by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .3,5883,5893,5903,5913,5923,5933,594. . .3,9283,929»

The new united states

Pevvania wrote:Walls built to keep people in, as he should have. And yes, that was his biggest mistake. 3 million illegals given amnesty in 1986; 1988 would be the last year California votes for a Republican for president. Not a coincidence.

RIP Orange County
Voted Republican 1940-2015
Death by Clinton; gone but not forgotten.

Miencraft and Pevvania

Skaveria wrote:Daily reminder to not worship Reagan like a god. The man made mistakes.

With my main focus being on gun rights right now, my main criticisms of Reagan involve gun laws. He supported the Mulford Act during his term as governor, which banned open carry and carrying guns in the state capitol building. He also signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which had the Hughes Amendment that banned owning machine guns made after a certain date. In all fairness, I don’t know if he supported the Hughes Amendement, but wouldn’t be surprised if he did. The act also repealed some sections of the Gun Control Act of 1968, so at least it wasn’t all bad, I guess. He also supported the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 after he left office. I heard that he may have regretted it later, but I don’t know about that.

I’m not saying that Ronald Reagan was the worst president ever, but I disagree with the way he handled this issue.

Sources:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/feb/05/barack-obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/

(I cringed when it said “high capacity ammunition clips.” Typical me.)

Pevvania and The new united states

Pevvania

The new united states wrote:RIP Orange County
Voted Republican 1940-2015
Death by Clinton; gone but not forgotten.

Yep, too many Never Trumpers and lazy Republican voters too. Say what you will about the economics of illegal immigration or whether a border wall is a good idea, but the fact is that illegals come here, have kids that vote Democrat and expand government. It's not good.

Rateria wrote:With my main focus being on gun rights right now, my main criticisms of Reagan involve gun laws.

Skaveria wrote:Daily reminder to not worship Reagan like a god. The man made mistakes.

All true. I'd still argue, however, that he was our greatest or amongst the top three greatest presidents in spite of his flaws. No leader is perfect.

The new united states, Rateria, and West smolcasm

Pevvania wrote:Yep, too many Never Trumpers and lazy Republican voters too. Say what you will about the economics of illegal immigration or whether a border wall is a good idea, but the fact is that illegals come here, have kids that vote Democrat and expand government. It's not good.

All true. I'd still argue, however, that he was our greatest or amongst the top three greatest presidents in spite of his flaws. No leader is perfect.

I have a question. What do you define a Never Trumper as?

The new united states

Pevvania wrote:Yep, too many Never Trumpers and lazy Republican voters too. Say what you will about the economics of illegal immigration or whether a border wall is a good idea, but the fact is that illegals come here, have kids that vote Democrat and expand government. It's not good.

No, it's not good. I've lived in Orange County, and there's a pretty considerable conservative presence, especially among whites and the stridently anti-socialist Vietnamese in Garden Grove (go to Little Saigon and you'll see South Vietnamese flags flying on nearly every building).
However, the combination of Republican apathy and an ever-growing Latino population has sent OC into the blue. If you go to much of Santa Ana, the population is almost exclusively illegal or the children of illegals. I know and am friends with a lot of young Hispanics down there, but I've never known one that didn't want to expand government. All the Hispanics I ever met that were really conservative came here legally.

Pevvania, Rateria, and Skaveria

West smolcasm

The new united states wrote:No, it's not good. I've lived in Orange County, and there's a pretty considerable conservative presence, especially among whites and the stridently anti-socialist Vietnamese in Garden Grove (go to Little Saigon and you'll see South Vietnamese flags flying on nearly every building).
However, the combination of Republican apathy and an ever-growing Latino population has sent OC into the blue. If you go to much of Santa Ana, the population is almost exclusively illegal or the children of illegals. I know and am friends with a lot of young Hispanics down there, but I've never known one that didn't want to expand government. All the Hispanics I ever met that were really conservative came here legally.

I realize this may sound rather naive of me, but have you entertained the notion that the cause and effect might be a little mixed up here?

