2. Or is it okay for whatever faction is more powerful to silence the expression of contrary ideas, insofar as they can get away with it?
3. Should we make “hate speech” exceptions to silence people whose speech we really, really hate?
4. Should small groups of people be able to dictate public policy without democratically passing laws?
5. Do you believe that generally, people should be free to associate with whomever they wish, and hire whom they like?
6. Or should the federal government scrutinize every private decision made by any citizen or business, to see if it has “disparate impact” on minority groups?
7. Should members of minority groups be subject to similar laws regarding their conduct, or should they be exempt?
9. Should orthodox Christians be likewise unprotected from discrimination?
10. Should the government officially adopt the position that sexual “identity” (gay, transgender, etc.) is the moral equivalent of race or ethnicity? Hence disapproval of homosexual or transgender activity amounts to hate, which the government should repress?
11. If Christianity isn’t true, and the human race emerged by random natural selection, why is racism wrong? What part of “survival of the fittest” forbids it?
12. Defunding the police and abolishing the nuclear family are key demands of Black Lives Matter. Would doing that help black people or hurt them?
13. Which non-Christian societies had indigenous abolitionist movements, and got rid of slavery thanks to moral revulsion among citizens? Please list them.
14. Muhammad enslaved defeated Christians, and taught Muslims to make captured Christian women sex slaves (“concubines”). The Muslim slave trade continued doing that till Western countries stopped them by force in the 19th century — and ISIS was doing it two years ago. But crowds aren’t attacking mosques. Why is that, do you think?
81 comments:
1. Yes.
2. No. With the obvious caveat that unpopular opinions calling for actions that cause harm to others can be silenced. One does not have a right to cause harm.
3. No. With the same caveat, above. Especially when we're speaking about historically oppressed people like women, racial minorities, lgbtq Folk. We have a duty to go above and beyond to work to protect those have been oppressed in the past and still. So, yes, one can say I think gay people are going to hell or I don't think black people should marry white people. That speech is protected. However, calls to take action and potentially harm gay folk or black people, this is not protected. Of course.
4. No. With the same caveat above. If a state can successfully legislate actions that cause harm to others, the federal government has a right and a duty to intervene. Because of Human Rights. States can't deny the human rights of gay people or Muslims, for instance, just because they can pull it off with their legislature in their particular state. Human rights trump local decisions.
5. Yes, people have the right to associate with whom they wish.
5b. No, employers are not entirely free to hire just whoever they wish. They can't discriminate against minorities for gay people, for instance. This is as it should be.
Maybe more, later. Any chance you'll answer your own questions?
As usual with these types of things, I’ll answer last.
As usual, you probably won't, because you so rarely do. Most of your questions have obvious answers, I'm sure you know.
Re #2. It seems as though you are suggesting that whatever faction had more power can silence any other competing factions. That seems to take s power that should only be reserved to the federal government in limited situations and delegating it to a “faction”.
Re # 3, it seems as though your caveat nullifies your answer.
Re # 5, again your caveat seems to nullify your answer.
6. No. As long as there is no harm being caused by those decisions, no.
7. Yes
8. No.
9. No.
10. Sexual orientation is morally equivalent to race. So, yes, the US government should accept that reality.
10b. People are free to disapprove of homosexual activity, or transgender activity, whatever the hell that is, just like people are free to hate black people or hate Christians. It's what they do with that disagreement that matters. You can disagree was treating black people equally are gay people equally if you want, however, you are not free to refuse to hire gay people or black people, for instance. Because you're not free to cause harm.
I'll stop there and see if you ever answer any questions.
Craig... "seems as though you are suggesting that whatever faction had more power can silence any other competing factions..."
??
My answer was clearly no. If, however, contrary ideas include, let's string up the black people or the gay people, that speech is not protected nor should it be. Do you seriously disagree?
Re, #2. What I'm saying is that I agree US law on this point. The freedom of expression is not unlimited. There are reasonable caveat where speech is limited. From Wikipedia...
"Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel,
slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
I agree with free societies on this point. Freedom of expression is not Unlimited, nor should it be. Do you disagree?
With the decision by SCOTUS with regard to firing homosexuals and "transgendered", these questions are timely.
I continue to believe that any business owner has absolute authority with regard hiring and firing for any reason of his own choosing, based on solid criteria or mere whim because it is HIS business, built by virtue of HIS sweat and sacrifice. All employees are extensions of the employer. They sold their ability to dictate their morals and beliefs when they took the job and have an obligation to the employer. Employers who understand the immorality and disorder of homosexuality and transgenderism cannot be obliged to ignore that immorality and disorder, just as they'd not be obliged to ignore theft, dishonesty or any other immoral trait, or disorders such as insanity that might negatively impact others in the company, customers or the profitability of the company.
Some employers are people of integrity who will sacrifice profits for principle. If refusing to hire LGBT people costs business, people of integrity will suffer that loss . They should be applauded, not made subject to legal action.
RE #2, thanks for clarifying. Your second answer makes sense, your first seems like you didn’t read the question.
Dan,
I’ll wait to answer so you won’t just bitch about my answers.
Of course, that ignores the two recent threads you left full of unanswered questions. I know, do as you demand, not as you do.
There is absolutely no harm inflicted upon a person because a business won't hire or retain the person. There IS harm inflicted upon an employer who is forced by law to hire a person or maintain a person's employment.
Only an idiot and a liar would insist there is something comparable between race and "sexual orientation". The former is an immutable trait. One cannot "be" black or white. One either is black or one isn't.
The latter is a compulsion to act or behave in a specific way. Actions and behaviors carry with them moral connotations which provide legitimate reasons why another might eschew association. No one should be forced to hire anyone, particularly those who behave in a manner the employer finds immoral. Doing so projects the impression that the employer supports the immoral behavior, and it stifles the employer ability to influence the culture toward moral behaviors and attitudes. It is, in a very real and evil sense, forcing immorality upon the employer and those he would influence. Totally unAmerican.
Art,
I’d argue that it’s possible to hire an employee for their job qualifications and their ability to fit in a culture, without regard to their personal life and choices. Unfortunately, many insist that they be allowed to bring their personal lives into the workplace. As long as people can separate their personal lives from their work lives I don’t see where it’s an issue.
I think that being forced to hire people for reasons other than competence is a problem.
Dan,
I apologize, but I mistakenly deleted your recent comment. Please re submit it and I will gladly get it posted quickly. I've switched to the new Blogger format and I just hit the wrong icon. Please accept my apologies.
Never mind. You already answered my question, address my point when you said...
"I think that being forced to hire people for reasons other than competence is a problem..."
Sadly, you too and a lot of conservative people are on the wrong side of morality, reason, justice and history.
In this nation, we recognize, including the Supreme Court, recognize that there are groups who have been traditionally oppressed throughout history by peoplelike you two. Women, lgbtq people, people of color, these have all been oppressed and denied job opportunities and living opportunities in our nation. We have rightly criminalized discriminating based on the color of skin or one's orientation or one's gender. That you all have a problem with that just puts you on the wrong side of history, reason, justiceand morality.
I'm sorry for you and yours that you don't recognize this, but I'm thankful that even a conservative Supreme Court recognizes the justice of fighting against discrimination in the workplace.
Really, you believe that incompetent people should be given jobs based on their sex lives?
I've never once been asked, or asked, in an interview about anything related to my sexual proclivities. It's absolutely bizarre that anyone would argue against hiring employees based on competence,and compatibility for the company.
But if you want to be on the side of hiring the incompetent because they check a box, you go right ahead.
"We have rightly criminalized discriminating based on the color of skin or one's orientation or one's gender. That you all have a problem with that just puts you on the wrong side of history, reason, justiceand morality."
Except, I don't have a problem with not discriminating against anyone for any reason. I'm sorry that my comment about hiring based on competence confused you so. I'll clarify.
People should be hired based on competence, and compatibility, without discriminating against anyone (except the incompetent).
"I'm sorry for you and yours that you don't recognize this, but I'm thankful that even a conservative Supreme Court recognizes the justice of fighting against discrimination in the workplace."
I'm sorry for you that you jumped to such a foolish conclusion. (FYI, I'm in an industry where discrimination against a protected class can get my license pulled or result in significant fines) I'm sorry that your bias fueled prejudices led you astray. I'm also sorry that you missed the basis for the SCOTUS decision.
If you'd like, I'll delete the comments to remove the evidence of your mistaken jump to the wrong conclusion.
