U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

<snip>.  

An excellent post from a eurocommie who summed this all up better than most US native-born citizens could have!

[SweetPea]

31 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Huh?  You have the Proud Boys, a violent hate group marching with the whatever Patriot group.  How is marching through the streets to spread a violent message from a hate group not violent?  And this is after the Charlottesville murder of Heather Heyer.  

Your argument about masks is a strange one considering your position on marching with guns.  If marching with a mask helps violent members of your group avoid prosecution, wouldn't carrying a gun help violent members of your group to carry out violence?  Carrying a gun is NOT harmless, especially when it's being done by a hate group at a hate rally.  

One of these ideologies is responsible, using a very conservative estimate, for tens of thousands of murders and injustices in the US over the last century.  And actively promotes racism and ethnonationalism.  The other group is ok with punching Nazis now and then.  The fact that you're going after antifa is telling.  

You probably aren't aware since you aren't from here, but black people have only been close to legally equal citizens in this country try for the last fifty years.  And the US government and people have a long history of genocide and racism.  So we get kind of sensitive when people start beating that drum again and taking to the streets.  

And trying to equate antifa to white supremacists and racists is going to be met with bafflement at the very least. 

First of all, I don't know who the Proud Boys are, or what message they were spreading. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they had the right to hold that rally, and they broke know laws by marching on the streets. Their message is irrelevant. It's very revealing that you keep mentioning it. It highlights that you think some ideas shouldn't be publicly expressed, and if people commit violent acts against those who spread these ideas, they are justified.

I disagree with that. I support free speech. I think the Proud Boys should be able to say whatever they want, so long as it's legal (not incitement to violent etc.). I also think that Antifa members should be able to say whatever they want, so long as it's legal. So that is where we differ. You think it's justified to attack people for their ideas, I don't. Yet I am the one regularly called a fascist. Strange world.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

First of all, I don't know who the Proud Boys are, or what message they were spreading. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they had the right to hold that rally, and they broke know laws by marching on the streets. Their message is irrelevant. It's very revealing that you keep mentioning it. It highlights that you think some ideas shouldn't be publicly expressed, and if people commit violent acts against those who spread these ideas, they are justified.

I disagree with that. I support free speech. I think the Proud Boys should be able to say whatever they want, so long as it's legal (not incitement to violent etc.). I also think that Antifa members should be able to say whatever they want, so long as it's legal. So that is where we differ. You think it's justified to attack people for their ideas, I don't. Yet I am the one regularly called a fascist. Strange world.

That's literally their message, an incitement to violence.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Suttree said:

They still show up in FBI and DHS reports about the growing far right / white supremacist domestic terror threat. It's kind of crazy to think that we're talking about the dangers refugees and immigrants pose when the above have been responsible for 73% of violent extremist incidents in the US since 9/11.

Kinda makes the hand wringing over people not being tolerant of intolerance rather nonsensical.

I think you should also include this part from the link:

Quote

We examined news coverage from LexisNexis Academic and CNN.com for all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2011 and 2015. Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks. Given the disproportionate quantity of news coverage for these attacks, it is no wonder that people are afraid of the Muslim terrorist. More representative media coverage could help to bring public perception of terrorism in line with reality.

There's nothing subtle about the fear tactics on display. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

He hasn’t trolled.  You and Frog Eater, along with the hardline progressives in this thread, have boiled it down fairly quickly.  White people are bad.  They espouse the same prejudicial views that they claim to fight against; but fighting against white people is okay because...reasons, I guess.

This is poignant to me as a straight, white, Christian man; not because of all those labels.  I don’t care what people think of me, or if they call me names, sticks and stones and all that.  However, I do have four kids, the two oldest are girls and the two youngest are boys, whom by all appearances to me seem to be straight, white and Christian.  There seems to be a large segment of society that thinks they are inherently evil, or that I am inherently evil; or that at the least we are helping propagate something inherently evil.  This is important because the left are exceptional well versed at using guilt and semantics against people; as this thread and all the others have shown.  You have clowns like Sword of Doom who uses terms like anti-choice (and also says stuff like f*** white people), and that’s okay, because it works within the narrative they’re pushing.  I guess I should take my kids out behind the woodshed, because they are destined to grow up into nazis.

