tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post5640853121244618740..comments2024-03-28T12:43:07.327-04:00Comments on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants: Christo-Sharia LawDave Dubyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-53724250016688291022022-05-31T15:52:00.770-04:002022-05-31T15:52:00.770-04:00\\Pilots, Truck and bus drivers must conform to th...\\Pilots, Truck and bus drivers must conform to the rules of their respective licenses, don't they? Is there any reasonable argument that this is not fair?<br /><br />I'll repeat your definition here.<br />"Rules and laws that favor one side are inherently unfair. Unfair rules can contribute to marginalization, resentment, injury, and conflict."<br /><br />Rules can be played with, rules can become outdated, rules can be inapplyable in specific situation and so forth.<br /><br />That is not refutation of need to have rules at all. But common sence thing we need to keep in our mind, if we want to talk about rules, change of rules, fairness of rules... seriously.<br /><br /><br />\\If your best judgment of fascists is they are "clumsy clowns", then you minimize all the suffering, pain and death they brought upon innocent human beings.<br /><br />Humans was fighting long before words "fascism" emerged. And still fight. And deathes and suffering keep piling up even without flags with swasticas.<br />So?<br />My argument was strictly historical -- that if there'd be ONLY Italian true brand fascism... that word would not recieved that audacity it have till today... if there'd be no nazis atrocities.<br />So, really, why we use more broad termin "fascism"? While assigning to it all bad things from more specific "nazism"?<br />Isn't there some "redefinition of words meaning" happening?<br /><br /><br />\\...but isn't nazi -- it's shortcut for national-SOCIALISM?<br />\\<br />\\Or was it really more NATIONALIST "socialism"? <br /><br />Well... it could be... if only there was some NON-nationalistic socialism.<br />Have an example?<br /><br /><br />\\Hitler didn't name the party. It was called that before he joined and formed it into ultra nationalist fascism.<br /><br />So... what, he really added some secret ingridient? After which ordinary and already militaristic and dreaming of revanche country became "ultra nationalistic"?<br />To state it more clearly -- what realy was difference between Germany of First, and Germany of Second World War???<br /><br /><br />\\Do you take Hitler at his word, or think that calling itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" makes North Korea a democracy?<br /><br />Yeah. But I understand why they do that.<br />Why they can call themself "people's republic".<br />While even you tend to call democracy in USA... em, oligarchic, isn't it?<br /><br /><br />PS I think, after I'll reveal my country of origin my reasons will be more clear and understandable. I hope. But without much hope, still.Foreignernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-5399561674315428552022-05-31T11:03:09.468-04:002022-05-31T11:03:09.468-04:00I allow Anonymous users to post, as long as they a...I allow Anonymous users to post, as long as they are not being racist or demeaning.<br /><br />Trolls who refuse to comply with my requests do not earn the dignity of replies.<br /><br />I don't have time to chase after your tangential and hypothetical spin on "fair" and "rules" that ignore the stated context of my point. You have to warp all context and definitions to make it unreasonable or illogical.<br /><br />Otherwise you are engaging in unilaterally redefining terms to suit your agenda, just as I discussed in the original post.<br /><br />Pilots, Truck and bus drivers must conform to the rules of their respective licenses, don't they? Is there any reasonable argument that this is not fair?<br /><br /><i>"..Or... you just don't know about it..."</i><br /><br />So why not show me where the US and Britain were called fascist by Russians or Chinese in WWII.<br /><br />If you're trying to tell me I don't know something, and refuse to provide supporting facts and evidence, you are not engaging in good faith discussion. Do you understand this?<br /><br />Or you just don't know about it and want to play games. Do you see how I can view your statement being dismissive and condescending?<br /><br />Fascism isn't a single manifestation of tyranny. It comes in every every color under any flag. I have discussed the shared characteristics of the Axis in WWII that are considered fascism.<br /><br />They fall under these accepted definitions and descriptions:<br /><br /><i>Fascism is a system of government led by a dictator who typically rules by forcefully and often violently suppressing opposition and criticism, controlling all industry and commerce, and promoting nationalism and often racism.<br /><br />Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.</i><br /><br />These do not describe a representative republic or democratic socialism, do they?