Republicans are quite simply un-American

[CornusKousa]

You know it's not Dems who cheat.

Oh, you're a totally delusional partisan hack.


Shocking

 

[WillJ8787]

Not the "liberal" that uneducated Americans use as a synonym for Democrat...no matter how fuckin authoritarian and collectivist they get???

No absolutely not. I'm not ignorant and uneducated enough to make that mistake.

But liberal proper? As in a liberty centric political/world view? I very much am.

Chuckles...the Renfrew Center is looking for you.

 

[CornusKousa]

Chuckles...the Renfrew Center is looking for you.

Yeaaaaaa....didn't have much for that did ya??

Best to deflect once you realized every reference outside of the corporate US/MSM very clearly lay out that liberalism =/= Democrats and whatever they say.

 

[WillJ8787]

The GOP has become the lunatic fringe of American politics. They hate compromise. They hate investigative journalists. They hate fact-checkers. They hate scientists. They hate Freedom of the Press. They hate Freedom of Speech and they hate Freedom of Assembly.

Nowadays the GOP seems less like a political party, and more like a patriarchal, fear-based religious cult that tells their adherents to be afraid of dark-skinned people, reporters, Constitutional scholars, gays, lesbians and women who speak up about being sexually assaulted.

Spot on assessment of the neo-GOP.

 

[CornusKousa]

Spot on assessment of the neo-GOP.

And you call others insane??

LOL...this is why the USA is headed towards a huge fight.

 

[WillJ8787]

And you call others insane??

LOL...this is why the USA is headed towards a huge fight.

Good thing Repubs have a love for correctional facilities....we got room for you there.

 

[CornusKousa]

Good thing Repubs have a love for correctional facilities....we got room for you there.

WillJ shows his desire to lock up anyone who dares to tell (D)'s and "the party" to pound sand LOL

Control freaks gotta control freak.

 

[pecksniff]

And you call others insane??

LOL...this is why the USA is headed towards a huge fight.

Only in a political, electoral sense. Not a civil war. The 1/6 insurrection and the riots incidental to BLM protests are as bad as it gets, as far as political violence goes. Note that the DoD has, for some reason, been providing local police forces with military hardware for the past decade. They're ready to put down any actual insurrection, right or left, in its earliest stage.

 

[Rightguide]

The GOP's war on America and our rights as American citizens continues to intensify

As Republican lawmakers continue their assault on Americans' voting rights, they are also waging war on protesters. Across numerous states, Republican lawmakers are drafting bills to restrict citizens' First Amendment rights. For example, in the state of Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a Republican-led legislative piece titled, HB 1, or the Combating Public Disorder bill.

The controversial bill, which DeSantis has described as the "strongest anti-rioting, pro-law enforcement measure in the country," aims to escalate penalties for protesters. Instead of demonstrators being charged with misdemeanors for protest-related crimes, Florida lawmakers have sought to upgrade the same charges to felonies.

The publication notes that the bill also "increases discretion for police, prosecutors, and judges— in at least 14 states, contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaigns of the bills' sponsors." Due to the many stipulations the bill levels against protesters, law enforcement advocacy groups have heavily backed the bill.

The law would also give law enforcement agencies more flexibility to charge groups of protesters rather than just individuals. For example, if a protester vandalizes a vehicle, another protester in close proximity could also face charges regardless of whether they were involved in the physical act or not.

However, according to In These Times, Max Gaston, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida, has pushed back against the governor's claims and his support of the bill. Gaston argues that "HB 1 is not an anti-riot law. It is an anti-protest law that suppresses First Amendment rights by criminalizing peaceful protest and silencing government dissent."

Under the bill, Under HB 1, Gaston notes that "virtually every major demonstration in the last several years, from the Women's March to the March for Our Lives, would have involved a heightened level of danger from police and counter-protesters."

https://www.rawstory.com/gop-protests/?utm_source=push_notifications

Citizens do not have the right to riot, destroy private property, assault other citizens, block major highways, and streets, or interfere with the rights of other citizens to move about freely.

 

[CornusKousa]

Only in a political, electoral sense.

That much is already very apparent and well underway.

Not a civil war.

A "cold civil war" or "cultural civil war" for sure.

The 1/6 insurrection and the riots incidental to BLM protests are as bad as it gets, as far as political violence goes.

Nobody hopes that more than I and other people who have actually lived that war fighter lifestyle before.

Note that the DoD has, for some reason, been providing local police forces with military hardware for the past decade. They're ready to put down any actual insurrection, right or left, in its earliest stage.

Yes, and they also know just how dangerous of a game that is to play.

Risk making the wrong martyr and they become the bad guys who started it.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The OP is a dope who is totally unaware that the Progressive religion utterly rejects the American Founding in favor of its own poisonous ideology. It's not even up for debate.

 

[pecksniff]

The OP is a dope who is totally unaware that the Progressive religion utterly rejects the American Founding in favor of its own poisonous ideology. It's not even up for debate.

How is the American founding, based as it was on slaveholding and sexism and property qualifications for voting, any less poisonous? The FFs would hardly recognize our society as it is now, and isn't that a good thing?

 

[CornusKousa]

How is the American founding, based as it was on slaveholding and sexism and property qualifications for voting, any less poisonous? The FFs would hardly recognize our society as it is now, and isn't that a good thing?