However, chikanary or whatever his name is, is right.  All you have to do is scroll back through the US politics thread to see how many of the posters are okay with violence against conservatives.  Which is shocking, because no one wins in that scenario, I dare say especially not the left/liberals/progressives (they use so much terminology I’m not sure what they want to be called).

As far as not being American and posting in a US politics thread, non-American left-leaning people far outweigh non-American right-leaning people post in this thread; even a self-proclaimed eurocommie, but that seems to be okay with you guys right?  Because he foolishly believes in socialism?

And then there is the guy (I forget his name, it’s inconsequential) who called me sophomoric and naive because I had the temerity to say both sides need to come more towards the middle.  Going across the aisle is the only way forward, IMHO, or this melting pot gonna truly melt.  That may sound cool while you sit at your laptop, but it won’t be.

To the bolded, and separate the last one from the rest, it's not that white people are evil. Outside of a few outliers, nobody is arguing that. What people have regularly argued is that a lot of the problems in our society are due to white people looking the other way when they have the option to make a better society for every American. It's things like denying white privilege, institutional racism, gentrification, etc. White people aren't bad, but there sure are a lot of white people who could do a much better job at promoting diversity, inclusion and justice, as well as a great many other things. 

As to the last bit, I would argue that anti-choice is the more appropriate term. You cannot in good faith call yourself pro-life because you oppose abortions while also supporting so many other policies and politicians that directly lead to the suffering and deaths of your fellow human beings. And so, so, so many Republican/conservative beliefs and policies do directly that. 

[SweetPea]

30 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

On some level, I think you have a point. Violence and intimidating behaviors should be discouraged and punished by the state. This is a no-brainer.

On the other hand this exchange is not taking place in a vacuum. Context matters.
1. When a law is passed, one may wonder if it has specific targets. If it does, the law may be about repressing a specific political or minority group. There are many precedents for this, especially in US history. History is generally not kind to them. It's difficult to support them in hindsight.
2. There is undoubtebly more than just xenophobia being rampant in the US right now. It has been called racism, fascism or nazism. Whatever one calls it, antifas are trying to fight it. One may disagree with their means, but one shouldn't disagree with the core of their ideas (which is certainly not fascist, as per its current definition), or confuse the means with the ideas themselves. You don't become a fascist just for being violent toward other people ; what the other people think matters. Otherwise, you're taking the position that using violence constitutes fascism. Which isn't a bad position, as long as you understand that makes the US one of the most fascist states in the history of humanity (it has been at war for more than 90% of its existence). 
3. If wearing a mask and carrying a baton to protests deserves a law against it, perhaps one should seriously think about what carrying guns to them deserves. Right-wing militias are terrifying for many people, but there seems to be little preventing it in many states. Before condemning antifas, one should remember the people they are targetting are not peaceful demonstrators, but people who also use intimidation methods of their own. In fact, right-wing terrorism has been a problem in the US for decades now if one is looking at its modern expression, for much longer if one is not.
4. Such a law thus may be interpreted as a support for certain ideas, to the detriment of others. If the US is trying to fight anti-fascist ideas right now, perhaps one should think twice about supporting such laws, even if it is to troll on a forum. Because it's hard not to see condemning antifa violence as a support for fascism.

And to move away from the trolling... This all raises a tough question for the future of the US. Assuming there is an end to the Republican/conservative domination of US institutions... Say, that demographics are stronger than voter suppression and the liberals get swept back in power... What should be done about right-wing militias and neo-nazi organisations? Should something be done about them?
Basically, even if "trumpism" loses power, it will remain. In fact, if it loses power, it's hard not to think all the right-wing nutjobs will go crazy. In fact, the recent Alex Jones bullshit was potentially explosive, I'm surprised no violence came out of it.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/alex-jones-heralds-a-second-civil-war-and-twitter-quickly-responds-1.6243984

Not conservatives. I don't think normal conservatives would support some things that the US government is doing.
You have to realize that trumpism is increasingly seen as a far-right movement in some European countries.

Well I'd say separating families and caging children is pretty evil, and that anybody still supporting the current administration are certainly deserving of a few labels indeed. Sorry if *you* feel indirectly threatened by all the policies targetting immigrants, women, and minorities.

lol "eurocommie" is a joke around here, several people use that label. I wonder who you're thinking of.
Anyway my personal belief in socialism is certainly not foolish. Socialized medecine allowed me to not be a cripple for life and socialized education allowed me to get higher education. If I could have gotten those in the US, I'd actually be American.  