<br /><br />Feel free to disagree and make up your own definition, but I don't have to agree with it. It is just your opinion.<br /><br />If your best judgment of fascists is they are "clumsy clowns", then you minimize all the suffering, pain and death they brought upon innocent human beings.<br /><br /><i>...but isn't nazi -- it's shortcut for national-SOCIALISM?</i><br /><br />Or was it really more NATIONALIST "socialism"? <br /><br />Hitler didn't name the party. It was called that before he joined and formed it into ultra nationalist fascism.<br /><br />Do you take Hitler at his word, or think that calling itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" makes North Korea a democracy?<br /><br />Are you beginning to understand why I discuss the destruction of language yet?<br /><br />I suggest you read Orwell's "1984".Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-26419556806012530622022-05-31T05:58:29.382-04:002022-05-31T05:58:29.382-04:00\\Just understand if you can't respect this mi...\\Just understand if you can't respect this minor request, you're not entitled to the respect of a response.<br /><br />No. Your request is perfectly justified.<br />Only, there is that minor trouble for me. You know, using nick names is somewhat a childish game -- of trying to pose as some imaginary figure, with capabilities and traits one most likely do not have.<br />So...<br /><br /><br />\\I know of no written rule saying parents must feed children. They can hire staff to do it, or give them up for adoption. <br /><br />That is not an answer.<br /><br />My point was wholely, in a sense of "facts and logic" excercise. To analyse issue better, one who poses rational mind and honors logical thinking -- must dissect issue at hand across lines of inner contradiction. And contradiction in your words was -- there really are rules that is "unfair". If you do not like parents and children example, there's many more.<br /><br />For example driver of a bus or pilot. They have exclusive rights to drive. "That's unfair!"<br /><br /><br />\\Rules and laws that favor one side are inherently unfair. Unfair rules can contribute to marginalization, resentment, injury, and conflict.<br /><br />My point is. "Fairness" is a very complex and hard phylosophical question.<br /><br /><br /><br />\\A tyrant is not allowing free expression of hatred of him, if he uses it to oppress and jail people. This is not how freedom of speech works.<br /><br />Well... he can hold his orders to police... and instead allow his mob to do that job...<br />or, he can use "civility" trick -- say "see how brutal and repulsive are thse who oppose great me, people of good will should condemn such brutes". ;-)<br /><br /><br /><br />\\”... historical commies was claiming exactly that -- that anybody who are not commie, is fascist.”<br /><br />\\You’re correct that communists and fascists have always been adversaries. <br /><br /><br />Am... like when? When they split Poland for example?<br />Well, communists was never too friendly with each other too.<br />I mean, "being adversaries" is a bad predictive trait to distinguish... sorts of brown matter.<br /><br /><br /><br />\\Our historical communist allies in WWII called Germans and Japanese fascists, but never called Britons and Americans fascists. <br /><br />Or... you just don't know about it...<br /><br /><br /><br />\\Nazi Germany,<br /><br />Hmm... but isn't nazi -- it's shortcut for national-SOCIALISM?<br /><br /><br />\\Mussolini’s Italy,<br /><br />Well, they are true holder of that brand. But, fix me if I am wrong -- they was so stunningly unsuccessfull, that if we'd have only them as example of being "fascists"... that word would be synonym of being clumzy clowns, nothing more.<br /><br /><br />\\Tojo’s Japan <br /><br />Well, I'm not sure. They was copying Western Europe nations behavior.<br />And spiced it with own version of medieval barbarism.<br />But was they really "fascists"?<br /><br /><br />And what about regime of Spain? What about Vishi's France?<br />What about admirers of Hitler in Britain and USA?<br /><br /><br />\\Saddam Hussein was a 21st Century fascist who was stopped.<br /><br />But not from first try, I'd remark.<br /><br /><br />\\All were anti-democratic autocrats, along with their corporate elite allies, who amassed and expanded wealth and power though militarism, police states, war, brutality and violent suppression of political rivals.<br /><br />Well, it all coincides with mid-20 century political and economical situation... but gives not that much cues for today. I'd admit.Foreignernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-5362798681668546112022-05-30T16:18:30.709-04:002022-05-30T16:18:30.709-04:00Anonymous,
