Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Military commander removed after denouncing neo-Marxist critical race theory
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="iluvatar5150" data-source="post: 75964857" data-attributes="member: 313046"><p>No, not everybody who criticized it was disingenuous. Some of the criticism was perfectly legitimate and, as I pointed out earlier, not even necessary to make the point. I believe the baseball fans refer to this as an unforced error.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because that's what they do. </p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Amendment 4: Unreasonable search & seizure.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Amendment 6: Speedy trial</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Amendment 7: Trial by jury</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Amendment 8: Excessive bail</p><p></p><p>These amendments are all related to an efficient, fair judicial process. While libs are hardly perfect on these subjects, they're generally the ones pushing to: reform the criminal justice system, improve access to defense counsel, reduce excessive bail, reduce excessive sentencing, reform policing, reform prosecution, etc. Some of these issues have gotten some traction with conservatives, particularly those who lean more libertarian, but by and large, conservatives tend to resist most of these issues even though, for example, the combination of bad policing, bail requirements, inadequate counsel, and plea bargains winds up punishing a lot of innocent people; and the application of the death penalty is obviously uneven, unfair, and unacceptably inaccurate. </p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Amendment 14 sec 1: Conferring of citizenship upon birth in the US</p><p></p><p>I don't know how much traction this idea got, but Trump was putting it out there:</p><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-trump.html" target="_blank">Trump Wants to Abolish Birthright Citizenship. Can He Do That? (Published 2019)</a></p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Amendment 15: Voting eligibility can't be based on race.</p><p></p><p>Yet, because blacks tend to vote for Democrats, Republicans have tried to find ways to make it harder to vote that would disproportionately affect blacks and, thus, move the needle in favor of Republicans.</p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Amendment 16: Congress can levy income taxes</p><p></p><p>IME, this is more of a kooky fringe thing, but there exists a segment of libertarian-minded conservatives who think Congress isn't allowed to do this.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Amendment 24: Voting eligibility can't be restricted by poll taxes</p><p></p><p>Florida voters tried to restore voting rights to felons who'd completed their sentences. Florida Republicans then went and changed the definition of "completed sentence" to include all fees and fines, which are often poorly documented and hard to discover.</p><p><a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-voting-rights-elections-courts-voting-b4f68dd4f11a6df4430fbdc74ae93de3" target="_blank">Judges: Florida felons can't vote until they pay fines, fees</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's a mix - sometimes character is the appropriate thing to criticize. It's become clearer to me that a large segment of the right isn't swayed by arguments and is, instead, guided by some mixture of dishonesty, ignorance, hatred of the left, identity-based paranoia, and the "spiritual delusion" that [USER=326155]@RDKirk[/USER] described. In these sorts of discussions, where it makes sense to make points, I make points. Where it's clear that the other side isn't operating in good faith or in a logical manner, I don't.</p><p></p><p>With respect to this specific example, a person can't be well-informed and acting in good faith and complain about the historicity of the 1619 Project while also pushing Dinesh D'Souza, the 1176 Report, or The Big (election) Lie. IME, the folks pushing that specific set of ideas are either propagandists, usually profiting from their propaganda (e.g. the Hannities, Limbaughs, D'Souzas, Trumps of the world), or members of an audience that's already been propagandized. I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate to point out that propagandizing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iluvatar5150, post: 75964857, member: 313046"] No, not everybody who criticized it was disingenuous. Some of the criticism was perfectly legitimate and, as I pointed out earlier, not even necessary to make the point. I believe the baseball fans refer to this as an unforced error. Because that's what they do. [INDENT]Amendment 4: Unreasonable search & seizure. Amendment 6: Speedy trial Amendment 7: Trial by jury Amendment 8: Excessive bail[/INDENT] These amendments are all related to an efficient, fair judicial process. While libs are hardly perfect on these subjects, they're generally the ones pushing to: reform the criminal justice system, improve access to defense counsel, reduce excessive bail, reduce excessive sentencing, reform policing, reform prosecution, etc. Some of these issues have gotten some traction with conservatives, particularly those who lean more libertarian, but by and large, conservatives tend to resist most of these issues even though, for example, the combination of bad policing, bail requirements, inadequate counsel, and plea bargains winds up punishing a lot of innocent people; and the application of the death penalty is obviously uneven, unfair, and unacceptably inaccurate. [INDENT]Amendment 14 sec 1: Conferring of citizenship upon birth in the US[/INDENT] I don't know how much traction this idea got, but Trump was putting it out there: [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-trump.html"]Trump Wants to Abolish Birthright Citizenship. Can He Do That? (Published 2019)[/URL] [INDENT]Amendment 15: Voting eligibility can't be based on race.[/INDENT] Yet, because blacks tend to vote for Democrats, Republicans have tried to find ways to make it harder to vote that would disproportionately affect blacks and, thus, move the needle in favor of Republicans. [INDENT]Amendment 16: Congress can levy income taxes[/INDENT] IME, this is more of a kooky fringe thing, but there exists a segment of libertarian-minded conservatives who think Congress isn't allowed to do this. [INDENT]Amendment 24: Voting eligibility can't be restricted by poll taxes[/INDENT] Florida voters tried to restore voting rights to felons who'd completed their sentences. Florida Republicans then went and changed the definition of "completed sentence" to include all fees and fines, which are often poorly documented and hard to discover. [URL="https://apnews.com/article/florida-voting-rights-elections-courts-voting-b4f68dd4f11a6df4430fbdc74ae93de3"]Judges: Florida felons can't vote until they pay fines, fees[/URL] It's a mix - sometimes character is the appropriate thing to criticize. It's become clearer to me that a large segment of the right isn't swayed by arguments and is, instead, guided by some mixture of dishonesty, ignorance, hatred of the left, identity-based paranoia, and the "spiritual delusion" that [USER=326155]@RDKirk[/USER] described. In these sorts of discussions, where it makes sense to make points, I make points. Where it's clear that the other side isn't operating in good faith or in a logical manner, I don't. With respect to this specific example, a person can't be well-informed and acting in good faith and complain about the historicity of the 1619 Project while also pushing Dinesh D'Souza, the 1176 Report, or The Big (election) Lie. IME, the folks pushing that specific set of ideas are either propagandists, usually profiting from their propaganda (e.g. the Hannities, Limbaughs, D'Souzas, Trumps of the world), or members of an audience that's already been propagandized. I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate to point out that propagandizing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Military commander removed after denouncing neo-Marxist critical race theory
Top
Bottom