Quick replies, because I have to go and don't want to get into a deeper discussion:

1. I agree. But as people in this thread have pointed out, the KKK (as well as other neonazi groups) is still active. This bill really wouldn't be targeted at one group only.

2. I think that using violence and suppressing your oppositions right to exercise their free speech counts as fascist. I guess you could say that they are using fascist means to fight fascist ideas, but that just makes them hypocrites in my opinion.

3. As I said earlier, the difference between wearing masks and carrying guns is that by wearing masks, people are obstructing law enforcement, by making it extremely hard for the police to identify those that commit crimes.

4. I don't think that by this law, the US would be fighting anti-fascist ideas. I think they would be fighting fascist people from both sides.

Quote

Now, assuming you're not just trolling but also kind of believe in what you are writing and trying to make a point, I'd say that point has been discussed ad nauseam on these threads already. The main question being whether violence should be condoned against violent ideas.

White supremacism is a very dangerous idea, because of the actions and policies it entails in countries with minorities. Various forms of it are outlawed in several Western countries for this reason. So the questions here are:
1. Should free speech be absolute? There was a thread about this question a few months back. It certainly isn't easy to answer. I think one should be just as careful about supporting free speech as about supporting limits on it.
2. What should be condoned to fight violent ideas (ideas dangerous for other people) ? Can one punch a nazi? Should we be glad when nazis are punched? Most importantly, should one do it when the state itself obviously has some sympathy for such ideas?

Simply put, my position is that you should have free speech, as long as it's not incitement to violence, blackmail, etc.

Quote

Given what's happening right now in the US, I for myself feel relieved that the antifas exist. As long as they only target white supremacists they are clearly, in this specific instance, a form of violence that is reacting to another one.

The problem is, this is clearly not the case. There is wide range of people that Antifa will call far-right, nazis, white supremacists etc. This includes centrists, libertarians, and supporters of free speech in general. Just think about how many events, especially on universities, have been shut down by Antifa, even though they had nothing to do with white supremacy. Or the riots in Hamburg last year. Just look at that video and tell me that these people aren't violent, as someone in this thread has claimed earlier. They are violent, and not just agaisnt white supremacists.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

lol "eurocommie" is a joke around here, several people use that label. I wonder who you're thinking of.
 

The hell it is. I've been having to wear the albatross of eurocommieism around my neck for weeks now all for England's piss poor defense to screw it up!  

[mormont]

37 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

First of all, I don't know who the Proud Boys are, or what message they were spreading. It doesn't matter.

In this discussion, it really does.

Just now, SweetPea said:

2. I think that using violence and suppressing your oppositions right to exercise their free speech counts as fascist.

Then you don't understand the meaning of the word 'fascist'. It's not a description of certain behaviours. It's an ideology.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

That's literally their message, an incitement to violence.

It's like he's not even trying. Pretty sure there's a word for that on the interwebs. 

[SweetPea]

30 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

That's literally their message, an incitement to violence.

Well you are very luck then. You can simply film it and report it to the police. Incitement to violence is illegal in the US, as far as I know.

[SweetPea]

9 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Then you don't understand the meaning of the word 'fascist'. It's not a description of certain behaviours. It's an ideology.

Ok. What's the correct word for the behaviours I described?

[DanteGabriel]

SweetPea has never heard of the Proud Boys but has detailed info on the practices and motivations of antifas. What fucking disingenuous bullshit. Fuck your selective outrage, Nazi apologist.

[Rippounet]

35 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Simply put, my position is that you should have free speech, as long as it's not incitement to violence

But we are precisely talking about incitement to violence...  

You're avoiding the deeper issue: how do you fight violent ideologies when the state is no longer on your side? Should you really be so quick to defend free speech and condemn violence then?

I won't be a troll and give you a hint. How we humans view violence is very dependent on the outcome. Mendela and the ANC were terrorists until they rose to power. The Talibans were freedom fighters until they became terrorists. 
Some people will say Muslims and MENA immigrants are potential terrorists, others will say that the real terrorists of this day and age are the US and Israel (and European colonialism was only yesterday).