Are you the same person as "forei...Anonymous,<br /><br />Are you the same person as "foreign Anonymous"? If you are, then "French Anonymous" or whatever country you're from would suffice.<br /><br />I'll publish and respond to your remarks after you give me a name to identity you from other anonymous posters. It's a good faith beginning to fair discussion.<br /><br />Any name you like to use is fine for this thread. <br /><br />Just understand if you can't respect this minor request, you're not entitled to the respect of a response.<br /><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-27272824001439710862022-05-30T11:41:46.958-04:002022-05-30T11:41:46.958-04:00"There is nothing fair about rules that favor..."There is nothing fair about rules that favor one side. Period."<br /><br />Rule: Parents need to feed children,<br />but children do not need to feed parents.<br /><br />That's an example of "unfair" rule to you.<br /><br />PS That's for the sake of "disprove or refute me with facts or logic".<br />If you don't like it still, you know what to do.<br /><br /><br /><br />"A Tyrant wouldn’t allow you to freely express your hatred for him, would he?"<br /><br />And answer is -- yes. If he can use it against you.<br />Like instigating riots to then make police to put em all in jail.<br />Like Putin do.<br /><br /><br />"This reveals his fascist core. Those who disagree must be commies."<br /><br />That claim puzzles me to no end.<br />As far as I know for sure, that real deal historical commies was claiming exactly that -- that anybody who are not commie, is fascist.<br />While... which exactly "fascists" we are talking here? Italian? Spanish? Some other smaller representatives of that, new and popular in that time, ideological buzzwording? They all was different. And not that scary.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Get your head out of Trump's fascist ass, and learn what a real communist is.<br /><br />Hint: They are NOT Democrats."<br /><br />Yeah. But they. Real historical commies. Liked to call themself democratic -- more democratic then anybody else. Providing rights to vote to just anybody, not just people with toughest purse, for example. Wouldn't you like the same?<br />So, as you can see, we came to historically aproved contradictions -- we cannot just believe to a mere word of anybody claiming to be Democratic.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"All someone has to do to be labeled a communist is to be pro-choice, and support public education, public healthcare, racial and gender equality, and equal justice under law."<br /><br />They say they had it all. In USSR.<br />So, go figure.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Fascism will always aspire to greater tyranny if not stopped. History 101."<br /><br />Well. Again. What exactly historical fascism you see as that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-21635431816958516042022-05-15T23:35:36.019-04:002022-05-15T23:35:36.019-04:00Daal,
Thanks for stopping by. It really is scary w...Daal,<br />Thanks for stopping by. It really is scary watching a third of our country caught up in a massive authoritarian movement that threatens our democracy and future.<br /><br />As if Putin's warmongering and global warming aren't ominous enough, we have fanatics on the Right bent on reversing progress and tearing apart our civil society.<br /><br />It's up to the rest of to take a stand against the totally dishonest and corrupt radical Right.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-5987841232274821382022-05-15T20:46:52.061-04:002022-05-15T20:46:52.061-04:00thank you for posting this - these are scary times...thank you for posting this - these are scary times...Daalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09710938238039411166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-56690390145667143242022-05-15T11:04:10.241-04:002022-05-15T11:04:10.241-04:00Maybe Republicans would be sufficiently outraged i...Maybe Republicans would be sufficiently outraged if we tell them that Payton Gendron killed 10 zygotes with an AR-15?Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-51882686272135512442022-05-14T15:23:10.148-04:002022-05-14T15:23:10.148-04:00The democratic vote gave us these leaders and thes...The democratic vote gave us these leaders and these leaders brought us to this point. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-63396870616972540832022-05-14T14:30:48.009-04:002022-05-14T14:30:48.009-04:00HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher smacked Democrats ...HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher smacked Democrats on Friday during his show for moving away from their former position of “safe, legal, and rare” on abortion and attempting to ditch the label “pro-choice” for the more graphic term “pro-abortion.”<br /><br />Maher cited the Clinton-era leftist abortion mantra of “safe, legal, and rare,” arguing “that’s not where the Democrats are now” and that they “don’t say that anymore.” He then proceeded to blast the pro-choice caucus in the House, suggesting they change “choice” to “decision” and potentially use “pro-abortion” instead.<br /><br />He flatly stated that “No one should be pro-abortion.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-25206025004456683402022-05-14T13:50:42.530-04:002022-05-14T13:50:42.530-04:00Moved to this thread.