Sigh. I never once said a God damned thing about hiring incompetent people. Look at my words, read for understanding, act like an adult and read and understand.
What I said is that it is wrong to refuse to hire people of color or gay people or other people you are prejudiced against. Employers do not and should not have the right to refuse to hire people whose skin color or sexual orientation or gender they disagree with.
Argue against what I'm actually arguing if you're going to argue. The point is not that employers should be forced to hire incompetent people. The point is, given two competent candidates, an employer should not discriminate based on color of skin or sexual orientation or gender.
Now hopefully you understand what the f*** I'm exactly talking about. And hopefully, with that understanding in place, you can comment on what I'm actually f****** talking about and not some stupid ass ignorant straw man arguments. You're not this stupid, Craig. Stop acting like it.
This obtuse feigned ignorance is tiring. Of course, if you ARE actually this stupid and ignorant and not able to understand my words, tell me so clearly and I will apologize for the harsh tone. But in your defense, I truly do not think that you are this stupid.
"I think that being forced to hire people for reasons other than competence is a problem..."
No, you didn't explicitly say anything about hiring the incompetent. What you did is to take my position (that you appear to agree with), and misrepresent it to further your false narrative.
So if you're going to take people's words and twist them to suit your own purposes, don't be surprised if others take your false conclusions to their logical conclusions.
"What I said is that it is wrong to refuse to hire people of color or gay people or other people you are prejudiced against. Employers do not and should not have the right to refuse to hire people whose skin color or sexual orientation or gender they disagree with.
Argue against what I'm actually arguing if you're going to argue. The point is not that employers should be forced to hire incompetent people. The point is, given two competent candidates, an employer should not discriminate based on color of skin or sexual orientation or gender."
Your problem is NOT that I was arguing AGAINST discrimination in hiring, it's that I prioritized competence over anything else. Further, you took a statement that DID NOT disagree with your position, and twisted it into something you could argue against, instead of arguing against (or agreeing with) what I actually said. Hell, you could have asked for clarification before you falsely represented me, but you chose falsehood.
"This obtuse feigned ignorance is tiring. Of course, if you ARE actually this stupid and ignorant and not able to understand my words, tell me so clearly and I will apologize for the harsh tone. But in your defense, I truly do not think that you are this stupid."
Yes, your obtuse ignorance is tiring. However it's so prevalent that I question whether or not it's feigned. As far as straw men, if you're going to argue against the ones you construct you really have no room to criticize others for what you so often do.
1. Yes, I believe that laws should apply equally to all citizens. I'd go so far as to say that even those who advocate the violent overthrow of the government should receive equal treatment under the law.
2. No. The political power of a faction should not allow the silencing of their opposition.
3. No. I think that hate speech laws are problematic as they criminalize people thoughts and feelings, not their actions. My hatred of someone's opinion is not sufficient for that opinion to be silenced.
4. No. I'd quibble with the term "democratic", but I understand.
5. Yes.
6. No.
7. Yes.
8. No.
9. No.
10. No. Ethnicity is immutable, sexual orientation (as we're told by the pro LGBTQXYZPDQ advocates) is not immutable. We're told that it's a spectrum, or that it's variable. If It's not immutable and definable, how can it be protected.
10b. Disapproval is never the equivalent of hate. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of ALL speech, not just that we agree with or approve of.
"Sexual orientation is morally equivalent to race. So, yes, the US government should accept that reality."
If reality is "the state of things as they actually exist,", then reality should be provable empirically. In other words, reality is objective.
Please empirically prove the objective truth of the above claim.
""We have rightly criminalized discriminating based on the color of skin or one's orientation or one's gender. That you all have a problem with that just puts you on the wrong side of history, reason, justiceand morality.""
There's nothing "moral" about forcing an employer to hire based on criteria with which he disagrees. Anti-discrimination laws for government is one thing. Infringing upon the liberty of individuals with regard how they run their private sector business is another. Criminalizing a private citizen's decisions with regard to hiring is NOT reasonable, just or moral. It's fascistic. You don't have to like a business that won't hire your favored homosexuals and other perverts. You don't have to like a business that won't hire anyone but white men. But it's their business and they should rise or fall based on their decisions alone and the free market's reaction to them. Anything else is immoral and unjust and completely irrational.
If you don't like such businesses because they hire according to their own criteria, you can take your business elsewhere. If you can't take your business elsewhere, or "elsewhere" is too far away to make it practical to take your business there, then you have a choice to make with regards the importance of what you need versus your "principles".
In a small example of this principle of mine, I enjoyed the price, quality and convenience of buying my shaving needs from Dollar Shave Club. When its CEO sent out an email to his customers proclaiming his donation of up to $125K to the criminal Black Lives Matter instead of to the victims of their riotous followers, I terminated my membership and will now buy more expensive and less satisfying products. Again, not a big sacrifice, but illustrative of what "principle" looks like.
Marshal... "Infringing upon the liberty of individuals with regard how they run their private sector business is another. Criminalizing a private citizen's decisions with regard to hiring is NOT reasonable, just or moral. It's fascistic."
Unfortunately for you, the legal system in the majority of the u.s. thanks you're quite evil for making that suggestion. We recognize that wow White Street old guys like you are coming from a place of privilege and don't understand or admit to the harm and oppression done when people like you have your way in setting rules 4 public businesses, but the rest of us recognize the very real harm being done by people like you advocating what you're advocating. You're free to hire the qualified person of your choice, but you aren't free to do harm. You aren't free to discriminate in discrimination causes harm.
You're on the wrong side of morality, Justice, reason and history. You're going to have to get over that. You lost this argument. Your "principles" are self-serving and selfish. That's not really principles. If you want principles, start looking out for justice for all, not just little privileged boys like yourself.
Describe the harm done to someone not hired compared to the harm done to being forced to hire someone against one's wishes.
If you show up to work in your typical skirt and panties and find that the job is filled, how are you more or less harmed than if the employer straight out told you a deviant like you just isn't what he's looking for? The answer is, there's no difference.
It wouldn't matter how many say otherwise, there's no right anyone has to dictate hiring practices of a private sector business. They are NOT "public" businesses. They're private businesses that serve the public. More specifically, they're private individuals who serve the public by establishing a business enterprise to meet public demand for good and/or services.
Shop where you want. Start your own business and hire anyone you like and I'll decide if you're deserving of my hard-earned money. That's how liberty works. You can't make a legitimate argument for your position favoring this fascism. Attacking my age and race doesn't get it done. My position is the moral position. Yours is not.
Art,
I'm in the situation of agreeing with you in principle, while acknowledging that current law doesn't agree.
Clearly the situation that most promotes free association is one that allows business to hire and serve whomever they want, based on their own beliefs. The reality is that if the market isn't big enough, the business will fail and the owner will be "punished" for their beliefs and for poor decisions.
If Dan wants to start a coffee house and only serve and employ progressives, he should 100% have that right. The reality is, I strongly suspect that if anyone walked into the coffee house his church operates wearing any article of clothing that indicated any support for Trump or the GOP, that they would quickly be made to feel unwelcome. Which is de facto discrimination, but not de jure discrimination.
The problem is that excluding a portion of ones potential customer base is a bad business strategy and people who choose to do so only harm themselves. But, we still (allegedly) live in a country where people are free to do stupid things and to make bad business decisions. At least for now.
Sounds like a problem with the two of you all have is that you want to live in someplace like Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa - where it was perfectly okay to discriminate against and refuse to hire black people or gay people or transgender people - and yet you live in the freedom-loving United States of America where overt discrimination is illegal. And for good reasons.
If you are part of an oppressed minority ( or, in the case of a place like South Africa, even an oppressed majority) and racist and homophobic have free reign to discriminate against you, you end up with vast amounts of poverty and lack of opportunity, as we saw and still see in black communities. You may not be aware of it, but the fact is that discriminating against people because of skin color or sexual orientation does cause harm. Whether or not you agree or recognize that reality doesn't change that reality. So, by all means, move to some more totalitarian government where discrimination is legal and even encouraged. Get the hell out of our nation if you don't want to abide by these good rules. We are done making room and excuses for racists.
There is absolutely nothing in anything I've said that could reasonably lead you to that conclusion. What I am suggesting is the antithesis of government mandated, top down, codified discrimination. The reality is that I'm suggesting a government that allows MORE freedom rather than less. I completely understand your need to use straw men to paint others with the broadest and most negative brush possible, what a strange and not Christlike way to live.