You cannot always defend the rule of law and condemn violence. Well, I guess you can condemn violence in all situations, but in this case you can't treat violent ideologies like any others ; and then you'd need the state to treat all violent ideologies equally.
The reason why the antifa are repressing free speech in the US is because the state is letting violent ideologies run wild. Some reactions are strong, yes, but you can't just dismiss what they're fighting against. Violence seldom comes out of the blue and can only be condemned or condoned if one understands its origins and what is at stake.

35 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

The problem is, this is clearly not the case. There is wide range of people that Antifa will call far-right, nazis, white supremacists etc. This includes centrists, libertarians, and supporters of free speech in general. Just think about how many events, especially on universities, have been shut down by Antifa, even though they had nothing to do with white supremacy. Or the riots in Hamburg last year. Just look at that video and tell me that these people aren't violent, as someone in this thread has claimed earlier. They are violent, and not just agaisnt white supremacists.

I was careful to say "as long as they only target white supremacists" and "in this specific instance" precisely because I was keeping Hamburg in mind. Again, context matters. You can't focus on Portland and ignore Charlottesville. Etc...

I believe we have a word for people who resist when a state starts adopting and/or encouraging violent ideologies: we call them dissidents. What you're saying here is that dissidents should always be peaceful and that you support laws against violent dissidents. That's... an untenable position. 

[Martell Spy]

Putin Has Already Won
Trump’s blowup at the NATO summit is exactly what Russia hoped would happen.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/11/putin-has-already-won-218968

Quote

 

Putin will shower the vain and insecure Trump with lavish praise, acting all the while as if Russia is the full equal in power to the United States. Understanding that Trump vastly overestimates Russia’s power and influence, Putin will aim to persuade the president that they can decide most important global issues between them.

Putin will seek concessions from Trump using arguments reflecting the U.S. president’s own publicly cited objectives, such as immediately bringing all U.S. troops home from foreign deployments. He will push Trump to accept Bashar Assad’s continued rule over all of Syrian territory so that U.S. forces can withdraw from Syria and perhaps elsewhere in the Middle East. He will attempt to get Trump to suspend or otherwise limit exercises on the eastern border of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Seas. He will press for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe and perhaps Afghanistan, arguing this is necessary to reduce tensions.

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Trump Is Trying to Gaslight the Soybean Farmers

https://slate.com/business/2018/07/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-soybean-farmers-screwed-over-by-his-trade-war.html

Quote

I don’t usually like to use the phrase gaslighting, because it’s kind of a cliche at this point, but I’m pretty sure this is gaslighting. Trump is right on the narrow point that prices for soybeans have fallen by around half since 2012. But that really has nothing to do with trade barriers by other countries, as he suggests. Crop prices have plunged because of a worldwide boom in farming production that’s led to a giant commodity glut. Meanwhile, exports have actually been a crucial bright spot for American farmers: Measured by tonnage, the U.S. sells a little under half of its total soybean production overseas, with almost 60 percent of those exports headed to China alone last year.

 

[Week]

45 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

SweetPea has never heard of the Proud Boys but has detailed info on the practices and motivations of antifas. What fucking disingenuous bullshit. Fuck your selective outrage, Nazi apologist.

Imagine if SP spent as much -- or any -- energy on a real problem for citizens that are not members of far Right groups in the midst of an unnecessary march or plan to march in a few universities or historically progressive areas. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

11 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

They can launch investigations and subpoena Trump's tax returns and business records. Maxine Waters becomes chair of the Financial Services Committee, for instance. But it's not much, because you still need the Senate to convict on impeachment.

You know, at this point, more evidence is only a good thing. Even if nothing is/can be done with it. 

[Bonnot OG]

That law looking to target anti fascists will vanish in a puff of smoke once the pigs arrest an off-duty brother of theirs in a ski mask that was brawling in the street with his Proud Boy, Neo Nazi, KKK and Patriot Prayer brethern. 


Also, preaching fascist ideologies is preaching violence. Seeking to deplatform that as a private citizen with in a sort of movement like Antifa is not an infringement on freedom of speech, nor should it ever be considered that. And look, this government isn't targetting far right wing groups, but leftists groups yet again. This is a far right shit hole of a nation and always has been. Who we have backed in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia says it all regarding that. 

