https://www.instagram.com/p/Dd4dePhAchk/?stkn=cHdlNmNxMjJ3dDZr
This is what democrats like Dan are going to vote for in November, but it’s “right wing” violence is the problem.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dd5SXy8sUrL/?stkn=ZDEzYTFocDJjaGkw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Again, your lack of nuance in reading comprehension is hamstringing you. Clearly, he's talking about metaphorically beating Maher in an intellectual discussion, not a physical assault.
This, for someone who remains silent or actually defends actual killings, beatings, violence and kidnapping by your actual brutality makes this lightweight nonsense attack from you just lack entirely in credibility.
How about these political commercials your felon is running using our tax dollars? The ones where he's talking about removing citizens who he accuses of socialism and communism- - NEITHER of which is criminal EVEN IF it were true..?
Will you condemn those violent threats paid for with tax dollars?
You have no credibility.
Dan
If you say so. By all means, prove your claim.
Remember when y'all had an absolute fit over a TV commercial with archery targets on DFL candidates in races for seats that the GOP wanted to flip? I guess it's only OK to use this kind of language if you're a democrat now.
What silence? What killings or kidnappings? I've been posting for months, of not years, on all sorts of killings, kidnappings, and rapes which you've chosen to ignore. Which isn't surprising.
What "political commercials" are being paid for with "our tax dollars" ? What specific "citizens" are being talked about being "removed" specifically for supporting "communism and socialism?
How could I possibly condemn something about which I have no knowledge, and you've provided no proof?
If, for example, these alleged ads are talking about removing the DSA candidates from their races by beating them electorally, I see no problem with that. Yet, with no evidence of your claims, I cannot respond.
Coming from someone with no credibility himself, that's hilarious.
Do you have any problem with Al-Sayed lying repeatedly in interviews and commercials?
To be clear, the point of the post is the hypocrisy of y'all on the left. If Vivek had said something like this, y'all would be freaking out because "right wing violence", but because it's one of yours, it's all cool.
What's hilarious is that Maher constantly talks about all of the leftist politicians and public figures who his show asks to come on and how few of them actually do. He regularly has conservatives on (JD Vance for example) and has respectful conversations even when they disagree. I have no question that Maher has invited El-Sayed on and that El-Sayed has declined.
But I'm the one with no nuance or whatever.
Last one on this idiocy.
1. Maher did respond by inviting El-Sayed on his show.
2. El-Sayed misrepresented what Maher has said about Islam. The problem is not whether Maher's comments are "terrible" but whether his comments are accurate. I have no problem with someone saying something "terrible" as long as their statements are accurate and truthful.
Pointing out the reality that the Japanese military engaged in some of the most heinous activities imaginable from 1931 to 1945, might appear "terrible" to some Japanese, yet that doesn't negate the Truth of the Japanese actions.
The point of the post remains valid. You and folx like you would and will vote for all sorts of candidates regardless of their behavior or political goals.
If you lived in MN right now, you know as well as I do that you'd gladly vote against the black woman running for governor in favor of a senator that actively helped those who were defrauding the government, you'd vote for the Lt Governor who presided over the worst fraud in recent history, and the AG who colluded with those defrauding the government.
You almost certainly know that Trump used tax dollars to pay for these political commercials. Here's the transcript for one...
"This is the final battle. We will cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media, and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all."
This is the language that he regularly uses about mainstream Democrats and media, who are simply fellow citizens who dare to disagree with his actually fascist-leaning policies, his murders, his executions, his abuses of power, like using tax dollars to pay for partisan ads. Shame, shame.
Dan
"but because it's one of yours, it's all cool."
No. It's because he has no history of promoting actual violence and quite the opposite. People who are not overtly violent can get away with using language that figuratively speaks of beating others, as in debates, not with actual assaults and murder like your boys are doing.
Dan
1. You providing a "quoted" snippet of something isn't proof.
2. Given the reality that "mainstream democrats" are actively supporting DSA candidates, that's a bit childish.
3. That's what politics is right now, appealing to one's voters to throw out or defeat those with whom they disagree using the electoral process.
