Fascism and the Republican Party

[Skillcraft]

Your analogy doesn't align with the actual situation though, it ignores the person at the top of the mountain pushing boulders down where you're climbing.

Feels gross comparing a recreational activity to what is a life and death scenario that many of these migrants face.

You guys can nit pick my words and discount my thoughts. Sad part is that I agree with you guys on a lot of issues. But there are a few I disagree with.

 

[cannabineer]

I believe in a woman's right to choose.
I believe in equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community.
I also believe in the rights of any citizens right to vote. No matter what their race, religion, sexual orientation, creed or any other minority.
I believe that their should be a separation of church and state. But I do not believe ones rights should unduly affect another's.

I am curious how the last sentence fits in. It seems tangential. Worse: it mimics libertarian language. Libertarian politics are at best utopian, and more often fascism’s Trojan horse.

The Libertarian to Fascist Pipeline is Shorter Than You Think

Though opposing ideologies, Libertarians can swing toward Fascism quickly

medium.com

 

[Skillcraft]

I am curious how the last sentence fits in. It seems tangential. Worse: it mimics libertarian language. Libertarian politics are at best utopian, and more often fascism’s Trojan horse.

The Libertarian to Fascist Pipeline is Shorter Than You Think

Though opposing ideologies, Libertarians can swing toward Fascism quickly

medium.com

What I mean is that no one should have to practice their religion in private because it may offend someone else. I do not care if they are Muslim,Jewish or Christian they have a right to practice their religion in open and that means in school. Banning students that are religious from praying after a football game as a team because it may offend someone else is bs in my opinion. If someone does not practice a religon then they should have the right not to participate. Or if they practice a different religion they should be able to pray to what ever God they believe in.

 

[cannabineer]

What I mean is that no one should have to practice their religion in private because it may offend someone else. I do not care if they are Muslim,Jewish or Christian they have a right to practice their religion in open and that means in school. Banning students that are religious from praying after a football game as a team because it may offend someone else is bs in my opinion. If someone does not practice a religon then they should have the right not to participate. Or if they practice a different religion they should be able to pray to what ever God they believe in.

I think that is one place where we might disagree.

There is a fine line between practicing religion in public … and evangelizing.

The core text even counsels this:

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they loveto pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place;

So I distrust anyone who seeks to defend shows of religion. Stuff belongs behind the eponymous shut door. Evangelizing belongs out of the public spaces we share.

 

[CANON_Grow]

You guys can nit pick my words and discount my thoughts. Sad part is that I agree with you guys on a lot of issues. But there are a few I disagree with.

I don't believe I am nit picking your words nor discounting your thoughts. I am pointing out why I believe your comparisons are flawed as it relates to migrants dying at illegal border barriers. I am not attacking you, just your position regarding the border.

 

[Skillcraft]

I don't believe I am nit picking your words nor discounting your thoughts. I am pointing out why I believe your comparisons are flawed as it relates to migrants dying at illegal border barriers. I am not attacking you, just your position regarding the border.

We can agree to disagree. I respect your opinions and you as a person. I hope everyone feels the same way.

 

[Skillcraft]

I think that is one place where we might disagree.

There is a fine line between practicing religion in public … and evangelizing.

The core text even counsels this:

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they loveto pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place;

So I distrust anyone who seeks to defend shows of religion. Stuff belongs behind the eponymous shut door. Evangelizing belongs out of the public spaces we share.

This is where we disagree. Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution just like freedom of speech. If you ban religion in public spaces then you must ban protest for say gay rights activists. Isn't it there freedom of speech? Isn't praying in public freedom of speech?

 

[cannabineer]

This is where we disagree. Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution just like freedom of speech. If you ban religion in public spaces then you must ban protest for say gay rights activists. Isn't it there freedom of speech? Isn't praying in public freedom of speech?

I believe the analogy is poor. Praying in public is irreducibly salesmanship.

Freedom of religion is nothing without freedom from religion. I have a basic civil right not to be evangelized.

Especially by militant evangelicals insistent on doing the devil’s work.

To highlight the poverty of the analogy, just imagine if gay rights activists went door to door recruiting. I’d oppose that too, spoken as a gay man.

 

[Lucky Luke]

I believe the analogy is poor. Praying in public is irreducibly salesmanship.

Freedom of religion is nothing without freedom from religion. I have a basic civil right not to be evangelized.

If someone is praying in public it should not be classed as evangelising. They can be mutually exclusive- as they should be.
People should have the right to do as they please in a public space within reason. Its their public space to.

 

[Skillcraft]

I believe the analogy is poor. Praying in public is irreducibly salesmanship.