Once again, nothing I've said can remotely be interpreted as support for the sort of totalitarian, repressive governments you cite. FYI, SA also discriminated against white folks as well. Just not as harshly.
"Get the hell out of our nation if you don't want to abide by these good rules."
If you're not going to bother reading what I actually wrote, I can't help you when you make stupid comments like this.
What's interesting is that I'm the one suggesting that allowing people the freedom to hire and market their business to whomever they want will result in the market getting rid of business that exclude people, while you're the one arguing for government control.
But, here's the kicker.
Let's say that a bunch of Bernie Bros decide to start a business. They only allow democratic socialists to work there and to patronize their establishment. Somehow, they manage to stay in business, pay their taxes, and don't violate health codes etc. Let's say that Bernie himself uses some of his millions to subsidize these guys even.
Who the hell cares? Who are they harming, except themselves?
In principle, it's exactly the reason I oppose banning smoking in restaurants. If you want to, and can profitably, run a restaurant by only attracting smokers then more power to you. Why would I want to impose my preferences on others who don't share them?
The reality is that no one is arguing for unlimited discrimination. The FDR mandated use of redlining was a horrible policy, yet it persisted into the 60's.
Obviously restricting homeownership based on ethnicity is wrong. Yet, I'd argue that FDR's misguided program was actually more harmful economically than anything else.
Had people simply sold houses to people who could afford them, regardless of ethnicity, starting in the 30's we'd have seen numerous benefits economically.
1. The various minority communities would have been able to increase their individual and collective wealth.
2. We would have seen more integrated neighborhoods, which would have increased the tax based for the schools.
Those are just two right off the top of my head. The assumption that liberal, progressive, government mandated solutions are always the best blinds people to the fact that the market will handle many of these types of things on it's own.
The problem you have, is that you can't explain why a restaurant owned by gays, who choose to be staffed exclusively by gays, and who choose to market to and be 100% patronized by gays, causes any harm to anyone else.
Freedom to oppress is NOT Freedom. Not for the oppressed.
Random slogans that don't apply to anything I've said don't help.
What you have said is that you support people having the right to not hire based on race sexual orientation and gender, presumably. Am I mistaken?
What I'm telling you is that in the US we have recognized that that is a form of oppression, denying people the opportunity to be employed. So, your defense of racist and others to a press is not freedom it's oppression.
Tell me, in Nazi Germany if you lived there and the Nazis were saying no one will be penalized for refusing to hire Jews or gay people, would you support that restriction of Liberty on the part of the Nazis?
If you want to ignore the detail, it's pretty close.
Thank you for "telling me" your hunch. Fortunately, just because your "tell me" doesn't mean it's true.
I'm not, in any way suggesting that people be denied the "opportunity to be employed". Absolutely nothing I've said can possibly lead you to that conclusion. There is a difference between an "opportunity to be employed", and getting one particular job. I'm denied the "opportunity to be employed" in multiple fields, yet I'm not oppressed.
My original point, which you've chosen to ignore, is that employment decisions should be made based on qualifications, competence, and compatibility. There is absolutely zero reason why someones sexual proclivities should be addressed in a job interview.
FYI, I looked up oppression and I don't think it means what you think it does.
I also realize that you are unable to draw a distinction between a government making decisions about who is eligible to work, and employers having the freedom to make the best decisions for their business.
If you're going to continue to use the term oppression, you'd best be prepared to show me the specific language in the US legal code that specifies your hunch.
"Tell me, in Nazi Germany if you lived there and the Nazis were saying no one will be penalized for refusing to hire Jews or gay people, would you support that restriction of Liberty on the part of the Nazis?"
Ahhh another poor hypothetical. The problem with your hypothetical is that "not being penalized" isn't the same thing as freedom to hire the most qualified, competent, and compatible person for the job.
Further, given the NAZIs treatment of "undesirables", I wouldn't have believed them if they'd said that.
The thing you're ignoring in all of this is the fact that "employment" is not a right., and that your "opportunity to be employed" doesn't limit anyone from becoming self employed. But heaven forbid we encourage minorities to think outside the traditional employment box.
I suspect that's why you didn't appear particularly sensitive to the victims of the riots up here. Because the notion of hundreds of small business owned by immigrants, and minorities, doesn't fit your limited experience. I'd say that of the non professional people I built houses for (For example, someone who'd been an accountant in Africa trying to get licensed in the US). at least 60% were working toward starting their own business.
I do so love how you try to construct hypotheticals to force people into the conclusion your hunch tells you is "right". Thank goodness, I try to see things a little more expanslively.
Employment is not a right. BUT, the freedom from employment discrimination based upon race, gender and sexual orientation IS a right in the US.
Do you recognize that reality? Are you acknowledging that right, but saying it SHOULDN'T be a right?
Because that's what I'm reading you to say.
"the notion of hundreds of small business owned by immigrants, and minorities, doesn't fit your limited experience..."
Craig, a full 90% of the time, at least, that you guess about what I'm thinking experiences overnight bread, you are just stupidly factually mistaken. You don't know about my work with immigrants here in Kentucky so just shut the hell up. Your ignorance is an embarrassment.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
Are you stupid, illiterate, or to lazy to read my comments.
"Are you acknowledging that right, but saying it SHOULDN'T be a right?"
Neither.
Got it. It's perfectly fine for you to make shit up about me based on your prejudices and biases, but when I express opinions about you based on what you've written, the panties get all in a wad.
I suspect that this is more about not wanting to acknowledge your failure to express significant compassion for the POC and immigrant small business owners devastated by the rioters you excused. Or it's about not wanting to acknowledge that this notion you hold so dear about what employment should be, might be wrong.
Ultimately none of this matters if you're going to keep arguing against straw men.
Before you even start. If you're going to claim that you've showed significant sympathy for the victims of the rioters you've excused, you'll need to provide a quote and a link to your actual words. If you can't provide that data, than just shut the hell up.
Dan,
Again, I apologize. I was trying to do multiple things at once and I accidentally deleted your comment.
What I saw before I deleted it was you attempting to justify asking questions when the information was available for you to read.
"Except, I don't have a problem with not discriminating against anyone for any reason."
6/16 9:24 AM
"FYI, I'm in an industry where discrimination against a protected class can get my license pulled or result in significant fines)"
6/16 9:24
"I'm in the situation of agreeing with you in principle, while acknowledging that current law doesn't agree."
June 17 7:36 AM
Had you chosen to ask questions about what I actually said, I would have answered them. Instead you chose to ignore what I said, and construct a straw man to argue against.
From now on when you say "What you have said..." you either need to provide the quote, or rephrase your claim.
Craig, what you have said... "I'm the one suggesting that allowing people the freedom to hire and market their business to whomever they want will result in the market getting rid of business that exclude people..."
You also agreed with Marshal said, "It wouldn't matter how many say otherwise, there's no right anyone has to dictate hiring practices of a private sector business."
Response to that, you said, "I'm in the situation of agreeing with you in principle, while acknowledging that current law doesn't agree."
I responded... "BUT, the freedom from employment discrimination based upon race, gender and sexual orientation IS a right in the US.
Do you recognize that reality? Are you acknowledging that right, but saying it SHOULDN'T be a right?"
What I'm reading both of you saying is that, in your tiny little racist-supporting heads, YOU think employers should have the "freedom" to discriminate based on race or gender or orientation or religion. That is what I'm hearing you say.
Am I mistaken?
I believe I'm correct.
From there I'm asking the question, do you recognize that this is against the law in our nation? That even a conservative Supreme Court upheld the notion that it is criminal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Do you recognize that reality?
I believe your answer to that is, you grudgingly acknowledge that this is the law, but you think the law is mistaken and that racists and xenophobes and homophobes and misogynists should be "free" to discriminate against these groups.
Am I mistaken?
What I'm saying in response to that is that we do not have freedoms to oppress and cause harm to people. This is why it's against the law in the United States, because we believe in human rights and rightfully legislate against those who would deny human rights to others.
"Do you recognize that reality? Are you acknowledging that right, but saying it SHOULDN'T be a right?"