4. Making another unproven claim to "prove" an earlier unproven claim is one of the most childish and idiotic bits of BS you've ever done. Prove your damn clam!
It's not that dissimilar from the language that DFL candidates use about GOP candidates or that you use about Trump.
Hell, the last line of your comment is simply a list of slanderous BS with absolutely zero proof of any of it.
Shame on you for making a BS claim, not proving it, and doubling down on the BS claim.
Again with unproven claims, lies, and slander.
But thanks for making my point that you'll support those who use this sort of language as long as they're on your side of the aisle.
Again, as long as you continue to defend the actual killers, rapists, kidnappers, and assailants in the GOP, including at the highest levels, then your little protest against somebody using words that hurt your feelings (but not actual violence) falls flat. You have no credibility. I don't know how you can't understand this, historically you have no credibility. Historians will look back at the GOP and weep. They already are. Open your eyes. You're on the wrong side of history son.
There is no proof of El Sayad being violent. There IS objective proof that the GOP is engaging in active violence and active harm and ongoing threats against half the nation.
Dan
Did you see where Marshall joined in with the other Christian nationalist extremists saying maybe it's not a good thing that women vote? That is a direct threat to human rights. Will you take a stand against it? Will you denounce it in the strongest terms possible?
Here's a chance to demonstrate you're actually against violence despite what your party keeps doing and leaning into. Because right now frankly, your protests against violence aren't believable.
Dan
Again, as long as you continue to make unfounded accusations, unproven claims, and sling BS, you literally have no credibility.
Nothing here has "hurt my feelings", and you could have known that based on what I've said in this thread.
Hey, if you want to make wild and unfounded accusations feel free. I can't stop you from looking paranoid and stupid. I've never claimed that El-Sayed was "violent", so you engage in this BS straw man nonsense.
It's hilarious how determined to ignore what is going on across the globe, not to mention in the US which is enabled by left wing policies and politicians.
Meanwhile you just lie and slander with your unproven claims and BS.
What insanity is this? You make all sorts of unfounded, unproven comments and simply refuse to prove your claims, then pivot to this unrelated BS?
Expressing an opinion that you personally don't like is not "violence". My responding to this is not me addressing "violence" in any real sense. It's you making demands that I must do something in a certain way to try to earn your approval.
I'll say this on the subject generally. Current US law allows women to vote, and I support current US law. If there is a movement to change the law using a legal process, I'll deal with that if it happens.
I'm not playing along with your BS games though.
Prove your claims.
After your bold claim, I looked to find the evidence of this great "violence" you claimed, and I found a nothingburger.
I found one sentence which opined that opined that those who authored the 19th amendment would have thought differently if they could have seen what is happening today. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but the monolithic voting trends of women are interesting. I saw no "violence", nothing but one person offering an opinion that you don't like.
Is offering opinions that you don't like grounds to cancel or silence someone?
Is making a promise or commitment and failing to keep that promise or commitment behavior that you would endorse?
Is lying about one's background or qualifications enough to prevent you from voting for someone who you might otherwise support?
Marshal actual words as regards to the option of depriving women of a human rights basic (ie, his tepid support for active oppression).
Looking at women of today,
I don't see that the 19th Amendment was all that great an idea.
This again points to use of the term "hero" for
those who champion bad ideas.
He's literally saying that he does NOT see women having the vote as "all that great of an idea..." and then, an example of a "bad idea."
This exactly points to the difference between a non-violent person (El-Sayed, in this case) saying something with figurative language that, IF he meant it literally, would be an atrocious thing to say... but of course, he didn't mean it literally and of course, he's not promoting violence...
THAT, on the one hand, and then today's GOP (especially their maga wing) who are actively promoting and accepting notions that Democrats and liberals and the free press are "the enemy" and "commies" who need to be "gotten rid of" and those IN THE ADMINISTRATION, along with people like Marshal, who are testing out the idea of removing human rights from some people JUST LIKE they did/are doing with innocent people off the shores of Venezuela, just like they're doing with people they "suspect" of being an immigrant... etc. You all are the team that is promoting curbs on human rights/ie, oppression, in the far right wing of magop, and then most of the rest of you remain silent, in effect giving your blessing to human rights abuses.
