LIVE COVERAGE of Rally for President Trump in DC! 01/06/2021

[jhkim]

Agree with nearly all of this. John Kim was describing the law & order party, and the excesses of the Wars on Drugs and Terror. Which have led to severe curtailments of basic rights, from the militarization of police, to the vast growth of the prison populations, the increase in police (and state) immunity, domestic surveillance and massive infringements of privacy with at best a token review, and much, much more.

But this isn't the law & order party vs. the freedom party. It's the law & order and national defense party, and the other law & order and national defense party that voted in lockstop on things like the Patriot Act. You can argue that the second party is slightly weaker on the law & order and national defense, but only slightly, and they're much bigger in support of the growth in size and power of the government.

(emphasis mine)

Pat, I specifically pointed out that the Democratic party was complicit with things like the Patriot Act. What I find strange is that you seem to agree that there were excesses in the Wars on Drugs and Terror that were clearly wrong. I would call them disastrous. The Democrats were complicit - but there were a minority of Democrats who opposed this, far moreso than Republicans.

Despite this acknowledgement, you then jump back to characterizing not going along with this ​as being "weak on law & order". The PATRIOT Act was opposed by 62 Democrats, 1 Independent (Bernie Sanders), and 3 Republicans. In the Senate, only 1 senator opposed - Democrat Russ Feingold. By standing up for civil liberties, I think these politicans *supported* law and order and wanted to strengthen it. In the first part, it seems like you're acknowledging this point, but then you reverse in how you characterize it.

I will ask to clarify: Do you think it is fair to characterize politicians who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act and other excesses as being "weak on law & order and national defense"?

[Pat]

   Honestly I am likely simply against any institution or power structure that grows too powerful/large.  I do not know what that is.

Remember when this was a liberal position?  Man those were better times...

No, I wasn't alive in the 1920s. Liberal in the US changed to pro big government in the 1920s as the brain trust types adopted European socialist philosophies, and it was cemented by the New Deal.

But to answer oggsmash: The political philosophies most associated with that are something like classic liberal (minarchist is basically a modern version), or libertarian (an-caps are the ones who take the philosophy to its natural extremes).

   Well, I know, the problem is for the PEOPLE WHO LABEL THINGS NOW, they all call those ideologies far right as well.   It seems anything some people do not agree with is far right.

Those beliefs are all united, to a greater or lesser degree, by their belief in individual liberty. They are all direct heirs of the grandest ideals and most successful socials ideas of the Enlightenment. They are naturally opposed to, and polar opposites of, the collectivist totalitarian ideologies like fascism and communism. When one collectivist, totalitarian ideology is trying to distance itself from another collectivist, totalitarian ideology by lumping it in with its enemies, the solution is to not accept the attempt to redefine well established words for selfish political reasons, and instead reject those labels.

[Pat]

Agree with nearly all of this. John Kim was describing the law & order party, and the excesses of the Wars on Drugs and Terror. Which have led to severe curtailments of basic rights, from the militarization of police, to the vast growth of the prison populations, the increase in police (and state) immunity, domestic surveillance and massive infringements of privacy with at best a token review, and much, much more.

But this isn't the law & order party vs. the freedom party. It's the law & order and national defense party, and the other law & order and national defense party that voted in lockstop on things like the Patriot Act. You can argue that the second party is slightly weaker on the law & order and national defense, but only slightly, and they're much bigger in support of the growth in size and power of the government.

(emphasis mine)

Pat, I specifically pointed out that the Democratic party was complicit with things like the Patriot Act. What I find strange is that you seem to agree that there were excesses in the Wars on Drugs and Terror that were clearly wrong. I would call them disastrous. The Democrats were complicit - but there were a minority of Democrats who opposed this, far moreso than Republicans.

Despite this acknowledgement, you then jump back to characterizing not going along with this ​as being "weak on law & order". The PATRIOT Act was opposed by 62 Democrats, 1 Independent (Bernie Sanders), and 3 Republicans. In the Senate, only 1 senator opposed - Democrat Russ Feingold. By standing up for civil liberties, I think these politicans *supported* law and order and wanted to strengthen it. In the first part, it seems like you're acknowledging this point, but then you reverse in how you characterize it.

I will ask to clarify: Do you think it is fair to characterize politicians who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act and other excesses as being "weak on law & order and national defense"?

It feels like we're talking past each other. I didn't say they were weak on law & order. I said slightly weaker. I was making clear the difference is small. The two parties are basically equivalent on that issue.

And if you look at the link I provided, the Patriot Act was approved, 98-1 in the Senate. 48 Democrats supported it, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent. Only a single Democrat opposed (Feingold, Russell). Which is completely irrelevant, because that's almost total support. Almost nothing, except feel good motions, gets passed with that high a degree of concurrence. Even if you throw in the House, it was still overwhelming support from both parties.