I'm aware of what the law says and I find the law to be improper due to it's clear and unequivocal assault on liberty. While you lament some unstated harm to those who are refused a job for reasons of discrimination, as if it's more harmful than being refused for any other reason, you ignore the burden placed on employers who took the risks, made the sacrifices and spent the money to build up a business...as if that's nothing. So while I wait in vain for any clear explanation of the harmed caused by such evil people who won't hire a black man or a pervert, I'll explain other issues with this unAmerican imposition:
---As I said, there's no way to determine the degree to which one refused is harmed more than if refused for any other reason. But what is also ignored is the fact that all refusals are the result of some discriminating decision. It can't be helped. If there are multiple applicants for a single open position, the employer necessarily discriminates in a variety of ways in deciding who to hire...ways that have nothing to do with immutable things like sex or race, or immoral behaviors like homosexuality.
---A totally non-racist white employer, down to two applicants of identical qualifications...one white and the other black...may simply choose the white applicant so as to avoid any potential problems related to the race of the other, such as being accused of racism for a legitimate disciplinary action. Who needs that crap in their lives? It's easier to avoid it all by just hiring the white guy. Given the culture today, such a fear is more than a little justified. The employer might even have felt the black applicant had a better personality during the interview, but weighed that against the potential. This decision may have been the result of his own prior experiences. Despite whether or not how one feels about how rational this might be, who are YOU to dictate that it is a feeling he MUST ignore just to pretend you're down with the cause?
---There's no reciprocal laws forcing patronage based on race, sex or sexually immoral practices. No one is forced to patronize a black, woman or homosexual owned business. How is that just based on your weak argument to force the employer? In the same way, no one is forced to seek employment with a company owned by someone according to the owner's race, sex or support for sexual immorality and perversion. How is that just? Does that not harm the business owner knowing he doesn't gain the profits from such people avoiding his business?
---To allow the liberty to which employers have the God-given right, you seem to think it means that all of America will automatically become racist, sexist, "homophobic" or in any other way, discriminatory in a way YOU think is evil on any given day.
---Clearly, to force a company to hire perverts suggests to the buying public that the company is cool with perversion. The company owner is denied the ability to affect the culture by being denied the RIGHT he truly has to determine the quality of the person with whom he will hire and/or do business. These laws force immorality on the business owner, while denying him the liberty to promote morality in the culture. This is a clear case of the type of "legislating morality" about which people like you constantly whine and oppose.
People start up businesses to serve their own interests (by serving the interests of those who want what they're selling), not to provide jobs (unless it serves the owner's interests to do so). YOU, Dan Trabue, who has no interest in increasing your wealth as you demand greater contribution by those who have, who has no interest in starting a business as you dare dictate how others run theirs, cannot defend your position with reason and logic, but instead only attack the character of those with whom you disagree.
Dan,
I know nuance sometimes escapes you, so I'll try to avoid that as much as possible.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
I'd respond to this by re quoting myself, but that appears to be too difficult for you.
Not only do I recognize that reality, I'm required by the terms of my license to live by it.
"Are you acknowledging that right, but saying it SHOULDN'T be a right?""
No, I'm saying that by allowing people the freedom to make stupid business decisions, the free market will drive them out of business. I'm saying that the right to be protected from discrimination shouldn't be absolute, and that it should balance with the right of freedom of association.
1. I believe that there are some areas where anti-discrimination laws make more sense than others.
2. I believe that forcing people to hire people that they wouldn't otherwise hire is potentially bad for both employer and employee.
3. I believe that the ultimate expression of the "opportunity to be employed" is the ability to employ yourself. Further, this "opportunity to be employed" doesn't/can't extend to a specific person being employed in a specific job.
4. I believe in freedom. I believe that you are free to hire who you like, limit your patrons to those who you like, and that the market will be the final arbiter of success.
5. I believe that if the New Black Panthers decide to open up a weed dispensary and only sell to other black folks, that they should be able to do that. If they have enough business to make money, while limiting their clientele how does that hurt me.
I know this is difficult. But it's possible to acknowledge the realities of current law, abide by those realities, be required to adhere to those realities, and respectfully disagree with the laws as constituted. It's possible that it's not a binary choice between unfettered oppression, and government regulating every aspect of commercial relationships.
"Am I mistaken?"
"I believe I'm correct."
Of course you do. The fact that you think you're correct in spite of evidence to the contrary says more about your pride and hubris than anything.
One of your problems is your obsession with labeling anything you disagree with as "racist". It's one more cheap, lazy rhetorical game of BS to keep you from actually engaging with something beyond your prejudices.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
I'm not sure how many more times I need to answer this before you figure out what's plain to any moron with an IQ higher than a post.
Marshal... "Clearly, to force a company to hire perverts suggests to the buying public that the company is cool with perversion..."
Ironic, coming from someone he joined others to force the nation to put an oppressive dangerous pervert into the highest Office of the land. You don't have a problem with perverts. You have a problem with gay people. You're fine with the perverted, sexual predator, corrupt dipshit you put in office.
Shame on you and yours. An everlasting shame. Throughout history, people will look back talk about the deviants to put that pervert in office.
Art,
I don't have time to deal with yours tonight. I'll say this. Part of Dan's problem is that he's unwilling to acknowledge the following.
1. It's not necessary to agree with every single thing that is codified in US law, in order to abide by the law.
2. It's possible that there is a principles and rational reason to disagree with particular laws that doesn't include being a "racist".
3. It's even possible to acknowledge the fact that "racists", their views, and the public expressions of their views are protected by the first amendment, without agreeing with or endorsing those views.
None of that matters as long as he can set up a straw man, label it "racist", and base everything on his prejudices.
I need to leave, but I'll point out that I think Dan might agree that a convicted sex offender can safely be called a pervert. Yet the political party Dan loves, let a pervert out of jail which allowed him to brutally assault a 92 year old woman. Clearly he deserves the right to the "opportunity to work". Or not to be discriminated against by being incarcerated.
I haven't read Dan's most recent, but I'll address the obvious flaw in his argument. If (as Dan has argued) sexuality and sex/gender are not fixed, not binary, and are flexible, then the fact that we're talking about "perverts" whose "perversion" Dan finds acceptable and wholesome is really the issue.
We've watch over the last few years as pedophiles have tried to mainstream their "perversion' and gain an accepted spot on the sexuality continuum.
I find it hard to believe that Dan would object to hiring a minor attracted person for a job in an elementary school. Yet, that's the logical extension of his argument.
Dan's response to me is not at all unexpected. For now, I'll just say this yet again:
Wanting to get laid is not perversion in and of itself. It a natural desire 99.9999% of the human population share. Trump is certainly guilty of wanting to get laid, but even to the degree he does (or did...he's pretty old) is not perversion. Dan will then point to the story of Trump ogling naked girls at a beauty pageant. But most teenaged girls are almost complete in their development, particularly physically, making them more physically adult and thus ogling the body of a teenaged girl is no more perverse than ogling the body of an 18 yr old, AKA a legal adult. What's more, as Dan ignored this fact during discussions about Roy Moore, any given female can look far older or younger than her age. Now, it's certainly creepy to learn Trump might have gone out of his way to check out naked teen girls...and it's no surprise that Dan would take Trump's word on this as gospel while calling him a liar on everything else...but it still doesn't rise to the level of perversion, and certainly not in the way that same-sex attraction is by definition. "Transgender" even more obviously so. To these and other things above that get his panties in a twist, Dan relies on numbers rather than actual fact and definitions. But no amount of agreement makes his position correct, nor does SCOTUS rulings. One thing that might is proving the harm suffered by one denied a job due to discrimination of the type at issue here. He can't do it.
I find it hard to believe that Dan would object to hiring a minor attracted person for a job in an elementary school. Yet, that's the logical extension of his argument.
No, Craig, it literally is not. It is the OPPOSITE of my argument. (Again, I'm ALWAYS opposed to harm and think we can legislate against harm to protect innocents).
Another nail in the coffin of your ability to read for comprehension.
Today's conservatives, by and large - as exemplified by Trump and Marshal, but as defended and supported by the Craigs and the Stans - have devolved into nothing much more than pimps and brainless muscle men for brutes, bullies, oppressors, the corrupt and actual perverts. That they can't call out strongly the modern "conservative" movement for its embrace of the corrupt and perverted Trumps of the world will be their moral and rational undoing. Today's conservatives have become pathetic laughingstocks, to be forever scorned and mocked by their ancestors and rational people everywhere, and that saddens me.
Marshal is doubling down on the creepy pervert act himself. Come on, Craig. Can't you tell Marshal straight up that he's being a dirty disgusting old pervert?
Craig: "I don't think Dan would agree to hiring a "minor attracted" person for a job in an elementary school"
Dan: "That is the opposite of my argument/position".