You're on the wrong side of morality, of reason, of decency and of history.
This is why you should read my comments before you spew idiocy. I understand that you've blown an offhand, seemingly humorous or hyperbolic aside into some massive offense to human dignity.
I suspect it has to do with your ignorance of the data regarding how women (particularly left wing women) vote and what drives them to vote the way they do. I suspect that Art is referring to this data (I've posted about it as well) and the results of this monolithic voting bloc supporting candidates and policies he disagrees with. In general, most people (including you) don't particularly care for those who disagree with you politically and occasionally make comments to express their frustration. I seem to recall you making some decidedly graceless and nasty comments about my votes.
But nonetheless, I see no reason to join your hysterical rant about this one sentence.
I also get that it's a way for you to divert attention from you and on to others. But hey, why prove your claims to be True when it's so much easier to just spew whatever BS comes to your childish little mind.
By all means, prove your claims, and I might take you seriously.
Craig:
Is offering opinions that you don't like grounds to cancel or silence someone?
We should NOT silence someone's free speech by force of law.
BUT, when someone is espousing human rights abuses/oppression/denying the vote/encouraging slavery, etc, GOOD people have a responsibility to denounce that sort of talk in the strongest terms possible.
A. Do you agree?
And especially, IF someone on "your side" of politics is advocating slavery, disenfranchisement, killing, etc, THEN the people on that person's "side" is especially obligated to speak out against it and denounce it in the strongest terms... again, when we're talking about advocating oppression and human rights abuses.
B. Do you agree?
C. Do you agree that denying the vote to women IS a human rights abuse?
Is making a promise or commitment and failing to keep that promise or commitment behavior that you would endorse?
Not generally, UNLESS someone made a promise or a commitment to do bad stuff. The politician who runs on promoting slavery or oppression of women should ABSOLUTELY NOT keep that promise.
D. Do you agree?
Is lying about one's background or qualifications enough to prevent you from voting for someone who you might otherwise support?
Generally, yes. That is, IF someone said he was the very top of their class and they were only second or third from the top, that's an exaggeration that I wouldn't punish with NOT voting for them.
IF they said that, "ON DAY ONE," and "in 24 hours" they were going to end the war in Ukraine on Day One and bring down inflation... first of all, I wouldn't vote for that person because that is 1. A stupid couple of "promises" that 2. He OBVIOUSLY wasn't going to keep. People who lie with abusive, stupid lies automatically lose my respect and likely my vote.
E. How about you?
IF, on the other hand, they made promises to commit human rights abuses and undermine the rule of law and justice AND he kept those promises (or even TRIED to keep them), he wouldn't have had my vote in the first place and him keeping bad promises would only undermine him further.
If a president was overtly corrupt, a convicted felon, an acknowledged cheater in his business and multiple marriages and girlfriends, laughed and boasted about sexual assault and sexual abuses... would that person even remotely have your support? OF COURSE, such a person is not someone I would EVER vote for, but how about you?
Oh, wait. We know that answer for you. Much to your shame.
I've answered your questions. How about you, will you answer mine?
I suspect it has to do with your ignorance of the data regarding how women (particularly left wing women) vote and what drives them to vote the way they do. I suspect that Art is referring to this data (I've posted about it as well) and the results of this monolithic voting bloc supporting candidates and policies he disagrees with.
Wait. Are you suggesting here (as it sounds like you are) that if you think "too many" in a certain demographic bloc vote in a way that you personally disapprove of, you'd support removing the right to vote for that who CLASS of people?
WILL YOU STATE, unequivocally, that you would ALWAYS condemn denying the right to vote to women?
WILL YOU STATE, unequivocally, that anyone who proposes such an idea - even HINTS at it - is an enemy to human rights and thus, to you and such ideas have NO place in a free republic?