America's fetishizing of "free speech" is wrapped up in some facile bulshit. It never asks the questions about nazis, why are they preaching, what do they seek to gain from their rallies and their speeches at schools. The answer to those things is recruitment. They look to recruit at their rallies on top of terrifying the marginalized that they will no doubt commit genocide against once they grab power.

So yea, fuck free speech absolutism and sticking up for genocidal bigots. 

1 person in the past 30 years has been killed by an anti fascist. 

600+ people and counting hsve been killed by far right wingers / fascists in the past 20.


 

[DMC]

7 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

And I, sincerely, have problems with that.  The entire point of lifetime appointments and Judicial Canons is to keep the Judiciary above politics.  If these offices are overtly political they should be elected and to terms of significantly shorter duration.  And even then the "finger in the air" method of Judicial interpretation really gives me pause.  Do you want ideas like freedom of the press subject to the whims of the masses?

Well, that's the game, isn't it?  They go out of their way to ensure they're NOT overtly political to sustain their legitimacy.  Federalist 78 (Hamilton):  "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over the sword nor the purse."  I don't have anything wrong with the fact that justices' interpretations are going to be driven by their political beliefs.  I just think it's naive to point to "judicial canons" as their primary motivation - it only gives truth to the lie.  Conceptually, every justice should be committed to upholding freedom of the press, the rest of the BoR, and the rest of the Constitution.  There's no reason they can't do that while also admitting they hold political attitudes, values, and ideologies.

6 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Jeez, what’s got you in such a foul mood today…

At the same time with this idea that packing the courts is practical or smart.

Dude I ignore his woe is me arguments about the doom and gloom of the party. But it’s not wrong to say that right now Democrats are not as good at playing hardball as Republicans, and citing a politically dead guy and an actually dead guy isn’t going to change that. Our current leadership is weak and ineffective. The party is poorly organized at both the state and national level. Pretending this isn’t true is dangerous.

You always say I'm in a foul mood when I get a little salty.  (The salt is whiskey.)  Packing the court IS the most practical means to rectify the situation.  Term limits provides complications I've already listed.  Adding justices does not.  So, yes, it is both practical and smart, no Skagosi needed.

There's a difference between criticizing the leadership as ineffective - which it has been for a decade now - and claiming Dems aren't willing to play hardball.  There are plenty of groups out there willing to do whatever it takes politically to end Trump.  In fact, there's so many groups one could describe them as really pissed off coalitions.  Like a coalition of voters or something.  I think there's a term for that.

6 hours ago, lokisnow said:

 Challenge Accepted!

I'm not sure what this means.  Good?

5 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Yes states petitioning congress for a convention has not been called. However, state ratifying conventions were used to ratify the 21st amendment  in order to give state legislators plausible deniability and “ clean hands”.

[...]

8 is the most problematic step, I’d much rather have conventions ratify amendments with a similar arrangement to 3, but most states have laws specifying how ratifying conventions will be held if congress stipulates conventions for ratification, so we probably have to have the legislatures vote on ratification and can’t grant them the clean hands the 21st amendment granted.

LOL.  8 is your most problematic step?  3, 6, and 7 are blatantly unconstitutional.  A vaca in Kauai for some chosen one of each state is not a constitutional convention.

4 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Wow we all got trolled so hard. It's almost impressive.

Are their troll awards?

It certainly seemed to pass the time today.  Dunno if there are troll awards, but if there are grammar awards you lose!

[OldGimletEye]

9 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

He hasn’t trolled.  You and Frog Eater, along with the hardline progressives in this thread, have boiled it down fairly quickly.  White people are bad.  They espouse the same prejudicial views that they claim to fight against; but fighting against white people is okay because...reasons, I guess.

This is poignant to me as a straight, white, Christian man; not because of all those labels.  I don’t care what people think of me, or if they call me names, sticks and stones and all that.  However, I do have four kids, the two oldest are girls and the two youngest are boys, whom by all appearances to me seem to be straight, white and Christian.  There seems to be a large segment of society that thinks they are inherently evil, or that I am inherently evil; or that at the least we are helping propagate something inherently evil.  This is important because the left are exceptional well versed at using guilt and semantics against people; as this thread and all the others have shown.  You have clowns like Sword of Doom who uses terms like anti-choice (and also says stuff like f*** white people), and that’s okay, because it works within the narrative they’re pushing.  I guess I should take my kids out behind the woodshed, because they are destined to grow up into nazis.