Anonymous wrote:
When Roe /...Moved to this thread.<br /><br />Anonymous wrote:<br /><i>When Roe /Wade was being debated we were at war in Vietnam. The left won abortion rights, but the right held the White House. The majority seems to have a split mind on what they want from government.</i><br />~~<br />Yes, but the minority is bent on punishing or suppressing those who disagree with them.<br /><br />Many more women will die as a result of losing their rights under a radical Right Supreme Court and regressive state legislatures and governors.<br /><br />But this will not assuage their anger and hate. Their culture war is heating up to open civil war. All of their opposition will be stripped of rights and power if we let them.<br /><br />Here's where the US is headed.<br /><br />The radical Right Republicans are playing their commie card more than ever. "Democrats are communists" is their message.<br /><br />All someone has to do to be labeled a communist is to be pro-choice, and support public education, public healthcare, racial and gender equality, and equal justice under law.<br /><br />This is what they hate, and will smear as communism, just like they've done to CRT.<br /><br />The enemies of democracy want their opponents framed as enemies of America. They are fueling resentment, anger and hatred for opponents in the same tradition as fascists of the past. Their long history of unilaterally defining terms sets them up for this.<br /><br />When they have enough of a majority, they will declare the Democratic Party is a communist party, and pass laws against communists running for office. It's not difficult to predict this is their endgame. This is what they'll do if given the power.<br /><br />Fascism will always aspire to greater tyranny if not stopped. History 101.<br /><br />Today's red menace fear mongering is spreading like wildfire. We can expect it to get much worse.<br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-36706550807508895082022-05-12T18:19:53.690-04:002022-05-12T18:19:53.690-04:00Chuck,
If it were not for the entertainment value...Chuck,<br /><br />If it were not for the entertainment value of watching Dave twist himself into a knot trying to defend his statements, I'd never wasting another minute of my day reading and posting here.<br /><br />In fact, I've got much better things to do, summer is almost here, my pool is now open, my yard needs my attention and it's time for fishing trips. So Dave, it's about democracy, that very thing the left and you claimed Trump was going to destroy, ironically I now see you promoting it's end. <br /><br />Tip of the Day for Dave...stop your endless whining. <br /><br />Have fun Chuck.<br />PeterHenderson1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01383486103634161179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-52798238006465386702022-05-12T18:04:13.120-04:002022-05-12T18:04:13.120-04:00Dave wants to limit who can vote then reverts, whe...Dave wants to limit who can vote then reverts, when confronted, by bringing up slavery. Interesting.<br />If Dave wants to allow only women to vote on abortion rules in his state, he needs to get that on the ballot and allow the people to vote on it. Democracy, Dave, democracy.<br /> <br />But wait, what about males who ID as female? Or Transgenders? Can they vote on abortion issues? <br /><br />"How can rational compromise happen with such fanatic true believers, who are now spewing hateful lies that democrats are communists who hate America?" <br />Another "Red Herring". I never said "democrats are communists who hate America". But since you brought it up, prove they aren't.<br /><br />Or are these rhetorical questions?PeterHenderson1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01383486103634161179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-76734366934332553012022-05-12T17:46:38.106-04:002022-05-12T17:46:38.106-04:00The left doesn't redefine words. I certainly d...The left doesn't redefine words. I certainly don't and I don't know of anyone who does.