And because you keep trying to dodge, I'm NOT asking "Would you lock them up for bad speech?" I'm saying will you stand for the women, the black people, the socialists, the communists, the Jews, etc, when "they" come for them? Or will you cowardly remain silent because it's not your in-group?
"We should NOT silence someone's free speech by force of law."
Just by the force of the delete button or any extra legal means available.
"GOOD people have a responsibility to denounce that sort of talk in the strongest terms possible. "
Says who" (To quote/paraphrase you)
" Do you agree?"
I agree that you have the freedom to say whatever you want, and almost always your crap gets posted here. I do not agree that you get to dictate to others what they should believe, how they should act, or that they should "denounce" something (you blew out of proportion) simply because you demand it.
" Do you agree?"
If someone on "my side" (I guess you get to determine that too) was advocating for all of the horrible things you list, I'd argue against those things. Are you saying that you would do the same 100% of the time anyone on "your side" advocated one of those things? When those on "your side" advocate "oppression and human rights abuse" do you automatically denounce them? When those on "your side" use the power of the federal government to censor dissenting opinions and to pressure religious leaders to parrot what we now know to be lies, do/did you denounce them? If so, show me the link to where.
"Do you agree that denying the vote to women IS a human rights abuse?"
No. Do you regularly and loudly denounce countries and cultures that DO deny women the right to vote?
"Not generally,..."
So, if you (for example) made a promise and failed to fulfill that promise, then you would acknowledge that you would not endorse your own behavior?
" Do you agree?"
Of course, I would prefer that people not fulfill their promises that end up badly for other people. For example, a politician who promised to end cash bail (and did so) which allowed a repeat violent offender the opportunity to kill someone should definitely not have kept their promise.
"Generally, yes."
So, if a person claimed to be say a nuclear physicist but was not a nuclear physicist, you would not vote for them based on that lie. Is that correct? Would you encourage others to vote for that person if they were in a position to vote for them?
I think that we all understand that campaign promises come with a degree of hyperbole and optimism regardless of the candidate. But, I'm specifically saying that if someone referred to themselves repeatedly as "a physician" when they were not licensed to practice medicine (or had never been a licensed physician) would you vote for them?
"How about you?"
As always I will vote for the candidate that is most aligned with my political positions and against the candidate who is antithetical to my political positions. I do not expect imperfect people to run for office. Yet, I do hold those who run for or serve in higher office to some basic standard of honesty. So lying about one's background, or making nonsensical statements about a rash of "lynchings" would almost always be a big no for me.
If my only options were those who supported policies that I strongly disagreed with, then I would reluctantly do so. BUT, we're not talking about what I would do, we're talking about what you would do in the very specific instance of a candidate for national office lying about their professional CV.
Let's recall that there was a point when Joe Biden's lying and plagiarism was disqualifying, and he continued to tell the same disproven lies throughout his presidency. Kamala Harris has a history of trading sex for political gain, and you voted for her.
You are the one presenting yourself as someone who would never vote for anyone less than perfect, nor would you advocate or support someone like that. I'm trying to determine what is disqualifying TO YOU in a candidate. In this case, whether or not you would vote for, support, or advocate for, a candidate for national office who had egregiously lied about their professional CV. It's really not that hard of a question for you to answer, yet you spewed a bunch of bullshit instead of a simple yes or no.
I almost always do. You on the other hand... I recall someone promising to answer my questions when they were not on their phone and had more time. Look how well that went.
"Wait. Are you suggesting here (as it sounds like you are) that if you think "too many" in a certain demographic bloc vote in a way that you personally disapprove of, you'd support removing the right to vote for that who CLASS of people?"
No.
"WILL YOU STATE, unequivocally, that you would ALWAYS condemn denying the right to vote to women?"
No. Because I have no obligation to do what you demand because you'll respond with hatred, vitriol, and childish nonsense if I don't do what you demand.
"WILL YOU STATE, unequivocally, that you would ALWAYS condemn denying the right to vote to women?"