It stands to reason that legal immigrants would voluntarily associate with a faction that restricts immigration, seeing as they managed to overcome the existing restrictions whereas many of those with whom they would otherwise have competed for opportunities did not, which works in their favor. It also stands to reason that illegal immigrants would voluntarily associate with a faction that desires the opposite goal, for it would be logical to assume that they desire a legal status in order to experience the breadth of opportunity America has to offer, and anything that might facilitate this would work in their favor. This is merely a microcosm of the zero-sum game the two major parties are playing with one another; while each demonizes the other and paints them as the enemy to America, it would be closer to reality to point out that they are merely competing for the affections of various voting blocs by offering things that benefit them (and arguing that the other side seeks only to take away what is rightfully theirs).

Personally, I am of the opinion that competition is a good thing - could I call myself a capitalist if I didn't? - and, while I consider the expansion of government for the sake of government to be unambiguously tyrannical, I have also come to understand that not all government expenditure is without purpose. (After all, does our Constitution not ordain the prosperity of the American people?) While I would not see it as wise for the Republican Party to adopt the immigration policies of their opponents, I fear that support for them will continue to dwindle unless they make full use of the bargaining chips they still possess; if the GOP's dedication to fiscal responsibility could be advertised as a greater benefit to typically Democratic constituencies than anything those Democrats have to offer, perhaps this blue wave could be halted. It may even be advisable to offer concessions to these as-of-now illegal immigrants, as well as those who support their being here, if there were to arise some other way to win the loyalty of the "screw you, got mine" crowd.

The new icelandic commonwealth

The Enlightenment marked the start of the destruction of Christian society. There is nothing remotely Christian about it, and it goes directly against the values taught in Sacred Scripture and the teachings of Christ's Church

West smolcasm

The new icelandic commonwealth wrote:The Enlightenment marked the start of the destruction of Christian society. There is nothing remotely Christian about it, and it goes directly against the values taught in Sacred Scripture and the teachings of Christ's Church

I contend that if the church and reason are at odds, the church is the party at fault. Society cannot base itself on faith alone, lest it be rendered susceptible to false doctrines and dangerous dogma; the fallibility of mankind ensures that science and logic carry far greater objectivity than our individual analyses of God's will. You may see the Enlightenment as having been a step backward for Christendom, but I see it as having been a step forward when it comes to comprehending the laws governing the universe God created (which I think will help us get to know Him better).

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

West smolcasm

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:If it must the death of Christian socoety and opposes its values: so long Papa Frank.Reason is the Devil for this one. Logic is the gateway to Hell. Through faith and an ability to ignore clear failings in so called divine revelation, we achieve eternal static in the realm of a tyrant.

this is a very tasty word salad

Edit: it took me entirely too long to divine the meaning of this. Curse my lack of reading comprehension!

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The new united states

Apparently, it's now beyond the pale for a business to donate to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. You're now an evil homophobe if you are remotely linked to any organization holding traditional Christian morals, and you will be blacklisted from doing business by our wiser superiors.

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/chick-fil-a-pulled-from-buffalo-airport-over-companys-alleged-anti-lgbtq-rhetoric-sparks-backlash

The new united states

If a locality can essentially put a religious test on allowing a business to open, it's only a matter of time before individuals are also "anti-LGBTQ" for donating to the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and thus unworthy to participate in public life.

Heck, it's already begun at the federal level with Sens. Feinstein and Hirono shamelessly questioning judicial nominees for being orthodox Catholics.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The new united states

So it is okay for the state to restrict a business' operations because of the personal beliefs of its owners? Interesting point of view.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:But it's fine for conservatives to put up rules barring the sale of alcohol or the opening of strip cluvs in a locality.

I never said that. Besides, there is a substantive difference between regulating a business for the product/service it provides and regulating a business because its owners have unfashionable beliefs. The former is (often unnecessary) policing of conduct, the latter is policing of thought. Policing of thought/belief has no place in a free society.

It may be wise to regulate, for example, a contract-killer's business, due to the nature of the service he provides. To regulate a shawarma shop because its owner donates to a Muslim charity, on the other hand, is tyranny.