<br /><br />The left DOES tolerate trans people to self identify, and with hormone treatments and body alterations, they come closer to their chosen gender than originally presented.<br /><br />Nobody is forced to accept their wishes or new identity, but only conservatives and bigots will be outraged by their identity struggle.<br /><br />Why are you terrified of the very idea of allowing only the people forced to live under a law be allowed to vote on it?<br /><br />Just as a minority dictating how the majority must live or vote, men dictating what a woman can do with her life is 100% theocratic/authoritarian.<br /><br />The Right's idea of "big government" is very different from the VERY big government they wish to impose on women, their bodies, and their futures.<br /><br />This irony is beyond comprehension by the Right.<br /><br />"My body my choice" seems to apply to a piece of cloth over their face, but it is out of the question for women's medical and personal life.<br /><br />We can see who are the real delicate snowflakes right there.<br /><br />And again, they see no irony in such a glaring double standard.<br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-72978427810289604152022-05-12T17:29:16.164-04:002022-05-12T17:29:16.164-04:00"How about we allow only those who own proper...<i>"How about we allow only those who own property or pay income taxes to vote?"</i><br /><br />That's how it was back when Black people in the South were counted as only three fifths a person.<br /><br />On the other hand, this is why the Constitution was open to amendments. <br /><br />Slavery was the most glaring poison pill for democracy, with two additional toxins that survive to this day.<br /><br />The unrepresentative Senate and Electoral College are the two other egregious obstacles to a truly democratic representative republic.<br /><br />"To form a more perfect union." <br /><br />Well, that's gone now. Voting rights and women's rights are being rolled back, thanks largely to the founders' poison pills that suffocate democracy to this day.<br /><br />All due to conservative white people having a greater proportion of representation than the majority. <br /><br />But, hey, that's the "American way".<br /><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-49361664420003557212022-05-12T17:04:49.264-04:002022-05-12T17:04:49.264-04:00"How can rational compromise happen with such..."How can rational compromise happen with such fanatic true believers, who are now spewing hateful lies that democrats are communists who hate America?"<br /><br />Um... I think it can start with Democrats not being communists that hate America. :)<br /><br />(Relax! It is a joke... sort of.)<br /><br />Again though, taking your preposterous question about only letting women vote on the abortion issue, what would you say to those men that identify as women? Wouldn't they get to vote too? After all the definition of "woman" is fluid evidently or at least not accurately stated by anyone less than a biologist. THIS is what happens when the left redefines words. Chucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-54450550937302647782022-05-12T16:58:58.270-04:002022-05-12T16:58:58.270-04:00Peter,
How about you learn what a rhetorical quest...Peter,<br />How about you learn what a rhetorical question is?<br /><br />Non-rhetorical questions:<br /><br />How can rational compromise happen with such fanatic true believers, who are now spewing hateful lies that democrats are communists who hate America?<br /><br />Got any suggestions?Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-48036711439603425182022-05-12T16:49:17.966-04:002022-05-12T16:49:17.966-04:00How about we allow only those who own property or ...How about we allow only those who own property or pay income taxes to vote?PeterHenderson1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01383486103634161179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-45292450791813360132022-05-12T16:47:59.434-04:002022-05-12T16:47:59.434-04:00"Peter and Anonymous suggest I "don'..."Peter and Anonymous suggest I "don't want people to vote"<br /><br />later<br /><br />"how about we let only women vote on women's rights" <br /><br />Dave DubyaPeterHenderson1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01383486103634161179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-9033374306857103512022-05-12T11:37:26.025-04:002022-05-12T11:37:26.025-04:00Peter,