This might be one of the most sorry ass white christian conservative pity parties I ever did see.

I’ll preface this with, I don’t don’t have any thing particular against Christians, just like I don’t have anything particular against Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, or whatever. And I don’t go around making generally disparaging comments about any particular religion as a whole.

But you know, I do a have a big fuckin’ problem with some Christians in this country. The ones that are overjoyed that Trump moved the embassy to Jersulem because in their estimation that will bring Armageddon and then they will get to meet Jesus are fuckin insane nutjobs.

And then the David Barton bunch of Christians that go around insisting that separation of church and state wasn’t a founding principle of this country and would like to see some kind of christian theocracy in this country are too flamin’ nut jobs. I have a problem with them.

And I also have a problem with the Evangelicals that voted Trump, many of whose choice of religion would seemingly have to with white identity politics. I too have a problem with thiis bunch.

And then of course there are the Ayn Rand Christians. Don’t even get me started on this sack of assholes.

And before you start feeling ever so sorry for yourself as being a poor persecuted white guy, I don’t have a problem with somebody being white (hey I’m a white guy). But I do have big fuckin’ problem with lots of other white people in this country. Ones like Puke Gingrich who go around saying if only poor brown people just worked harder and then the knuckle heads that not their head in agreement and say, “Golly, what’s wrong with that!!” And of course I’ve got a big fuckin’ problem with white guy knuckle heads that blow dog whistles or other knuckle heads that respond to it. If you have no utter clue what I’m talking about here, then really and truly your very, very clueless about American politics or it’s political history.

Quote

I guess I should take my kids out behind the woodshed, because they are destined to grow up into nazis.

While most white kids probably won’t end up putting the Horst Wessel lied on their mix tapes, many may end up having a lot of low level white resentment and may end up believing a bunch of knuckleheaded things. And if you don’t think this sort of thing can’t end up having destructive consequences, look no further than the election of the current Orange Clown.

9 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

However, chikanary or whatever his name is, is right.  All you have to do is scroll back through the US politics thread to see how many of the posters are okay with violence against conservatives.  

Poor conservatives!!!!

I don’t think this is correct. I think the general debate among progressive/liberals on these threads has been whether it is okay to use violence against Nazis specifically and not conservatives in general.
 

9 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

, I dare say especially not the left/liberals/progressives (they use so much terminology I’m not sure what they want to be called).

Personally, I call myself liberal. You want to know why? Because it really pisses conservatives off. You see, ever since about Ronald Reagan, conservatives have got accustomed to putting liberals down and disparaging arguments by saying “that’s liberal!”. In fact, they see it almost as their birthright. As soon as they bring up the “l word” they expect people to beat a retreat. And oh, the pleasure I get, when I tell some conservative sort of person that I’m a liberal, and watch the expression on their faces. And it’s even funnier when they soon find out, I ain’t taking any of their crap even if they try to use the l world.

It's a great time. I highly recommend it.

Now unfortunately, some liberals have decided, I think very unfortunately, to play this little game with conservatives. And decided to call themselves “progressive” because heaven forbid a conservative might say something very very mean about liberals. My recommendation would be for progressives to push back on this and take the word liberal back.

9 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

 Because he foolishly believes in socialism?

And what do you believe in? Republican Party “business friendly supply side growth policies policies”. I’m mean are you really somebody that believes this horseshit? Please tell us all that,”well see back in the 1980s Reagen cut taxes and it was mornin’ in America!”

9 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

And then there is the guy (I forget his name, it’s inconsequential) who called me sophomoric and naive because I had the temerity to say both sides need to come more towards the middle.  Going across the aisle is the only way forward, IMHO, or this melting pot gonna truly melt.  That may sound cool while you sit at your laptop, but it won’t be.

And if you are suggesting “it’s both sides”, then you are simply mistaken. The fact of the matter is conservatives lost their fuckin’ minds. And I’d pin a good deal of it when they were intellectually unable to deal with the disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush. They simply went crazy. And you can say, “but, but the left!. But that is crap. The American left is nowhere near the sorry ass shape the conservative movement has become.

And the idea that conservatives will simply meet the left "in the middle" is naive. Conservatives and the Republican Party are playing for keeps. And the liberals/the left/ progressives or whatever you want to call it will have to act accordingly. And the "both sides" crowd is gonna have to make a choice here.