And why do you think it's strange that I think there were excesses in the Wars on Drugs and Terror? They are both abominations, and I've never said anything else.

You seem to be starting with certain assumptions about what I believe that are seriously off-kilter.

[jhkim]

Nuclear energy is another topic, but we do need a better solution to it than we have right now. It does less "short term" damage to the environment when compared to fossil fuels, but does more long term damage, and the use of it has been tied to racial discrimination (where Native American communities were in the area of nuclear-waste spills and the government did next-to-nothing to clean it up or warn them), and thus needs to be fixed.

UndyingDM - I agree with you that coal is a major problem. I also think the phrase of "murdering the coal industry" is ridiculous, like how the asbestos industry was "murdered" or the cigarette industry was "murdered" by regulation. Industries aren't people. People can and do change jobs to do different things. Lots of industries have grown and shrunk over the years.

However, I strongly disagree with you about nuclear power. Nuclear power does far *less* long-term damage to the environment than other industries. Even renewable power like hydro and solar and wind have significant long-term impact, because they take up a lot of area that disrupts habitats. Solar panel construction produces a lot of toxic waste from the chemicals used, and panels have a limited lifetime requiring recycling. Nuclear power has a much smaller footprint, produces less waste, and its waste is more safely handled than any other toxic waste.

Anti-nuclear activists try to produce an inverted spin on this - by demanding that nuclear power be 100% safe and all waste perfectly guaranteed, while using a lesser standard for other industries. The clearest example of this is in waste - where for nuclear, if a waste material is toxic for 1000 years, then it must be stored to completely guarantee it not reach the environment for that entire time. But paradoxically, if a toxic waste material lasts *forever* (like cadmium, mercury, and lead), then it is held to a *lesser* standard, and disposed of casually, and it causes widespread environmental damage.

I think all those coal miners should stop digging up coal and that the government should help them get whatever other job they can (ideally in green energy). I'm assuming that you're being facetious here, but I'm totally serious.

I would take your argument much more seriously if you were not on here burning up that non-renewable coal produced energy.

Its like when people think that milk comes from the Supermarket.

How do you conclude that UndyingDM is burning up coal-produced energy? I don't see a location for him. I know that my home's power is 0% coal. The only coal plant in California is at the other end of the state in San Bernadino.

[Brad]

Oh great...another Shareblue retard. Don't you clowns have some buildings to burn or something?

Your side seemed to have more than enough supplies for that when they raided the Capitol.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/alabama-man-charged-possession-eleven-molotov-cocktails-found-near-protest-us-capitol

"Retard" is an ableist term. Stop using it, please.

Shut up, retard.

These sockpuppets funded by Shareblue are super annoying.

[Brad]

I would take your argument much more seriously if you were not on here burning up that non-renewable coal produced energy.

Its like when people think that milk comes from the Supermarket.

So you're saying Al Gore flying around in a private jet telling people the dangers of fossil fuels is...hypocritical? Surely you jest!

[Ratman_tf]

'Get jobs in the renewable energy industry' they say. And yet:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-looks-abroad-electric-vehicle-metals-blow-us-miners-2021-05-25/

But hey, no more mean tweets amirite?

This is the perfect solution fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#:~:text=The%20perfect%20solution%20fallacy%20is,exist%20after%20it%20were%20implemented.&text=The%20fallacy%20is%20a%20type%20of%20false%20dilemma.

Just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean we shouldn't try for a better solution. Coal, oil, and the other fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource that are polluting the environment and fueling climate change. Moving towards better options is the obviously better goal than no solution. What happens in other countries is an issue, but as the US is not in charge of other countries, it's harder to deal with issues there than in the US. Every liberal I know (including me) is against slavery and child labor, and want to create green-energy jobs in the US.

Stop with the fucking strawmen arguments, please. If you want to talk about a liberal's viewpoints, talk to a freaking liberal, not cherrypicking whatever news articles you want.

Tell that to the people who are against natural gas, and want us to go 100% solar and wind right naow!

[Ratman_tf]

Nuclear energy is another topic, but we do need a better solution to it than we have right now. It does less "short term" damage to the environment when compared to fossil fuels, but does more long term damage, and the use of it has been tied to racial discrimination (where Native American communities were in the area of nuclear-waste spills and the government did next-to-nothing to clean it up or warn them), and thus needs to be fixed.

UndyingDM - I agree with you that coal is a major problem. I also think the phrase of "murdering the coal industry" is ridiculous, like how the asbestos industry was "murdered" or the cigarette industry was "murdered" by regulation. Industries aren't people. People can and do change jobs to do different things. Lots of industries have grown and shrunk over the years.

Asbestos and cigarettes had clear negative aspects that could be directly addressed.
"Climate change" has been a vague, shifting goalpost since it's inception.