Got you, either you need to clarify your position or admit that you didn't pay attention to what I actually said and responded to a straw men.
Your last paragraph has the virtue of being short. Which means that it's a smaller pile of bullshit than usual.
The bullshit might be more palatable if you were applying the same level of criticism to both sides, but you're not and it's just bullshit.
Art,
What's interesting about the whole "teen girls" thing is that a quick Google search will reveal that one of the most popular porn categories is "teen". In other words there are literally millions of people who engage in exactly the behavior Dan claims to find so offensive on a regular basis. Yet, in the past, Dan has been supportive/accepting/pro pornography. It apparently bothers him greatly that Trump might have attempted to see teenage girls partially undressed (in a non sexual setting), but bothers him much less that teenage (and underage) girls are regularly placed in explicitly sexual situations and put on the internet for free. If his silence means anything, it apparently doesn't bother him. So, Trump engaged in a milder version of a behavior (allegedly years ago) which tens of millions of people a year engage in, yet Trump is evil. Silence for the others.
Dan, before you bitch, clarify.
Do you support or oppose pornography?
Do you support teenagers engaging in pornography?
Do you find people who view "teen" porn to be equally as evil as Trump (in this one area)?
Do you support the easy, free, distribution of pornography on line?
Do you think that pornography, (viewing, participating in, producing, or profiting from) is immoral?
"In the past, Dan has been supportive/accepting/pro pornography."
Stupidly false.
"do you support or oppose pornography?"
Oppose.
" do you support teenagers engaging and pornography?"
No. Due you know how stupid-ass these questions are? No.
"Do you find others who view teen p*** to be equally as evil as Trump?
It's not a contest. I find it load some. Especially in primarily we were talking about underaged teenage girls. That is evil, whether it's Trump or someone else. It's even worse when one uses once power and wealth to do this and to get away with it. It's sick as hell. Do you disagree? Do you agree that you could never support someone who would do this in the office of president?
"Stupidly false"
I suspect that If I wanted to dig through years of comments and posts I'd find the quote I remember, but since I have no desire to do so, I'll say it's great that you oppose pornography.
"No. Due you know how stupid-ass these questions are?"
Given your penchant for equivocation, I've found that it's better to be specific and cover different things specifically.
"t's not a contest. I find it load some. Especially in primarily we were talking about underaged teenage girls."
1. You're right that it's not a contest. It's a freaking national habit, your apoplectic at one person who allegedly walked through beauty pageant dressing rooms decades ago, but silent on the tens of millions who download worse every day. Silence is a strange response to "evil".
"That is evil, whether it's Trump or someone else. It's even worse when one uses once power and wealth to do this and to get away with it."
Then I'm sure you've been vocally, publicly calling out people like Epstein, and Feras Antoon who've made hundreds of million dollars purveying this "evil". Again, the fact that Trump's behavior (repulsive and vile as it was) was years/decades ago and not ongoing, the disproportion between your apoplexy about Trump and your silence about the 10's of millions of others seems incongruous.
"It's sick as hell. Do you disagree? Do you agree that you could never support someone who would do this in the office of president?"
I do. I've never supported anyone (that I know of) who's done so.
The question is, given the 10's of millions of people downloading "teen" porn every year, how can you guarantee that you haven't supported someone who's "done so"?
Again. Your obsession with events long past, and your acting as if they're current, while you stay silent on something that 10's of millions (and likely growing) do regularly seems strange.
To be fair, I should have phrased my original comment differently, for which I apologize.
I should have said something like, "In a previous conversation I recall that Dan was either supportive of or not condemnatory or pornography, I'd appreciate it if Dan could clarify where he stands at this point.".
Again, my apologies.
"apoplectic at one person who allegedly walked through beauty pageant dressing rooms decades ago, but silent on the tens of millions who download worse every day. Silence is a strange response to "evil"."
Because those millions of people are not publicly running for president after publicly boasting about sexually praying upon children. Do you seriously not see the f****** difference?
I can say without an equivocation that I would not vote for anyone who ogled underage girls and then publicly laughed about it. Can you declare that affirmatively here now forever?
Why that one thing alone is not enough to stop people identifying as Christians from voting for or defending this piece of shit president I'll never understand. All I can say is God damn conservatives for their hypocrisy.
It never fails to astound me the level of Dan's dishonesty and immorality. He would exaggerate Trump's moral failings in referring to him as a pervert, while at the same time championing actual sexual perversion. A man who wants to get laid as often as he can, who likes to view naked babes, is not "perverted" for doing so, but simply acting on his innate compulsion to "go forth and multiply", as it were. How he chooses to indulge that compulsion might be perverted, but the compulsion itself is not. And Dan ignores the choices of homosexuals and the like which are literally and definitionally perverse and pretends they are good things, simply because he knows some who he chooses to believe are "good people".
That is to say, he ignores their perversion because they show up at his church and join in the praise of the God who abhors their behavior...because they ladle out soup at the local soup kitchen and other acts of "goodness". And this is where Dan's great hypocrisy shines again!
Here he has his homosexuals, whose behavior is explicitly forbidden by God as an abomination. He presents them as "just the BEST Christians EVER" despite their engagement in the forbidden behavior. He sets it aside, choosing to look past it because of other deeds they perform. He'd even allow them to teach small children at Sunday school, because, gee...look at all the wonderful things these perverts do!!
But Trump, who's done what is natural despite being immoral as well, is a pariah!! He's evil incarnate!! We can't have that guy be our president because he's horny!!! And lying, hypocritical and morally corrupt Dan Trabue has NEVER acknowledged ANY of the good that Trump has done as president, including the many great things he's done for the black community about whom Dan pretends to care so much. Indeed, this evil monster has even done more for Dan's beloved homosexuals than has Obama or Clinton before him:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/11/donald-trump-has-done-far-more-for-gay-people-than-the-stonewall-democrats/
Naturally, I oppose the promotion and protection of LGBT "rights" that aren't actually rights but are attempts to make their behavioral choices akin to race and sex. Dan wants to deny Trump the job of president because of his orientation...a horny heterosexual man who seeks (or sought---he's old now) to indulge his compulsions, while defending this ruling that opposes exactly that on behalf of homosexuals! There was never one so hypocritical as Dan Trabue (and his troll).
"Because those millions of people are not publicly running for president after publicly boasting about sexually praying upon children. Do you seriously not see the f****** difference?"
Of course I see the difference, although I doubt you do.
1. You're willing to be silent on something you consider "evil" because those engaging in "evil" aren't important enough for you.
2. You're assuming that no other POTUS candidates have ever engaged in this "evil".
3. You are equating Trump walking through the dressing room of a beauty pageant where women might have been naked in a non sexual situation, with "teen" porn.
"I can say without an equivocation that I would not vote for anyone who ogled underage girls and then publicly laughed about it. Can you declare that affirmatively here now forever?"
No, because I'm not stupid enough to make a statement like this.
Can you state affirmatively and with 100% certainty, that every candidate you've ever voted for has never "ogled underage girls"?
If yes, then prof.
Can you state affirmatively and with 100% certainty that you can know that every candidate you will vote for in the future has never "ogled underage girls and laughed about it"?
I'll not the reality that you've limited to claim ONLY to those who "ogle underage girls" and "laugh about it". Does that mean that you'll vote for those who watch hardcore "teen" porn without qualm? What about those who "ogle", but don't laugh?
Just remember. IF I vote for Trump, it's you who will bear the responsibility.
"Why that one thing alone is not enough to stop people identifying as Christians from voting for or defending this piece of shit president I'll never understand. All I can say is God damn conservatives for their hypocrisy."
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the broad brush trope.
1. This trope ignores the fact that most conservatives who voted for Trump did so because Hilary had equal if not greater character flaws. The problem is that those flaws aren't enough for you to get your panties in a wad over.
2. As we see, identifying as a Christian and being a Christian might not always be the same thing.
3. There are significant numbers of Christians who voted for Trump AND criticized his moral failings.
4. All political candidates have moral failings, you're just hypocritical about how you judge people.
Craig...
Of course I see the difference, although I doubt you do.
1. You're willing to be silent on something you consider "evil" because those engaging in "evil" aren't important enough for you.
2. You're assuming that no other POTUS candidates have ever engaged in this "evil".
3. You are equating Trump walking through the dressing room of a beauty pageant where women might have been naked in a non sexual situation, with "teen" porn.
Of course, you clearly don't. You misunderstand and claim understanding.