The new icelandic commonwealth

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The new united states

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Stopping a business from operating in an area, despite it not violating anyone's rights, is tyranny. A contract killer violates the rights of others. Strippers and liquor stores don't.

You're missing the point. It was simply an example of restricting conduct vs. restricting belief.

It just seems like you're attacking a conservative strawman to somehow justify leftists trampling the first amendment.

Republic of minerva

Skaveria wrote:Daily reminder to not worship Reagan like a god. The man made mistakes.

I'm sure he didn't think of it as a mistake at the time.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I think it's perfectly valid for a government to choose which entities it funds and does business with. If the government funds an airport, and that airport decides to allow a business to open within it that supports anti-homosexual organizations with money, it's perfectly fine for the government to ask that airport to keep the business out of said airport, or to withdraw funding. If the people don't agree, they can elect some other representatives who wpuld do differently.

The government shouldn't do buissness with private corporations. They should be in entirely different spheres.

New Poll in Zentari. Come and vote!

page=poll/p=140023

West smolcasm

The new united states wrote:Besides, there is a substantive difference between regulating a business for the product/service it provides and regulating a business because its owners have unfashionable beliefs. The former is (often unnecessary) policing of conduct, the latter is policing of thought. Policing of thought/belief has no place in a free society.

Unfortunately, this point seems to be lost on those who would use the government as a bludgeon to knock a sense of morality into their opponents, as it were. The corruption inherent in a state telling people what to think ought to be self-evident by now; I'm dismayed by the popularity of the "it's not tyranny if the good guys are doing it" argument regardless of where it appears on the political spectrum.

That, however, is no excuse not to police conduct for fear that it may be construed as policing thought.

When a business makes a monetary contribution to an organization dedicated in part to anti-LGBT+ advocacy, they are paying money to prolong the denial of civil liberties to the public. Regardless of whether or not you would consider that to be unethical, it should now be clear that this matter is not one of thought, but of conduct; it isn't that this business is being persecuted for the beliefs of those who comprise it, but that their actions - like any actions within the market, however minimal - result in externalities, many of them negative. For better or worse, in practice it often falls to government to correct negative externalities - or, at the very least, minimize the role it plays in causing such externalities. (I would go on a tangent about how some of the negative externalities in this example can affect gender and sexual minorities to a disproportionate degree that isn't necessarily immediately obvious to those in the majority, but I fear I would - quite understandably - lose the interest of this audience by introducing such terms as "privilege" and "microaggressions" to describe this.) In this case, a state-run company denied a business the capacity to operate within its establishment because it sought not to financially contribute to discrimination; while your mileage may vary on whether this decision was informed, ideal, or just, I doubt that there remains any reason to contest it as being reasonable and ethical.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I think it's perfectly valid for a government to choose which entities it funds and does business with. If the government funds an airport, and that airport decides to allow a business to open within it that supports anti-homosexual organizations with money, it's perfectly fine for the government to ask that airport to keep the business out of said airport, or to withdraw funding. If the people don't agree, they can elect some other representatives who wpuld do differently.

And such considerations are even more critical for a government to take into account than they would be for a private business; a privately-owned company is not directly beholden to the interests and welfare of the populace in the way that a government is. A government reserves this entitlement because it oughtn't be compelled to financially contribute to the hindrance or harm of its own constituents.

Skaveria wrote:The government shouldn't do buissness with private corporations. They should be in entirely different spheres.

Were it only that such a thing were feasible.

Many government projects rely on more resources than the state itself can muster up, even through taxation; many governments, ranging from local to federal, employ private contractors and cooperate with private businesses in order to fulfill their tasks. Whether you consider this to be a reflection on how daunting it is to govern a populace or an indictment of government overreach, it remains a complex (and rather inconvenient) reality that isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

The new icelandic commonwealth

Faith and reason are not opposed to each other but are in conformity

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

According to Axios, Trump has allegedly said to multiple people that he plans to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court as a replacement for Ginsburg. Thoughts on this?

«12. . .3,5883,5893,5903,5913,5923,5933,594. . .3,9283,929»

Advertisement