP that you don't have the guts to denounce like a rational adult with a sense of decency. It's not the hundreds (thousands? tens of thousands?) of white supremacists and other idiots. It's the MILLIONS in your party that have drank the Kool Aid. THEY are the threat.
Stand up for what is right, good, moral and decent.
Dan,
Unfortunately, I have a life. I'm busy as hell at work, my aunt just died necessitating a trip to FL, I've got family coming into town, and I don;t have time to watch a bunch of political grandstanding just to make you happy.
It's simple.
You made a claim, I asked you to support your claim, you chose not to support your claim.
I'll simply point out that regurgitating someone's talking points spouting conspiracy theories, and repeating claims you won't support (with actual evidence), doesn't make you look particularly good.
The funny part is that I've literally condemned Trump for all sorts of things, have been actively advocating for Trump to step away, arguing with Art about this very subject, and you keep up this alternate reality bullshit.
FYI. I don't do politics, controversy, or anything else in a more public way. I see absolutely zero value in it. I am friends with people of all sorts of different political views, and I have no desire to interfere with those friendships. I work in a business where I don't feel the need to potentially offend half of my potential customer base by getting into politics.
So, while I certainly don't meet your standard for this vitriolic, irrational, public Trump hatred, the reality is what it is. I'm sorry that you don't like this reality and feel the need to distort it.
It's possible to equally oppose all political violence, regardless of which side instigates it or the reason, while looking at the actual results and evaluating them rationally. It's also possible to strongly oppose someone's candidacy, yet also dispassionately evaluate their performance in office. You'd have so much more credibility if you could actually be critical of Biden and the disaster of a presidency he's presided over. No more of "It's Trump's fault" or "He's not doing everything I'd like, but...". But actually acknowledging that he's responsible to some degree for what happens while he's in office. Or pointing out the multiple lies that Schellenberger has recently pointed out regarding his energy policy. Or pointing out his bullshit "I want to do something to give immediate relief", after months of high gas prices. It'd be refreshing, but unlikely.
I suspect the day after election day is going to be a doozy, what with all the conspiracy theory about evil conservatives trying to overthrow the government" by actually turning out to vote.
I also am not prone to instigating political debate, except where I'm confident I can do so without a risk to friendships. I have many lefty friends and family, and thus far, I've not seen anything to suspect such a discussion might lead to any dissolution. I must have higher quality friendships.
So too in my job, I also remained cautious in instigating such a discussion, while I have absolutely no problem responding to those who do by offering my opinion. Just as on these blogs, I remain gracious until such time as my opponent and I are quite aware of the limitations we each might have for snark, insult and disparagement, and as I do here, I do not do any of that in lieu of any argument, but as a prelude to one with a full explanation why my use of a harsh term (like, "that's stupid") is justified.
As to violence, to every thing there is a season. Those who refuse to consider violence as having its own is immature and a threat to those who would suffer if not violently defended against a threat which calls for it. The violence which did occur on Jan 6 by alleged Trump-supporters had no way to rationalize it beyond use of the "voice of the unheard" excuse Dan would allow for those whose violence he believes has been justified...when it wasn't anymore justified than that on Jan 6, and very arguably far less so.
Unless there has been some solid evidence that Trump in any way incited or encouraged violence...and to date, there's not been a shred of it, but only the fervent desire that he did in order to rationalize leftist hatred of the man...all focus should be on any who have been proved to have engaged in it, and THAT person must provide evidence or a rational argument with regard to why they chose to so behave. I do NOT hold anyone responsible for that in which they played no part. It's not up to Trump to tell grown adults to stop acting like children, particularly when he did nothing to incite their childish behavior. Of all the politicians who can be accused of having incited violent behavior, there is far less to show Trump has done so than any of the many leftists so accused. That's just the fact.
One thing is certain: I'm sick of the leftist double standard...especially Dan's since we're impacted on the blogs by it...whereby what they do is always justified and what center-right people do never is, even when doing the same things under the same rationalizations.
Art,
In my case, my social media presence is an integral part of my business. Therefore I reserve my political opinions for the blog and in person conversations. Social media is an absolutely crappy place to have discussions of substance, and I see absolutely zero upside to doing so.
I get it. I don't begrudge those who restrict themselves as you do. Assholes abound and truth arouses them to violence, literally, figuratively and other "ly's" as well.
Yesterday, a friend of mine who works with me posted a reasonably restrained post on the repeal of Roe. The response from people who we'd both consider friends was vitriolic to say the least. The amount of intolerance was astounding, given the level of intolerance we already see from the left. I just don't think it's worth it. One of the problems is that I tend to ask questions, and as Dan demonstrates, those on the left might not be all that excited about answering.
It's interesting the verbal contortions Dan goes through to pretend that deleting every comment someone makes is not effectively a "ban".
I guess I'm one of the few places where pretty much anyone is allowed to post pretty much anything. Hell, I've even posted comments from Dan's anal orifice comrade since I'd told him that his behavior was going to keep his comments in moderation purgatory.
FYI, it was the afternoon I spent deleting hundreds of re posts of the same comment that finally turned the tide.
"FYI, it was the afternoon I spent deleting hundreds of re posts of the same comment that finally turned the tide."
I recall. In my case, it was literally one thousand or more. And Dan wants to disparage me for banning the stain! Dan's a hypocrite. We know this. We deal as best we can.
I recently had a brief visit from a long time friend, a business owner and pretty much a political conservative. We spoke about abortion and he is of the "not place to tell others" hue. It didn't go on long enough to get contentious and I don't know if it would, though I suspect he would not be willing to really get deep into the weeds if we had the time to do it...as in, "my mind is made up". Oh, well. Maybe some day.
It was probably over a thousand, but does it really matter when a child throws a tantrum?
As we've seen here, these sorts of online discussions are rarely fruitful and virtually never achieve anything worthwhile. I'd much rather not waste more time engaging in a serious discussion on social media. I'm convinced all it does is make things worse.
Ultimately we just become idiot progressives who think that posting a black square, Ukrainian flag, rainbow, or whatever are actually doing something substantive. I'd rather go help one or two people in real life, than piss off hundreds on social media.
Regardless of how I might come off here, I really don't seek to piss off anyone. Telling the truth will do that, though, but telling the truth to immediately counter lies is something I think is more necessary these days than it has been for a long, long time. The left tells so many, and so many buy in to them. My hope is that I can persuade anyone to simply take a moment to consider what I said laid against what the other side says and actually think which makes more sense. It's a total crap shoot and likely 99% a waste of time. But that 1% is worth the effort...especially when I've nothing more important going on at the time.
I don't have a problem with people telling Truth, it's something that's become more and more rare as postmodernism has influenced society. I think it's important to be able to help people find the Truth more than to beat them over the head with it. It's why some many people I respect advocate asking questions as the way to lead people to the Truth. That doesn't work so well with some people, but with those who are open to things beyond their narrative, it can be effective.
I think we've convinced too many people that the activism bar is no lower than a social media post, that they really think they've accomplished something when they're just going along with the herd.
Well, setting aside the fact that much of my social media presence results from using it as a way to kill time, I assume unknown readers, and it's for them I speak. Such people may be on the fence, while some are looking for validation of an already fixed opinion, be it from someone like me or the fool I'm debating. I assume it's someone in the middle possibly, or anyone else who hasn't really heard "my" side of an issue. I call it a public service. Take it for what it's worth, or reject it. Either way, it's now something such a person can't say they never heard before. That's a good thing I think. It's too bad how too many no longer are open to the notion of a free flow of ideas...real diversity of thought.
Post a Comment