1. I don't comment on every topic in the world or upon every instance of something happening with every topic in the world. Nor do you. Not commenting on every topic is not an indication of a damned thing except that I am a finite human. You, too, don't comment on every topic. Of course. This is a stupidly deceitful dodge.
No one comments on everything. BUT, when it comes to the oppression of black folk or the racism of this president or the sexual predatory nature of this president or his unending corruption, you are mostly silent, at best, and oft times a defender. ONE way you defend this pervert con man is by comparing him to others, as if there were a comparison or that justifies your silence.
Read. Understand. Listen to oppressed people and UNDERSTAND them. Hell, read the Bible and understand Jesus' teachings. Just start there.
2. No other president has publicly boasted and laughed about his sexual predatory ways. No other president has been as openly corrupt and dishonest as this president. That you try to make this comparison is another way you defend the indefensible.
3. I am saying it is disgusting and loathsome and has been given a near-complete pass by conservatives like you and Marshal who, in so doing, are defending rapey, sexual predatory behavior. That you don't understand the difference (or feign ignorance) is part of the problem.
Read carefully and understand, you who would defend sexual predators: VIEWING child porn is awful and evil. USING YOUR POWER AND WEALTH to ogle teen-aged girls and boasting about it publicly on radio, and laughing about it, is a whole other level of evil and perversion.
SUGGESTING THAT SUCH A RAPE/PREDATOR TYPE OF MAN COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT IS A WHOLE OTHER LEVEL OF EVIL AND PERVERSION.
I would not engage in any of these and do denounce them. Conservatives, by and large, look at it, shrug and say, "Meh, we can still vote for that predator."
What the hell has happened to conservatives?
IF I vote for Trump, it's you who will bear the responsibility.
NO, God damn you. If YOU vote for Trump, YOU WILL SUFFER THAT SHAME FOR ALL OF ETERNITY. It will be YOUR perverted ass decision to look at this predator con man and say, "Yeah, I think I CAN VOTE FOR HIM knowing full well what a pervert and liar he is..."
Be an adult and own your own perversion. This line of justification of abdicating responsibility is its own level of evil.
Grow the hell up.
Can you state affirmatively and with 100% certainty, that every candidate you've ever voted for has never "ogled underage girls"?
If yes, then prof.
What a fucking pervert you are turning out to be. One who defends the most disgusting oppressions and deviants.
I CAN SAY THAT I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR SOMEONE I KNOW TO HAVE DONE THIS BECAUSE I HAVE AT LEAST SOME LEVEL OF DECENCY AND INTEGRITY.
Would I vote for someone who I DIDN'T KNOW had done this? Possibly, but people aren't held accountable for things they don't/can't know.
Don't be an idiot.
Don't be an idiot in your defense of perversions and sexual predators/rapist-types. This deviancy is part of how you defend the sexual predator, Trump.
Shame on you.
I will say this: This is one argument in favor of voting for way more women because women are just much less likely to have ogled/abused/assaulted children, as your pervert you defend and so many men have been.
As I stated above, Dan continues to judge Trump selectively and in a very relativistic manner. While he charges him with rape, he continues to support a practice upon which rapists rely, enabling them in the process.
While he accuses Trump of perversion, he continues to support actual perversion in enabling and celebrating homosexuality and the "transgendered".
While he ignores all the great things Trump has done on behalf of and to the benefit of all Americans, regardless of race, sex and even "orientation", Dan defaults to pointing to his favored perverts in positive ways because of their "good deeds" in a totally hypocritical and double-standard manner.
Honesty and consistency are not even "weak" suits for Dan. They're not suits at all for him.
"1. I don't comment on every topic in the world or upon every instance of something happening with every topic in the world. Nor do you. Not commenting on every topic is not an indication of a damned thing except that I am a finite human. You, too, don't comment on every topic. Of course. This is a stupidly deceitful dodge."
Yet you have a history of bitching when others don't comment on things you think they should.
If course, if your concern is really the "underage girls" being ogled, it makes complete and total sense that you would only comment on ONW man, who allegedly did something decades ago, while remaining silent on the tens of millions who do so regularly and on those who make billions from this "evil". Look, I understand that you choose to remain silent on present "evil" (this, slavery, etc), in order to excoriate others for past "evil", it makes perfect sense. You just keep silent in the face of "evil" except for the occasional bland, general, criticism of "all X", but "especially" the people you don't agree with politically.
"No one comments on everything. BUT, when it comes to the oppression of black folk or the racism of this president or the sexual predatory nature of this president or his unending corruption, you are mostly silent, at best, and oft times a defender. ONE way you defend this pervert con man is by comparing him to others, as if there were a comparison or that justifies your silence."
Of course this ignores the demonstrable FACT that I have spoken out against all of those things multiple times and with specificity. But, I guess it's OK for you to falsely claim that my "silence is support", while refusing to hold yourself to the same standard.
Because, it's absolutely absurd to compare one president to another in any way shape or form. Or to point out the hypocrisy of silence when it comes to those you agree with.
Earlier, you claimed that I couldn't identify any of your false claims, and I did. Well here's another, that I am "and oft times a defender" of Trump. While I have agreed with certain of Trump's actions (as I do with every president without regard to political party), I have never been a "defender" of Trump and his moral and character failings. I'd ask you to prove your bullshit false claim, but you don't do proof.
"2. No other president has publicly boasted and laughed about his sexual predatory ways. No other president has been as openly corrupt and dishonest as this president. That you try to make this comparison is another way you defend the indefensible."
You keep saying this, but you've never demonstrated that Trump's boast was actually about specific actions. Now, I've been critical of the boast, and I've been critical of the actions that are established. The fact that I'm not critical of actions that haven't been established as occurring doesn't translate to support for Trump, it translates into support for Truth.
"3. I am saying it is disgusting and loathsome and has been given a near-complete pass by conservatives like you and Marshal who, in so doing, are defending rapey, sexual predatory behavior. That you don't understand the difference (or feign ignorance) is part of the problem."
Yet the reality is that Both Art and I have NOT given him a "pass" for his vile and immoral behavior. Quite the contrary, we've both condemned his vile and immoral behavior. As always, you're welcome to provide quotes and links to prove your claims to be true, but you never have and likely won't this times. In the absence of proof, it's just more bullshit false claims.
"Read carefully and understand, you who would defend sexual predators: VIEWING child porn is awful and evil. USING YOUR POWER AND WEALTH to ogle teen-aged girls and boasting about it publicly on radio, and laughing about it, is a whole other level of evil and perversion."
Yet, you've been silent on those who use their power and wealth to both exploit underage children sexually and financially support candidates you cheer for. Nor have you, to my knowledge, criticized those candidates for associating with and accepting support from these deviants. Again, all it takes are quotes and links to prove me wrong and get an apology.
"SUGGESTING THAT SUCH A RAPE/PREDATOR TYPE OF MAN COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT IS A WHOLE OTHER LEVEL OF EVIL AND PERVERSION."
I'm unaware of any morality test for president. As I've clearly stated many times, that why I didn't vote for him.
"I would not engage in any of these and do denounce them. Conservatives, by and large, look at it, shrug and say, "Meh, we can still vote for that predator.""
This makes absolutely no sense, and literally falsely represents what many conservatives have actually said.
"What the hell has happened to conservatives?"
Many made the same decision that many liberals made in 2016 and will make in November. That they will vote for an incredibly deeply flawed, bad candidate because they don't want to vote for the other incredibly deeply flawed, bad candidate.
I understand that you have the opinion that Trump is more "evil" (based on your biased definition of evil and your prejudices against conservatives), but unless you can demonstrate objectively that Trump is significantly "more evil" that any other presidential candidate/president in history, please stop pretending like your opinion is fact.
"Be an adult and own your own perversion. This line of justification of abdicating responsibility is its own level of evil."
No, it's simply acknowledging the reality that your actions don't exist in a vacuum and that your actions have consequences.
If you plan to continually lie about my support for Trump, refer to me as "evil", repeatedly make false claims about me, then you can't expect that sort of history of bullshit to not provoke a response.
You can try to dodge responsibility for your ad hom attacks, and lies all you want. It just pushes me closer to a vote for Trump. Your actions have consequences.
"What a fucking pervert you are turning out to be. One who defends the most disgusting oppressions and deviants."
What a fucking liar and purveyor of bullshit you are. If you're going to make these kinds of false claims, then have the balls to provide quotes and links you hypocritical coward.