[jhkim]

Do you think it is fair to characterize politicians who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act and other excesses as being "weak on law & order and national defense"?

It feels like we're talking past each other. I didn't say they were weak on law & order. I said slightly weaker. I was making clear the difference is small. The two parties are basically equivalent on that issue.

I'm not taking issue with the term "slightly". Whether its "slightly" or "somewhat" or any other level, you're still saying that it is being "weaker on law & order" compared to the other side. That is pejorative and false phrasing that is used by authoritarians. I do not think that being pro-civil-rights makes me against law & order, which is why I oppose that phrasing. For example, I might say that Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold were "definitely stronger on civil rights". I think it would be pejorative to say that they were "weaker on law & order".

So if you say that ​the Democratic party is only "slightly stronger on civil rights", then I'd agree with you. Your "slightly" characterization is correct.

To my mind, I don't think the two are completely equivalent on this point, but that seems more like a question of perspective. In general, I feel the two parties are very close to each other on a lot of issues - which makes the current partisanship all the weirder where both sides are saying that the other are completely insane demons.

[Pat]

Do you think it is fair to characterize politicians who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act and other excesses as being "weak on law & order and national defense"?

It feels like we're talking past each other. I didn't say they were weak on law & order. I said slightly weaker. I was making clear the difference is small. The two parties are basically equivalent on that issue.

I'm not taking issue with the term "slightly". Whether its "slightly" or "somewhat" or any other level, you're still saying that it is being "weaker on law & order" compared to the other side. That is pejorative and false phrasing that is used by authoritarians.

Okay, I tried. Many times. This time, I literally explained what I meant, you're saying no that's not true, and that I'm an authoritarian even though I'm arguing the exact opposite. You talk about wanting to have a civil discourse, and pull this shit? Fuck that, and fuck you, you miserable piece of shit. I've given up on you.

[jhkim]

Asbestos and cigarettes had clear negative aspects that could be directly addressed.
"Climate change" has been a vague, shifting goalpost since it's inception.

One doesn't have to accept climate change at all for coal to be a problem. Coal power releases mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, and particulates into the air. Coal power is responsible for nearly half of all U.S. mercury emissions, for example.

[jhkim]

Okay, I tried. Many times. This time, I literally explained what I meant, you're saying no that's not true, and that I'm an authoritarian even though I'm arguing the exact opposite. You talk about wanting to have a civil discourse, and pull this shit? Fuck that, and fuck you, you miserable piece of shit. I've given up on you.

Pat, I'm not saying anything about you or your internal positions, and I don't mean this to be an attack on you.

I am criticizing the language that you are using, which isn't the same. People can use the wrong language that fails to express what they intend. I think this is one of those cases.

From my point of view, I feel like calling pro-civil-rights support "weak on law & order" falsely characterizes a movement that I support, and thus me.

[Shasarak]

I think all those coal miners should stop digging up coal and that the government should help them get whatever other job they can (ideally in green energy). I'm assuming that you're being facetious here, but I'm totally serious.

I would take your argument much more seriously if you were not on here burning up that non-renewable coal produced energy.

Its like when people think that milk comes from the Supermarket.

How do you conclude that UndyingDM is burning up coal-produced energy? I don't see a location for him. I know that my home's power is 0% coal. The only coal plant in California is at the other end of the state in San Bernadino.

Lets pretend for a moment that you are indeed using electricity produced by 0% coal.

What about the device that you are using?  Your phone in your pocket?  The Solar Panels on your roof? 

They do not spring from the ground fully formed, they need to be forged and you can not use solar power to do that.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Oh, geesus. The Democrats are fucking weak on "Law and Order." They coddle up to terrorists and traitor thug scum like BLM and ANTIFA. The Democrats' sobbing mantras about "Civil Rights" is mostly a front-load of circle-jerking to promote their grifting of more money from the unwashed masses, and to prop up their lock-step grip on minority votes--so they can continue to fucking dance like shit-covered monkeys and gain more political power.

It's beautiful to see that more and more minority folks are wising up to the bullshit fraud and ass-fucking that the Democrat Party has been doing to them for *decades*.

And no, I'm not alone in these observations. Black folks like Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Officer Brandon Tatum, and Candace Owens, have been saying the same things for many years.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Ratman_tf]

Asbestos and cigarettes had clear negative aspects that could be directly addressed.
"Climate change" has been a vague, shifting goalpost since it's inception.

One doesn't have to accept climate change at all for coal to be a problem. Coal power releases mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, and particulates into the air. Coal power is responsible for nearly half of all U.S. mercury emissions, for example.

I agree. If only we didn't have a bunch of vocal, prominent activists in government and media cluttering up the discussion with crazy shit like the world is going to end in 12 years, or climate "justice".