Where is the National Guard?

[Ovinomancer]

He isn't the one crying about it. You are.

Naw, you misread. I called you hypocritical. That's not crying.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Naw, you misread. I called you hypocritical. That's not crying.

Seems you misread. I wasn't commenting on who you thought was hypocritical. I was pointing out you were crying about it for no real reason.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Seems you misread. I wasn't commenting on who you thought was hypocritical. I was pointing out you were crying about it for no real reason.

You know what, you're absolutely right. You've won the internet!

 

[MechaPilot]

There's a lot of movement about administrative law right now, and how what we're doing with it may actually be unconstitutional. And that's not coming from right wing sources, that's coming out of mainstream law professors (which are mostly left of center). Kinda turns out that the Constitution clearly says that it's Congress' job to create laws, and there's no Constitutional authority to delegate it. Should be interesting to watch that and see where it ends up. I reckon it'll end up with some restrictions on admin law, but not killing it. After all, Congress isn't really interested in passing those kinds of laws, and the bureaucracy is too large to dismantle.

Administrative law isn't going to change too much. Representatives just don't have the depth and breadth of knowledge they need to craft statutes in highly technical arenas, especially partnership taxation, which is widely regarded as the most complex set of tax rules in the U.S. tax system.

You use of the words 'common sense' are a clear indicator that you're presenting your opinion as fact. Restrictions on guns are a restriction of civil liberties. You can argue that they're necessary or wise, but you can't argue that it's not restricting a civil liberty.

If the right to bear arms is absolute and no common sense applies then people who are sent to prison for violent crimes have the right to bear arms in prison. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were that stupid.

BINGO! You just hit most of the tropes on Popehat's "How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media's Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies" list!

Free speech is not about the promotion or debate of ideas. It's necessary to it, yes, but not about it. It's about people not going to jail or facing government sanctions for what they say. It doesn't have any proscriptions against hate speech or the dehumanization of people. If you wish to add it, you're restricting civil liberties in general, and free speech in specifics.

Man, I really don't think you could have made Morlock's point any more correct there.

So it should be entirely without consequences to shout fire in a crowded theater, to incite a riot, to slander someone personally and/or professionally, and to make false police reports? After all, if you can't say whatever you want whenever you want without any consequences whatsoever it's not really free speech right?

Sorry, is this all about trans discrimination, or are there more types of discrimination you're including there. If it's trans, please explain the violent rejection of trans rights from the feminist movement as something of the right? It seems that anti-trans sentiment is pretty strong on both sides, so you really shouldn't throw stones.

But I always ask people rabidly in favor of trans rights how they feel about body integrity identity disorder (BIID)? I often find responses illustrative.

No, it is not all about trans discrimination. Trans discrimination is simply highly illustrative because of the breadth of that discrimination: housing, employment, restroom usage, etc. There's also racial discrimination as seen in several voter suppression laws. There's sexual orientation discrimination, though the Supreme Court somewhat recently took a nice step in removing some of that. There's religious discrimination, with Trump wanting to screen potential entrants to the U.S. based on their religion as a recent example of proposed discriminatory policy. And, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg: as a white person I know that I haven't encountered most of the discrimination that's out there.

But I always ask people rabidly in favor of trans rights how they feel about body integrity identity disorder (BIID)? I often find responses illustrative.

Never heard of it before. After reading the Wikipedia entry about it, I can really only say that I don't know enough about the disorder and those who suffer from it to comment on it with any real insight.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

You know what, you're absolutely right. You've won the internet!

Well, seems you've misread more than I thought. I'm not interested in your internet winning goals.

In the end, my point about your anecdotal evidence being anecdotal still stands. You are welcome to call hypocrisy if it makes you feel better, but anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal evidence.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'll take your word that your a centrist. Which republicans did you vote for last election?

None. Republican candidates have been skewing too far from center in recent years, leaning far more to the extreme right than I'm comfortable with. Some democrats have done the same (only leaning in the other direction), but most of them seem more moderate than their republican counterparts. Meanwhile, republicans have taken the track that doubling and tripling down on what they were already doing will somehow lead to success.

I also doubt I will vote for any in the current campaign season. Far too many of the republican candidates advocate extreme positions and/or violence against other countries. ISIS is a threat, and we should support our allies, but I don't see a need to go to war again.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I also doubt I will vote for any in the current campaign season. Far too many of the republican candidates advocate extreme positions and/or violence against other countries. ISIS is a threat, and we should support our allies, but I don't see a need to go to war again.

I think people are worried about ISIS right now and that is why tough language gets a positive reaction but there really isn't any endurance left in the US for a protracted conflict in the Middle East (especially when it seems things never really get resolved there). I think if you start talking actual dollar amounts most Americans would prefer we spend that here on things like our crumbling infrastructure and helping to grow our economy.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can't say how people on the right view Fox, but it would be refreshing to hear that what you said about that subject is true. Also, MSNBC is pretty bad. It's sad that CNN is the best of the big three news outlets.

Question for news viewers: Has anyone tried Al Jazeera America?

yes. and it's by far the most objective news source I've watched

 

[MechaPilot]

yes. and it's by far the most objective news source I've watched

Thank you for answering. I don't get that channel, so I can't watch them the way I can CNN. However, I have read an article or two on their site, and they both seemed reasonable and well-written. That said, "an article or two" is hardly representative of their body of work, so again, thanks for offering me an additional opinion to consider.

 

[Maxperson]

Two things I disagree with here.

1. If religion was the primary reason, then it stands to reason that they would have always tried to bomb us since eternity. And they haven't. They were actually quite friendly to westerners for large periods of time---until something political happened. Like us disposing the leadership of Iran to install a dictator who would give us the country's oil, leading to the revolution and installment of the Shah.

They taxed infidels and did other things to persuade them to convert. It's the extremists who have turned violent and those are more prevalent now and have access to weapons.

2. You realize not all Muslims shoot and behead people, right? Hardly any of them do, by %. Most of the people we've killed in bombing and drone strikes were innocent civilians. So I guess I'll repost this from my earlier post

It's a given that I'm talking about extremists. I'm not going to repeat that when I post.

Our bad behavior doesn't excuse theirs or make their religious reactions political.