It wasn't based on slaveholding and sexism.

Literally the opposite.

 

[pecksniff]

It wasn't based on slaveholding and sexism.

Literally the opposite.

It happened in a society based on those things. What the Revolution itself was based on was national independence -- and republican government, but even that was up for debate in the early years after independence. Washington could have been king if he had wanted to.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

How is the American founding, based as it was on slaveholding and sexism and property qualifications for voting, any less poisonous? The FFs would hardly recognize our society as it is now, and isn't that a good thing?

I rest my case.

Not that the Progressives had any aversion to the oppression of black folks. Hell, Wilson, the Prog hero, reveled in grinding the faces of black Americans. And let's not forget that eugenics was a progressive idea, too.

Odd how actual slaves like Freddie Douglass saw the Declaration and Constitution as the solution, not the problem. They were right, and not only that, they were wise in pointing to those documents insofar as making America live up to them was a viable solution, whereas vowing to overthrow them will invariably invite strong opposition.

 

[CornusKousa]

It happened in a society based on those things.

Not eve.

In a society who had those things as part of it.

What the Revolution itself was based on was national independence -- and republican government, but even that was up for debate in the early years after independence. Washington could have been king if he had wanted to.

But he didn't because neither he nor the USA is as evil and horrible as you try to make them out to be.

 

[pecksniff]

Not that the Progressives had any aversion to the oppression of black folks. Hell, Wilson, the Prog hero, reveled in grinding the faces of black Americans. And let's not forget that eugenics was a progressive idea, too.

Americans who now call themselves "progressives" have very different politics from the early 20th-Century progressives, who were mainly about nonpartisan technocracy, and efficiency in delivery of public services, not about social justice or redistribution of the wealth.

As for eugenics, that was one of many hubristic things that seemed like a good idea at the time -- but, even now, we really don't know enough about genetics to practice such a thing beneficially. If it ever comes up again, it will take the form of genetic engineering rather than sterilizing the stupid.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Citizens do not have the right to riot, destroy private property, assault other citizens, block major highways, and streets, or interfere with the rights of other citizens to move about freely.

I always find it interesting to see what "rights" the Left is so determined to preserve....here, the supposed right to riot.

 

[pecksniff]

As for eugenics, that was one of many hubristic things that seemed like a good idea at the time -- but, even now, we really don't know enough about genetics to practice such a thing beneficially. If it ever comes up again, it will take the form of genetic engineering rather than sterilizing the stupid.

And, it will probably be a private-sector thing rather than state policy. Rich people will pay to have their children designed. Which raises the possibility of a society where our elite is not only socially and economically but genetically superior to the rest of us.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Americans who now call themselves "progressives" have very different politics from the early 20th-Century progressives, who were mainly about nonpartisan technocracy, and efficiency in delivery of public services, not about social justice or redistribution of the wealth.

As for eugenics, that was one of many hubristic things that seemed like a good idea at the time -- but, even now, we really don't know enough about genetics to practice such a thing beneficially. If it ever comes up again, it will take the form of genetic engineering rather than sterilizing the stupid.

Progressives have, at the core, the same politics: A rejection of the rights of citizens and of limited, constitutional government. Everything is ad hoc, to be determined by a government with total power over its unfortunate citizens.

 

[pecksniff]

Progressives have, at the core, the same politics: A rejection of the rights of citizens and of limited, constitutional government. Everything is ad hoc, to be determined by a government with total power over its unfortunate citizens.

Progressives (those now using the label) are the American equivalent of what are called social democrats in other countries -- and your description applies hardly at all to social democracies.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Progressives (those now using the label) are the American equivalent of what are called social democrats in other countries -- and your description applies hardly at all to social democracies.

The rejection of any limit on the State is the defining feature of all Progs, and today's progs are thoroughly revolutionary communists, a al Bernie, AOC and the rest of the lunatics in The Squad.

 

[Dribble]

At least I am not a fucking Fascist traitor.

 

[pecksniff]

The rejection of any limit on the State is the defining feature of all Progs, and today's progs are thoroughly revolutionary communists, a al Bernie, AOC and the rest of the lunatics in The Squad.

Those are not communists. They are not even socialists, though some of them claim the name. They are what in other countries would be called social democrats -- redistributive taxation and a vigorous welfare state and organized-labor empowerment (all things entirely unobjectionable by any reasonable standard) are the outer limits of their agenda. Social democracy is a very different thing from even democratic socialism -- the latter requires, at minimum, the nationalization or in some form the socialization of some significant part of the means of production, which none of them call for. (Unless you count Venezuela, the world has never yet seen democratic socialism in action.)

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Those are not communists. They are not even socialists, though some of them claim the name. They are what in other countries would be called social democrats -- redistributive taxation and a vigorous welfare state and organized-labor empowerment are the outer limits of their agenda. Social democracy is a very different thing from even democratic socialism -- the latter requires, at minimum, the nationalization or in some form the socialization of some significant part of the means of production, which none of them call for. (Unless you count Venezuela, the world has never yet seen democratic socialism in action.)

Communists. Many have thumped the tub for communist government in Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and elsewhere. They fully support the full repressive state that is the hallmark of every communist society, particularly freedom of speech.