My views are not important. A woman's r...Peter,<br />My views are not important. A woman's right to reproductive freedom is what's important.<br /><br />How about we let only women vote on women's rights? History shows conservative men have generally opposed equal rights, civil rights, and voting rights of minorities and women at every stage of progress.<br /><br />As I noted, it isn't democracy without majority rule AND minority rights. There is also no democracy if the minority enforces rights of a fetus over the rights of a person.<br /><br />A person's life is legally and practically measured, counted and defined from birth to death, not time in gestation.<br /><br />I also think reproductive freedom is a civil right, and like all civil rights, should be protected at the federal level.<br /><br />In case it hasn't occurred to you, govt. control of women's wombs IS INTRUSIVE BIG GOVERNMENT, and violates reproductive freedom, as well as medical and personal privacy.<br /><br />And who will pay for the additional child care, health care, and foster homes? The pro-birth Right doesn't give a damn about the post-born, especially if they are poor and Black.<br /><br />I understand nothing can change the religious belief that an embryo is a person who has a soul, but we are NOT a theocracy and religious preferences and beliefs have no place in the laws and Constitution of our land.<br /><br />Now many on the Right are prepared to ban birth control. Birth control greatly reduces the need or demand for abortion, but the religious Right can't accept even that.<br /><br />Sometimes even conscientious practice of birth control can fail. Then what?<br /><br />How would you like it if YOU were told by the government to have sex only for procreation, even if you can't afford to raise a child?<br /><br />That's what prohibition of abortion and plan B are essentially about.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-65031834908228508662022-05-12T10:50:24.782-04:002022-05-12T10:50:24.782-04:00Dave,
Do you want the citizens of each State to b...Dave,<br /><br />Do you want the citizens of each State to be able to regulation abortion laws of their State by voting? If so you support democracy and what the leaked Supreme Court ruling on Roe will do, IE: return the authority to the voters of the State. <br /><br />I hope that after the elections, the abortion regulations in your State will best fit your views.PeterHenderson1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01383486103634161179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-24808847376281690392022-05-11T16:11:57.746-04:002022-05-11T16:11:57.746-04:00Did it ever occur to you that perhaps there are co...Did it ever occur to you that perhaps there are conservatives out there, myself included, that do condemn violence whether it is by 1/6 idiots, BLM, Antifa, or pro-abortion radicals? Not sure where the race issues were brought into this debate... guess that is just more deflection on your behalf, Dave.<br /><br />While I am attempting to have a one-sided good-faith discussion with you, what would you say if a compromise could be reached so that only first trimester abortions were allowed nation-wide but second and third were not? You could eliminate the "zygote" or "embryo" but not the more developed child. Would you accept that? Would the radical left? Chucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-24621616169264909482022-05-11T13:41:32.360-04:002022-05-11T13:41:32.360-04:00The hypocrisy of the radical Right shines again.