No. (see above) However, I firmly believe that the 1st amendment to the US Constitution protects ALL speech no matter how offensive you find it. You appear to be suggesting that anyone who says something you don't like on this topic should be silenced (at minimum) or expelled from the US. Are you really suggesting what you seem to be suggesting.
I haven't dodged anything. Unlike you, I answered both of your gotcha questions in a simple direct manner.
Would I support a movement to deprive anyone who is currently eligible to vote of their ability to vote, no. Would I silence someone for suggesting it, also no.
Of course, this means that I vehemently oppose anything, anyone, or any political party/movement, or any religion that works to allow those who are ineligible to vote.
Given that I am much more apt to speak out here about my disagreements with those on "my side" than you are anywhere that last bit seems divorced from reality. I regularly have extended and somewhat heated disagreements with Glenn and Art about things. The difference is that we can disagree on some things without hatred, vitriol, deleting each other, or demands that others denounce people. You know, like respectful adults.
Dan:
"Do you agree that denying the vote to women IS a human rights abuse?"
No.
Wow. God have mercy on. your soul and the lives of any women who are around you. Repent.
Holy Jesus, what in the name of all that is holy has happened to our so-called "conservative" family and friends? Why have their hearts hardened? Their minds weakened? Is it fear of being replaced or "less than" that causes them to cower and join in with oppressors? Is it simple amorality based upon personal whims and hunches? Is it a great fogging of their minds by their own human traditions?
Whatever it is, O God, we pray for the depraved and deflowered, the abusers of humanity, those who side against the poor and marginalized. Even thought you literally promised such people "eternal flames prepared for them," I pray that their eyes are opened and their minds restored. God, in your grace for them, help guide their feet to paths of righteousness, and in your justice, grace and love, remove them from any positions where they can continue to cause harm and oppression.
Break their abusive spirits and save our land from such oppressors. Rebuke them in their oppression and bring down such violent aggressors and lift up the poor and marginalized, women and immigrants and the others they would harm, given the opportunity and power.
In the name of the almighty God of grace and justice and just basic decency I pray.
Amen.
Do you regularly and loudly denounce countries and cultures that DO deny women the right to vote?
Yes. Of course. When someone is ALWAYS opposed to human rights abuses, including disenfranchisement, then one is ALWAYS opposed to it. It's pretty easy when one's morality is fairly consistent and rational and not based upon the interpretations of what one might view as a whimsical, graceless piece of shit "godling."
You appear to be suggesting that anyone who says something you don't like on this topic should be silenced (at minimum) or expelled from the US
Then you can't read and can't understand. God, remove this spirit of stupidity from this poor man. Save him from his cowardice and idiocy and abusive obtusity.
I've just literally made it clear that free speech is not penalized by law. You, Craig, CAN endorse raping women and enslaving children for your sexual pleasure if you want and we won't arrest you.
But you are NOT free from being loathed for holding such despicable opinions (whether it's rape, disenfranchisement or ANY misogynistic abuses). You are NOT free from being denounced for being a wannabe coward-tyrant-pig if you act in such ways and promote such theories.
What has become of you (you all)? Do you so easily abandon the love, grace, human decency and brave support for human rights you learned from Jesus and common sense and basic decency?
You are free to say out loud that you lust after little girls or want to deny women their liberty. We are free to find such positions pathetic, dangerous and loathesome, of the great Satan, if such a figure existed and certainly having nothing to do with an almighty God. AND, if you promote such anti-human rights too far, we have the right to pursue arrest if you break any laws.
For you see, in the wisdom of OUR nation, at least, free speech (which is foundational and great) DOES have limits. When such speech starts to infringe upon the rights of others - when you're inciting riots, violence or harm to others directly - THEN charges might legally and reasonably be made and you'd have your day in court. EVEN under this depraved, abusive administration, there ARE limits.
Well, I appreciate how Grace filled your screed is. What an example you are for us all.
