Interesting post. :think:
Law v. Order
- Thread starter rexlunae
- Start date
Interesting post. :think:
Perhaps.
Though, can you conflate the fight for equality to that of the fight to maintain the current power structure?
"self-interest" to "social justice"?
Eagles Wings
New member
...like this emotional non sequitur.
Eagles Wings
New member
Oh, didn't you get a bit emotional about the poor reporter?
No man worth his salts, would whine about this story and promote abortion in the same breadth.
You can only connect the two by emotional retort.
This argument is about the right's morally relative abuse of power in maintaining this power. The reporter incident is just an incidental illustration of it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
funny, i can imagine a lot of republicans who would vote for him largely because of this
Last edited:
:idea:
Eagles Wings
New member
Eagles Wings
New member
Nope.
Nope...what?
Eagles Wings
New member
Have you read Psalm 139 yet?
I could not explain my "nope" any better than, King David, does in this Psalm.
Last edited:
Nope. It's of little concern to me.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so go find another website to bother :wave2:
Given what those policies are, I don't feel a bit badly for them. 'We have to vote for the guy who attacks reporters so that the rich can have tax cuts' isn't a real sympathetic position for me. Aside from which, he's one of their own. He got elected because he reflects the values of his voters, who turn out to be pretty receptive to fascism and pretty ok with violence, as long as it's directed at the right people. If you liked this guy before the attack, I'd say you should have been paying attention, and if you don't like his actions now, I'd say pay attention to how his colleges receive him in Congress. I suspect that as long as he only attacks reporters, he'll be embraced with open arms, one more vote to screw the poor and protect the traitors to Russia.
The election probably couldn't have been cancelled the day before, and really I don't think we should go about cancelling elections because one of the candidates can't control themselves. What could be done is that Republicans, particularly Paul Ryan, could decline to seat him. That is the usual Constitutional remedy enacted in situations like this, unless the party in power doesn't care, in which case, you get what's happening instead. The Republican Party is an active participant in violence against the free press. It goes beyond complicity.
Depends on the stakes. I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to political calculus, but it really says something about how little they care about the free press.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Take your own advice doofus. You're the one who's been banned more than anyone else and you've flounced off enough times in rather amusing hissy fit fashion as well. How about an encore?
I can imagine those people too.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i'm one of them :banana:
Of course not, but that's irrelevant.
Some? Sure, All? I doubt it.
I didn't know that Paul Ryan could do that. If he did that then would it lead to a new election? Or would it default to Quist? I did hear that Ryan was asked if Gianforte should be eligible and he said it's up to the voters to decide. I think that's a cop-out. I'd like to see more from him. Now knowing that he could refuse to give him his seat then I'd like to see that happen.
I agree that delaying elections is not a great answer and lines would have to be drawn between what justifies it and what doesn't. Maybe the current setup is the best there is. I still feel bad for the voters placed in a situation like this.
Maybe, maybe not. Polling could clarify the views and reasoning of the voters.