...The hypocrisy of the radical Right shines again. <br /><br />Violently storming our Capitol to overturn a fair election because Trump lied is "legitimate political discourse".<br /><br />A law that says peaceful protesting is "obstruction of justice" is a law that violates our Constitutional right to free speech.<br /><br />Non-threatening protesting of political activist judges who are bent on stripping women's rights is free speech. The liars testified under oath that Roe v Wade was settled law.<br /><br />That is perjury. Impeach them now. They are the real criminals.<br /><br />Of course there are big loopholes. Exercising a 1st Amendment right to object to and display outrage over, lying judges who've committed perjury isn't technically "intent of influencing". <br /><br />Plus overturning settled law to conform to his religion isn't exactly "his duty", it is his Catholic/religious/political agenda.<br /><br />If Trump didn't obstruct justice by firing Comey and bullying Mueller, protesting by free speech is nothing near obstruction of justice. <br /><br />Good luck proving it, though.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-60423574762458404362022-05-11T13:24:31.315-04:002022-05-11T13:24:31.315-04:00Will AG Merrick B. Garland enforce the law as he h...Will AG Merrick B. Garland enforce the law as he has sworn to do?<br /><br />Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code –<br /><br /> Federal law — Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code — clearly states that it is unlawful to protest near a “residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of influencing “the discharge of his duty,” adding that anyone who “uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”<br /><br /> The reason is simple: It is obstruction of justice. Just as it is against the law to tamper with witnesses or jurors by intimidating them or their family, it’s unlawful to tamper with a Supreme Court justice by coming to their home to threaten, harass or coerce them to influence their vote in a case before the court.<br /> Washington Post<br /><br />Anyone who’s watched at episode of Law and Order knows that intimidating the family of a judge or witness is obstruction of justice. Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters she supports and encourages the peaceful protests.<br /><br />The question is whether Ms. Psaki will face federal charges. Peaceful or not, those protests are illegal. PeterHenderson1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01383486103634161179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-85737825101619088162022-05-11T00:59:10.223-04:002022-05-11T00:59:10.223-04:00Chuck,
I’m going to entertain your points one mor...Chuck,<br /><br />I’m going to entertain your points one more time, since they are a rainbow of misinformation, deflections and fallacies.<br /><br /><i>”First, separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution. It is a phrase from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.</i><br /><br />First, I NEVER claimed the phrase was in the Constitution. Focus on my actual words, not on your assumptions about them, please.<br /><br />Second, there ARE phrases in the Constitution that address religion in government.<br /><br />First in:<br />Article VI Sec. 3<br />“...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”<br /><br />And again in the 1st Amendment:<br />“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”<br /><br />Jefferson explained the original intent and meaning in the Danbury letters: (The radical Right minority rejects it.) <br /><br /><i>“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”</i><br /><br />Jefferson’s letter has been used by the Supreme Court, including Justice Hugo Black as “almost an authoritative declaration” as to the Founders’ intent for the Establishment Clause.<br /><br />What the founders were fearing was theocracy and the likes of a Trump who promised to appoint only judges who would repeal Roe v Wade, and filled the bench with conservative Catholics who previously voiced opinions indicating their opposition to the ruling. It is not a coincidence that ALL his choices were all from a church that opposes abortion, and selected by the dark money Judicial Crisis and the Catholic Federalist Society with the same agenda.<br /><br />This is the religious test prohibited by our Constitution, the same one traitor McConnell betrayed when he refuse to hear the Black president’s nominee 8 months before an election. Mitch lied that it was “too close to an election”, and proceeded to ram through Trump’s third Catholic DURING the 2020 election.<br /><br />Such vile treachery is outside the rule of our Constitution, and the lies that go with it are common tools of the radical Right. Your anti-choice minority doesn’t care about abusing and violating the Constitution to get its way. This is not patriotism, but the opposite. This is not democracy, but the opposite. <br /><br />Those same Catholic judges swore under oath they agreed Roe v Wade was settled law. They lied. Their entire mission was to overturn Roe v Wade, according the Republican Party platform, and Judicial Crisis and the Federalist Society goals.<br /><br />I wish I could find comfort in your claim that most conservatives you know do not want a theocracy. I have to wonder if they don’t understand, or just don’t care, that theocracy is by definition anti-American, down to the core of our Constitution.<br /><br />Yes, theocracy, like it’s spawn under “Divine Right of Kings” and the Taliban, is historically, an unjust, and failed system of minority rule government. Maybe your fellow conservatives would appreciate knowing this. Or maybe you are one of them?<br /><br />I understand why you are defending the unborn zygote, embryo and fetus. Your religion may even tell you they have a soul, or is a child, or even a person.<br /><br />You have the right to believe anything you want, and I defend that right. But you do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs on me, or any woman, or on the country. <br /><br />The founders were quite about freedom of, and freedom from, religion.<br /><br />As I defend your right to your belief, I also defend our Constitution.<br /><br />(More to come.) <br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.com