Where, specifically have you specifically opposed countries that do not allow women to vote? Link to your blog or facebook post where you’ve done that explicitly. Not your blather about opposing “all” of something. Show me where you specifically, publicly, denounced countries that don’t allow women to vote.
Yes, you limited yourself to “by law”, which leaves many other ways to silence your enemies, some of which you invoke.
Tne problem is that your disapproval, hatred, vitriol, lies, and attacks mean nothing. It’s just you lashing out at anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
C
So you have no problem justifying limits on the right to free speech, but vehemently object to limits on the ability to vote. Interesting.
There is, of course, nothing morally wrong or rationally inconsistent with deleting obscene, oppressive posts from one's website. It's not counter-to the teachings of Jesus and it's not contrary to human rights.
Because, of course.
Ontheother hand, promoting the misogynistic notion that women should be denied the vote IS obscene and contrary to human rights.
You've taken your stand. Maybe one day you'll come to repent for holding such a vulgar and oppressive position.
Ahhhhhhh the self-serving, self-justifying excuses for silencing those you disagree with.
Strangely enough you didn’t object when the Biden administration used the power of the federal government to do exactly that.
But making shit up is something you do endorse.
Craig, obscenely asked:
Where, specifically have you specifically opposed countries that do not allow women to vote?
WHAT DO YOU CARE? You won't even come forward and affirm that women's right to vote is a basic human right! You CLEARLY don't give a damn about women's rights or the oppression of women ANYWHERE, if you can't support it here.
You lose, Craig. I don't know what you're failing to get. You have NO standing to question women's suffrage anywhere if you won't support it clearly here and affirm it as a specific human right.
Let me know when you can slap yourself back into even a smidgeon of reason, common sense and moral decency and take the "brave" stand that, of course, women IN THE US voting is a basic human right... THEN we can talk about my position for human rights in other places (Hint: I'm ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF IT... that should be your first clue, no matter how much you denigrate such a crazy position!)
Craig:
you have no problem justifying limits on the right to free speech,
You just continue to disappoint me and amaze me with your ignorance and lack of understanding. You DO know that "the right to free speech" does not mean that there are NO LIMITS on free speech? It doesn't mean that everyone needs to accept awful, vulgar, oppressive comments and opinions and policy suggestions, all in service to "free speech..."? That would be the OPPOSITE of free speech.
When you cut part of a thought off from its context and use that as justification for bullshit, you should be ashamed. But you have no shame or grace.
The limits on free speech are few well known. Offending you isn’t one of those limits.,
What a verbose and obfuscating way to acknowledge that you cannot do what I asked you to do. You can’t prove your claim so you lash out at me for putting you in this position.,
We’ve all heard your blanket BS that you hide behind to avoid dealing with specifics.
But thanks for emphatically demonstrating that you’ve never denounced the countries/religions/cultures that treat women like shit and that you want to mass immigrate into the US.
250,000 rapes of British girls, boys, and women, and you hide blithe generalizations.
Watching you expose your True self is disturbing and amusing at the same time.
The more interaction I see between you/Marshal and Dan, the more his abject depravity, obfuscation, ignorance of reality and downright stupidity is exposed. The man is unable to just stick to the topic of a post and when he tries to do so he is a master of misrepresenting those who disagree with him.
I can’t argue with any of that.
By all means come, Glenn. Come make yourself clear. I'm saying moral and rational people always stand in support of human rights, including the vote, including, obviously, for women. Will you take a strong stand in support of the vote for women? Also do you understand how insane it is that I have to even ask that question?
If you can and will take a strong stand in support of the rights of women, including the right to vote, will you take a strong stand against those in your party who oppose the rights of women? Will you denounce them for such an immoral, ungodly, and oppressive position?
To call me depraved while Marshall is advocating denying the right to vote to women is just a little bit crazy. Can you understand that?
Dan
To be clear I've always figured that Glenn was the sort who would be misogynistic and anti-human rights. I had expected it from Marshal as well although I did not expect it to be so blatantly put out there.