"I CAN SAY THAT I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR SOMEONE I KNOW TO HAVE DONE THIS BECAUSE I HAVE AT LEAST SOME LEVEL OF DECENCY AND INTEGRITY."
I CAN SAY THAT YOU DON"T HAVE THE COURAGE TO ADMIT THAT YOUR ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS WAS BULLSHIT AND DRASTICALLY OVERREACHED. NOT ONLY THAT BUT YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO ADMIT THAT YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT WAS BULLSIHT, AND THAT TO HIDE YOUR BULLSHIT YOU HAVE TO LIE ABOUT ME BECAUSE I POINTED OUT YOUR BULLSHIT.
I see absolutely no point is responding any further to your falsehoods.
Either prove your claims with quotes and links to my actual words supporting Trump in his moral failings, or admit your lies and apologize. If I were you, this is where I'd threaten to delete any further comments until you did what I said. But I'm not you. I'm exceedingly confident that you can't find any evidence of me supporting Trump's moral failings, and I'm exceedingly confident that you won't even attempt to prove your lies. So, I'm going to gladly publish your continued attempts to lie about me, to post your lack of even attempting to prove your claims, and your pathetic attempts to justify your lack of honesty.
Art,
I'd be careful about playing the "great Trump accomplishments" card. The two things people used as reasons to vote for Trump were SCOTUS justices and that he'd hire the best advisors. We git Gorsuch and Bolton, among others. It's not impressive.
What's interesting is the parallels between this and all the police conflict going on.
People like Dan are quick to blame "institutional racism", while being unwilling to change the entire system. They're quick to blame "the police", while being vague about blaming the individual cops.
I'm sure there are a few leftists out there with some intellectual honesty and consistency to acknowledge that the "system" that is "systemically racist" doesn't stop at the police department.
I'll be shocked if the same folks protesting, rioting, burning, and looting, will vote out the folks who run the system that gave them the conditions they're so pissed about.
Add a third...he wasn't Hillary. But regardless of his not so great choices (and I wouldn't write off Gorsuch just yet based on this recent horrible decision), but it seems Trump corrects his mistakes quickly as far as bad appointments and selections where he can. He's kinda learning on the job in that regard and that he doesn't drag his feet on discontinuing associations is something I see as a plus. In the meantime, he does have a really good, if not great record, of accomplishments even if it's not perfect and littered with some clunkers here and there. The good clearly outweighs the bad for the most part and most who dislike the guy, like Dan, don't have the honesty to acknowledge those great things while they wallow in their hatred exaggerating the bad. Dan is typical of those not serious about the situation at all.
Daniel Horowitz has a new book out about why Trump will win reelection. I've heard he devotes the second to last chapter on his successes and accomplishments. I don't know where Horowitz stood during the primaries (though I could look that up, I suppose), but but since the whole point is to put in the Big Chair someone who is effective on behalf of the nation, Trump has indeed proven himself thus far despite his flaws and eccentricities. Given that the alternative was certain disaster, he has now given me reason to vote FOR him rather than AGAINST the other party's candidate, though that's even more important now than then. And if even Trabue's warped and hateful perception of Trump was absolutely 100% accurate, there's no evidence, or even hint, that he's engaged in ANY of those behaviors while president. Thus, such concerns are irrelevant as hell and nothing more than a desperate attempt to dissuade supporters from a second term. Said another way, it's like lying when there's no legitimate argument for supporting the other side...which clearly there isn't one.
I didn't see your last. The time stamp doesn't make sense.
Anyway, I have little doubt that the biggest complainers will again vote for the same party that enabled all that provokes their complaints and anger. It's why it's as bad as it is. Such people...and Dan and his troll are perfect examples of this...don't live in the real world. They base their opinions on myth and falsehoods passed down for decades as truth. They run with the narrative and refuse to consider the facts and data they pretend is important. They'd prefer to attack some mythical "system" than to look inwardly and really check their own shit to see if they're doing what they truly need to do to improve each of their own lives and that which surrounds them. Far easier to place blame elsewhere than to take responsibility.
People like Dan are quick to blame "institutional racism", while being unwilling to change the entire system. They're quick to blame "the police", while being vague about blaming the individual cops.
No. People like Dan are LISTENING to what black people say and the majority of them are saying there are systemic problems in our policing services. That their black men, in particular, are nervous about being harassed and killed by the police. That "fear of the black man" and stereotypes of black men as dangerous result in police officers being "justified" to use force because "they feared for their lives" and that is a get out of jail free card for police, and one that comes from racial/racist stereotypes, which is part of the problem, black people are telling us, we who will listen.
The people I'm listening to are saying that it's the SYSTEM that is a problem and racist, because it trains cops to be warrior cops, who are not familiar with - and too often are afraid of - the black people they serve. So, there's not as much about the individual cops because it's a systemic problem. Of course, part of the systemic problem is that some cops who are individually racist are able to get on and survive within the police system because of the blue code of cops covering for cops, which is part of the way racism makes it difficult for black people. THIS is what we're hearing, we who listen to black people.
It's not about feelings, it's about informed opinions. It's not about "bad apples," it's about systemic racism.
Start listening to black people and you'd have already heard all of this and you'd recognize it's not about Dan's opinion, it's about listening to black people and their real lived experiences.
it's simply acknowledging the reality that your actions don't exist in a vacuum and that your actions have consequences.
So, I've been quite strong in condemning rape and sexual predators, so, if you decide to assault a woman, is that my fault, as well?
Don't be an ass-hat. Own your own decisions. Be an adult and act like one.
Nope. I told you that that I was considering taking this step because of your actions quite some time ago. You’ve continued to lie about my positions on and support of Trump, with increasing vitriol. I figured two things.
1. If you’re going to be this nasty, vitriolic, and dishonest if I don’t support Trump, there’s really not much advantage to me in not supporting him. Given that reality, I might as well make your false, hateful, vitriolic ad hom attacks justified.
2. If my vote can cancel out yours, it’ll be worth it.
I do own my decision. But the reason I’m leaning toward this decision is 100% due to you and your actions.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
"No. People like Dan are LISTENING to what black people say and the majority of them are saying there are systemic problems in our policing services."
Saying so doesn't make it so, and therein lies the problem of buffoonish white-guilt frauds pretending they're on "the right side" of anything.
It would be nice to rile Dan by voting for Trump, but the fact is the guy's earned another four years, and Dan has no way to dispute that without him again whining on about unsubstantiated stories of his past. And despite what might be held up as a misstep, by saying he's earned it, I'm speaking of his presidency in the aggregate. There's no denying the fact that the nation has greatly benefited by his presidency, and far more so than during the previous administration.
Does it concern you at all that Trump is probably going to lose in the landslide because of the dumpster fire of his administration? And that he's going to drag down the GOP with him, also in a landslide? Will you own it that it was Trump and his supporters and his Defenders who are responsible for this Landslide loss?
When will the GOP and conservatives become the party populated by adults willing to be responsible for their own actions?
Personally, I’ve grown out of investing all of my hope in politics and political parties. The prospect of a bumbling idiot with memory issues doesn’t really concern me at all. Obviously for conservative principles to move forward, Trump needs to be gone. That means 4 more years of Trump or Biden (unless y’all can screw Joe out of the nomination like y’all did to Bernie)
My problem is that y’all have done the same thing as 2016 and nominated a candidate who’s going to be a disaster in debates, hasn’t articulated any campaign beyond “Trump bad”, and who’s obviously pandering in his VP choice.
From what I’m seeing Blexit is real and might be big enough to move the needle. Further I’ve written about the big DFL FU to millions of pro lifers, and how the DFL factions are pushing opposing agendas.
I’m not so sure that Carville wasn’t right back in the day, and that people are smart enough to understand that the current, temporary, economic downturn (which is predicted to continue to improve into Q3/4, isn’t a result of bad economic policy, but something beyond the control of any president.
Maybe people are stupid enough to believe that bad police are a federal issue and that Biden will magically fix a local problem. Maybe people will believe that Biden’s failure to address issues of race and immigration during the P-BO years will be magically fixed this time.
In short, as someone who’s not so emotionally invested in the outcome, I’m not going to make predictions this early.
You made similar predictions in 16 and that was an abject failure.
"Does it concern you at all that Trump is probably going to lose in the landslide because of the dumpster fire of his administration?"