Freedom of religion is nothing without freedom from religion. I have a basic civil right not to be evangelized.

Especially by militant evangelicals insistent on doing the devil’s work.

To highlight the poverty of the analogy, just imagine if gay rights activists went door to door recruiting. I’d oppose that too, spoken as a gay man.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[CunningCanuk]

You and others want to blame the barriers when It makes no sense to me.

No one here is blaming the barriers. They are blaming the people who put the barriers in place.

Something anyone with any sense of humanity would do.

 

[shimbob]

Haven't there been lawsuits where a home invader had standing to sue a homeowner for the injuries caused by the homeowner boobytrapping their home? It's a form of vigilantism.

 

[Billy the Mountain]

Haven't there been lawsuits where a home invader had standing to sue a homeowner for the injuries caused by the homeowner boobytrapping their home? It's a form of vigilantism.

Katko v. Briney.

It was a tort case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court in 1971. The case involved a man named Marvin Katko who was injured by a shotgun booby trap set by Edward Briney. Briney had inherited an old farmhouse that had been burglarized several times in the past. To deter future burglaries, Briney rigged a shotgun to fire when the north bedroom door was opened

The case established the principle that booby traps are illegal because they are indiscriminate.

 

[BudmanTX]

The fact still remains that the immigrant would not have lost his life had they not crossed the border illegally. It is a shame that Texas has had to result to defending its own border because the government is not doing it's job. I blame both Republicans and Democrats for this.

Honestly if you wanna put blame on something, let start with they're country of origin, then lets go to the cartels, and the people tell them they can come, then finally you really wanna place blame, lets go to the coyotes that tell the migrant they can cross anywhere.....please keep in mind most migrants can't swim so they get caught by the river itself...

 

[BudmanTX]

also: Texas does not have the privilege or the authority to make national policy. It’s the US border and only incidentally the Texas border. This “states’ rights” atavism is being taken too far. It is an 18th-century conceit that does not work or belong in the 21st.

It is being hyped by the pseudolibertarian seditionists who want to divide, conquer, and install authoritarian minority rule by wealthy white cis male evangelicals, and to hell with the 80+% rest of the population. The freedom caucus is about the opposite of freedom, just as today’s Republicans are counterrepublican.

couldn't have said it better myself.......

 

[Fogdog]

No I am not ok with that. Actually I do not agree with capital punishment at all. I do not believe in government sponsored murder. Just my opinion.

I 100% agree that capital punishment should not be on the books. My reasons are a little different than yours but we are at the same place so I'm glad we agree that state sponsored murder should not be allowed.

How about we turn this discussion around. Rather than focus on the dead people and whether or not they deserved to die, what about the act of setting that trap? Do you think it's OK for Abbot have put those death traps on the river in the first place? This isn't about the dead people but the idea of laying death traps along the border between Texas and Mexico. Are you OK with what Abbot did?

IMO Abbot made attempting to cross the border capital punishment. Even for those who support the death penalty, the punishment does not fit the crime.

 

[Offmymeds]

also: Texas does not have the privilege or the authority to make national policy. It’s the US border and only incidentally the Texas border. This “states’ rights” atavism is being taken too far. It is an 18th-century conceit that does not work or belong in the 21st.

It is being hyped by the pseudolibertarian seditionists who want to divide, conquer, and install authoritarian minority rule by wealthy white cis male evangelicals, and to hell with the 80+% rest of the population. The freedom caucus is about the opposite of freedom, just as today’s Republicans are counterrepublican.

Did you know that "cis" is derogatory to conservatives? Latin is classical education, so one might think that makes it "woke". No, the reality is it's so easy to associate that word with homosexuality so it's an insult to them to say "cis male". Don't know if Sen. Graham concurs.

 

[cannabineer]

Did you know that "cis" is derogatory to conservatives? Latin is classical education, so one might think that makes it "woke". No, the reality is it's so easy to associate that word with homosexuality so it's an insult to them to say "cis male". Don't know if Sen. Graham concurs.

I’ve known that since Skum made using it a bannable offense on Xitter.

Which inspires me to use it at every turn.

 

[Offmymeds]

I’ve known that since Skum made using it a bannable offense on Xitter.

Which inspires me to use it at every turn.

Did he really do that?!

 

[cannabineer]

Did he really do that?!

Musk says ‘cis,’ ‘cisgender’ considered slurs on Twitter

Elon Musk said the words “cis” and “cisgender” are now considered slurs on Twitter and suggested that “repeated, targeted” use of those words could be subject to suspensions. “Repeated, targeted ha…

thehill.com