Craig, God bless your sad, sad, soul, I half expected that you would give this sort of mambypamby, vaguely, "I sort of support women but I'm not going to denounce their oppression..." response, because that's your emo.
But that sort of makes you the worst of all. It seems like you have some bit of humanity left in yourself that you recognize it's wrong and yet are too cowardly to take a stand for human rights that your comrades are promoting.
Dan
"Is offering opinions that you don't like grounds to cancel or silence someone?"
That's just a rhetorical question, right? It's S.O.P. for Dan!
Once again, what we see from leftist women these days, their having the "right" to vote does indeed seem like a horrible idea. This of course bodes ill for intelligent women...that is, conservative women and Christian women who are conservative because conservatism more closely aligns with the Will of God. The nation can't afford to lose the voices of such women. Those who march around with pink pussy hats? Losing them would be a great benefit to the nation. Plus, fewer infants would be murdered.
Just as true is how Dems and libs in general are enemies and need to be recognized as such because it's true. Their policy proposals are detrimental. The "free press", so long as they are most heavily populated with Dems/libs/marxists who think their job is to influence the nation are especially worthy of replacing and marginalizing.
I know of know one on my side of the ideological divide who are promoting any proposal to deprive anyone of their human rights. But this is yet another term Dan perverts to include behaviors which aren't themselves rights at all. That's typical of most on the left, who insist whatever it they feel like doing they have a right to do. That's not what liberty and freedom is all about. Murdering one's own child...in the womb or not...is not a right by any stretch of the imagination, but Dan supports that oppression and that denial of the actual human right of life.
If the current administration "suspects" someone of being an illegal alien (NOT merely an "immigrant" which is not what an illegal alien is), it's with good cause and upon learning they're not illegal aliens, nothing happens to such a person.
"BUT, when someone is espousing human rights abuses/oppression/denying the vote/encouraging slavery, etc, GOOD people have a responsibility to denounce that sort of talk in the strongest terms possible."
That's why I denounce you as complicit in the murders of millions of innocent conceived yet unborn people. It's why I think it's detrimental that stupid people like you are allowed near ballots. You and the women you defend support the oppression, murder and enslavement of the unborn. You're scum.
Dan, if you can’t define a universal moral standard then your claim makes no objective sense. By what standard do you declare someone or something objectively moral?
Beyond that I’m not arguing against your fantasies.
C
It’s strange, I document all sorts of real, actual oppression of women across the globe and you say nothing. But now you’ve magically turned one person’s opinion into full blown oppression. No wonder you’re more worried about “right wing” violence than anything else.
Living in fear of everything being oppressive must be difficult.
Move to Hamtramck and see how oppressive that feels.
Note that we already deny some people the "right" to vote. There are age limitations, for example. Citizenship should be absolute and jackwagon progressives think non-citizens have a right to vote in our country. The "right" to vote is not sacrosanct or inviolable. What matters is the reason given to deny and whether or not that reason makes sense to those who can "vote" to deny anyone's "right to vote". The only flaw in my position is that not all women are leftist asshats and I'd hate to see them suffer for the asshattery of leftists. That would be a leftist thing to do.
That was funny! I love when someone who so clearly rejects the Will of God so often pretends to pray to Him.
"When someone is ALWAYS opposed to human rights abuses, including disenfranchisement, then one is ALWAYS opposed to it."
Unless the abused, oppressed and disenfranchised is in the womb, then that's OK. Oppress the hell out them!
OH NO! Dan's loathing you now! Oh, woe is you! But I'm certain he's loathing you in a really, really grace embracing manner.
"There is, of course, nothing morally wrong or rationally inconsistent with deleting obscene, oppressive posts from one's website."
Of course there is, especially when what you delete is neither obscene or oppressive. (How can an opposing opinion, position or statements of fact be "oppressive"?)
"It's not counter-to the teachings of Jesus and it's not contrary to human rights."
That is, according to the Gospel of Trabue.
Is the right to vote completely unrestricted?
Should someone diagnosed with mental illness be able to vote with no restrictions?
Post a Comment