That's quite a bold prediction based on all available evidence. But then, as we've seen over the last three presidential elections, there's no accounting for how the electorate will vote. Two terms of Obama were enough to convince me that too many Americans have their heads up their asses. The last election didn't necessarily change that opinion, though based on Trump's record of successes as president, those first supporters were either on to something no one else saw, or they were simply desperate to try someone who wasn't a political animal for a change. Yet, despite his great work overall as president, one can't risk too much that he'll win reelection, because of all those heads up asses. If there's just enough of them, and there are just enough who won't vote Trump no matter what, we may just end up with one of the worst clearly moronic individual of all time.
Dan thinks he's astute by pretending he knows Trump's admin is a dumpster fire. But even if his admin is shaky, there's still that little detail about the great improvements that have been the result of his policies. That's what intelligent people consider when casting a vote. Administrative infighting doesn't mean jack shit to people with children and grandchildren. They care about the types of progress being made by Trump because it provides for a better future for their kids and grandkids, as well as for the nation in general. Such people knew Hillary didn't, wouldn't and couldn't provide for that better future. Such people know Biden won't get it done, either.
To pretend that Trump's past indiscretions or his routine bluster and lack of elegance mean are sufficient reasons to risk the great harm to the nation that a Joe Biden will definitely bring requires more than just saying so. For example, I'm still waiting for an example of a Trump "lie" that is worse than any of the many lies Obama, Biden, Clinton or the Democratic Party told and tell as a matter of routine. Dan has yet to provide. For that matter, he's not proven any of his charges against Trump.
But lies have pushed other candidates over the finish line. It's possible that'll be the case in November. Then we'll be certain the nation is lost. Dan wouldn't have it any other way.
Art,
The the problem with Dan’s hope is that it’s just that, a hope. The truth is that any sort of prediction like that is simply stupid. It’s the same idiocy who thought that the polls in 16 were more correct than the electoral college. If Trump wins, it’ll be the same old whiny bullshit, with no acknowledgement that the DFL had all sorts of fresh, new options and could only dredge up two old, rich, white guys. One crazier than the other.
If I was forced to commit right now, I’d say Trump in a close one. If 20,000,000 pro life dems sit this out because the party told them to F off, and Blexit siphons off even a few points of the “You ain’t black” vote, it could go further to Trump.
I’ve written about this before, but a bad candidate, factions that have agendas that are diametrically opposed, no positive messaging, and referring to anyone who doesn’t agree as “evil, racist,etc”, doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to me.
But as I said, I don’t put my hope and worth in politicians and government, I’m not invested in Trump, so I’m just not that worried.
I am invested in supporting Lacy Johnson in his quest to win CD5. I can’t wait until the restrictions are lifted and I can volunteer.
Craig/Marshal...
The the problem with Dan’s hope is that it’s just that, a hope. The truth is that any sort of prediction like that is simply stupid...
That's quite a bold prediction based on all available evidence. But then, as we've seen over the last three presidential elections, there's no accounting for how the electorate will vote.
Facts/points:
1. Trump has NEVER had over 50% approval and mostly has hovered closer to 40-44% Nothing like a majority of the nation approving of him.
2. Two of the main (only) things that Trump had going for him was that the economy (that Obama turned around) wasn't crashing yet and that unemployment (which Obama had turned around) was still tracking downwards from the Obama years.
BOTH of those measures are unmitigated disasters now.
3. Trump has only been unraveling and sounding even MORE insane (and he's always sounded nuts/out of touch) and unpresidential/unfit during these triple crises (Covid/Economy/Racial tensions) that his approval is down to 40% or lower. The majority of the nation views him as racist. Biden is leading by double digits. When Biden chooses a (probably) black female Veep, he's going to get a bump in ratings.
4. Trump is even trailing in key swing states.
GIVEN THE KNOWN DATA, at this point, it seems exceedingly likely he'll not only lose, but lose by a landslide. He'll probably cost the GOP the Senate, as well. Hell, here in Kentucky, we may kick McConnell to the curb and replace him with a black senator.
AS THINGS STAND NOW, the data indicates Trump losing, at least, and probably losing in a landslide. The ONLY hope he has is hoping for an electoral win, but that looks highly unlikely, as things stand now.
Suggesting that things look hopeful for Trump (if you're doing that) is delusional and not based upon the known data.
This, for instance...
"If I was forced to commit right now, I’d say Trump in a close one."
Do you know how delusional that sounds? Trump's approval rating is below 40%. The vast majority of people think he's handling the racial strife and covid-19 horribly. He's trailing Biden just about everywhere by significant numbers, even in Republican strongholds.
Sure, things COULD change in the coming weeks, but there's no data to suggest that's going to happen. People are tired of this pervert moron and his incessant narcissism and brainless bullying.
You can only win with 40% for so long. The man is a train wreck with a dumpster fire on it going down on a sinking ship. To suggest that it looks like, right now, he has some chance of winning is just the craziest of wishful thinking.
---How surprised I was to find you were supporting a porn star. How embarrassed I was in realizing I spelled the name wrong. Warning to others: It's not "Lacey".
---A correction of your statement: The DFL had all sorts of fresh, new options selling the same crap sandwich and could only dredge up two old, rich, white guys.
---I'm not invested in Trump. I'm invested in the nation, where my daughters and granddaughters will likely live out their lives. Each president, senator, congressman, justice of the Supreme Court...every public servant impacts the world in which they will live. The more people serving who lean in the direction of political conservatism and Christian virtue and principles, the better it is for those who come after me. If I can't get the best examples of both or either, I'll take the closest. For president, that's Donald Trump by a long shot. Weird, huh? But true nonetheless and his policies back that up. I can support that. Dan can't do a thing to dispute it except hold his breath and turn blue.
Dan,
Your commitment to the polls that failed so badly to predict the outcome in 16 is touching, if naive.
The fact that you cherry picked one opinion of mine, (while pretending that I hadn’t provided multiple reasons for that opinion), and responded with an ad hom...
It’s almost like you’ve got nothing but personal attacks and ad hom’s.
Oh, you do have a shitty, horrible candidate, so you’ve got that.
Given the known data we have about Biden, he is a decent man with credibility and experience. He is a flawed man and not in my top 10 choices, but he is not a "shitty horrible candidate." You have no basis in reality to make such idiotic claims. Especially, and don't fail to understand this, especially when the party that your people put in place is probably the worst president in US history.
Trump is a steaming puddle of vomitous diarrhea. You HAVE to acknowledge the galaxy-wide difference between the pathetic sack of shit, Trump, and the flawed candidate, Biden.
If you can't acknowledge that very reality, you have been blinded by your defense of perversions and irrationality. You have made yourself insane.
Do you recognize that, based on what we know right now, there is nothing to suggest that historians wood brand Biden as amongst the worst Presidents ever? That there's nothing to suggest that generals and military leaders would take a stand against Biden?
Trump is a national disgrace put into place largely by white conservatives like you. On that.
The polls in 2016 were largely correct. The polls at the state level have always been problematic and that remains a problem, to be sure. But the national polls were largely correct.
Again, look at the data. Trump is at 39% and has never cracked 50% support. He is recognized as a racist, an idiot, and a train wreck. Short of a miracle, he has no way to win and the only way he can possibly win is by gerrymandering and electoral college idiocy. But it's just a wet dream of trump loyalists to think that he has any serious chance, as things stand right now. As things stand right now, he is bound to lose in a landslide. Listen to reasonable conservatives. They will tell you this.
Let’s see, Biden has multiple credible claims of sexual impropriety and at least one of rape, he can’t get through a sentence with a prompter, and he didn’t address any of the things he’s claiming he’ll fix during his 8 years as VP.
I’ll grant you that he’s not as morally and ethically challenged as Hillary, but he’s still a horrible candidate.
Of course the party that blames all of society’s ills on “rich, white, men” trots out two finalists who are rich white men who have been in Congress for decades. Yet somehow they bear no responsibility for anything that happened during those years.
Your argument against my point on polling, is to acknowledge that I’m at least partially correct.
At this point anyone who’s making definitive predictions about this election is an absolute idiot.
I do appreciate how effectively you addressed and countered all of the specific reasons I gave which might play into this election.
By addressed and countered, I clearly mean ignored.
“Most polls correctly predicted a popular vote victory for Clinton, but overestimated the size of her lead, with the result that Trump's electoral college victory was a surprise to analysts. Retrospective analyses differ as to why the polls and commentators interpreting them were unable to correctly forecast the result of the election.”
It’s Wiki, but it’s good enough.
Post a Comment