The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left

[urbanoid]

Just now, sunday said:

Seems you two could have something in common, then.

Except I don't necessarily want to invade other countries or use indentured labor, just keep my country nice as it is.

[sunday]

Just now, urbanoid said:

Except I don't necessarily want to invade other countries or use indentured labor, just keep my country nice as it is.

But you would have wanted to kill Hitler, would not you?

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, sunday said:

But you would have wanted to kill Hitler, would not you?

In 1944, not necessarily. 

[sunday]

Remarkable.

[urbanoid]

Why? From non-German point of view there was a risk that someone actually competent took helm, thus prolonging the war. Maybe someone able to get conditional surrender. 

Would love to get FDR though, preferably at some point before 1943.  

Edited March 19, 2025 by urbanoid

[sunday]

7 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Why? From non-German point of view there was a risk that someone actually competent took helm, thus prolonging the war. Maybe someone able to get conditional surrender. 

Now that could be a starting point for some alternative history speculation, to the chagrin and horror of the historians that dwell here...

7 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Would love to get FDR though, preferably at some point before 1943.  

1928, preferably.

Wilson too, and another Teddy R term. No Wilson Square in Warsaw, however.

Edited March 19, 2025 by sunday

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Why? From non-German point of view there was a risk that someone actually competent took helm, thus prolonging the war. Maybe someone able to get conditional surrender. 

Would love to get FDR though, preferably at some point before 1933.  

FIFY

[Rick]

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

I think I clearly said 'not multiculturalism in its modern meaning'.

Your Founding Fathers were aware of Europe's religious wars and took precautions against that happening in the US, it even mostly worked. Still, they limited the franchise to 'free white persons', regardless of their religion.

 

A good post, and for further understanding let's go a little deeper.

The genesis of the U.S. Constitution can be found in the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

The Constitution, ratified between 1787-1790 guarantees the individual the freedom to worship God via the First Amendment. This avoids the entanglements of a national religion as you stated. 

RM Gill, beat me to it regarding the "franchise" of the Constitution, but you can see the long struggle against slavery can officially be found in the Declaration of Independence that all men are equal and have God-given rights that are not to be negated by government. A slavery decision was crafted by the The Three-Fifths Compromise which diluted the federal governmental power of the slave holding South. The rest is history. 

[Tim Sielbeck]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

...  A slavery decision was crafted by the The Three-Fifths Compromise which diluted the federal governmental power of the slave holding South. The rest is history. 

I disagree with you as to who's power was diluted.  Without the compromise slavery could have been disallowed even sooner.  It actually gave more seats in congress to the south that they would have otherwise gotten.  However there was the very high probability that the Constitution would not have been ratified if the compromise had been left out.

[Rick]

3 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

I disagree with you as to who's power was diluted.  Without the compromise slavery could have been disallowed even sooner.  It actually gave more seats in congress to the south that they would have otherwise gotten.  However there was the very high probability that the Constitution would not have been ratified if the compromise had been left out.

Agree with your last sentence why the 3/5 compromise was agreed upon. The South wanted to count slaves as equal with whites as far as population goes for the House, the North wanted, IIRC, zero, hence 3/5. 

I have occasionally wondered if mechanization would have replaced slavery and when. 

[Sinistar]

i take the view that the constitution was created as a direct result of a bona fide second revolutionary war or a civil war threatening to occur 

 

after the war of independence the united states was still a confederation without a national government per se and having currency problems

 

as a result of the often overlooked events described as shays' rebellion as a symptom of what might be occurring

 

so the previous bunch which had thrown the british out now saw themselves as fending off a challenge to the system

 

there was no institutional response to this rebellion since there was no real national government and national army 

and literally required using militias to fence it off

 

the constitution was created the convention 1787 as a direct result because of the way this experiment was all starting to look like it was falling apart 

that is, to see the need for some underlying central government and despite their misgivings in the past over government based on the european models preceding it

 

those arguing for a stronger federal government had the most influence

henceforth the government has only grown larger 

 

 

[X-Files]

8 hours ago, Murph said:

More true than you can imagine.   

You and I have been hanging out here (me off and on) for what, 20 plus years?

WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD'S GREEN EARTH would make you think I can't imagine right alongside of you, step for step?

 

[X-Files]

18 minutes ago, Sinistar said:

artificial intelligence blathering

[Sinistar]

some of the behaviors of gavin newsom as of late prompts speculation of preparing to run on the national ticket in the next election

 

appears to be modulating some of his canned views previously to be more 'inclusive' or understanding of the other side

 

here he is against tim waltz even admitting the democrats are having trouble with reaching out to males

this should come as no surprise by now to anyone since the voting patterns show what was occurring as it appeared to align with the feminized messages coming out of the left that males were not welcome unless they were allies

 

Gavin Newsom urges Democrats to 'go on the offense' admitting party is losing male support | Watch

[DKTanker]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

I have seen it posited that the left’s penchant for violence at people’s homes has some of the SCOTUS judges scared. 

Often it is ACB's name that comes up regarding that issue.  Regardless, I'm not buying it.  If one or more them is allowing themselves to be frightened into ruling against their principles or are even just questioning whether or not tacit threats are influencing their decisions, they have a duty to resign.  Short of that they should go on the record requesting greater protection.  And by protection I mean something much better than what Kavanaugh had the night he almost lost his life to a reluctant assassin.  In addition a robust US Marshal response to protestors flagrantly flouting laws regarding the intimidation of judges and justices. 
I'm not so arrogant to believe I'm the first to come up with that advise so I've got to believe that if justices are using the excuse of intimidation influencing their decisions, they are simply using it as cover to rule as they would have sans intimidation.

[rmgill]

could be the federal agencies have been failing to do their basic law enforcement and protection jobs...

 

[Murph]

3 hours ago, X-Files said:

You and I have been hanging out here (me off and on) for what, 20 plus years?

WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD'S GREEN EARTH would make you think I can't imagine right alongside of you, step for step?

 

Lol, you are so right!

[Murph]

Greenpeace, the terrorist organization lost its court battle and faces bankruptcy and destruction.

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Ivanhoe]

When you get taken down by a tranny, you're maybe not as butch as you think;

 

[Murph]

Good bye Greenpeace, your were a reliable Eco-Terrorist and Communist front for decades.  Hope you can come up with the 667 MILLION dollars you owe.  Seize their assets NOW.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/is-greenpeace-finished-jury-orders-far-left-group/

CBS News reports:

Greenpeace ordered to pay more than $660 million to fossil fuel company over pipeline protests

In a win for the oil and gas pipeline company Energy Transfer, a nine-person North Dakota jury found the environmental group Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in damages and defamation for the 2016 to 2017 Standing Rock protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

In their lawsuit, Dallas-based Energy Transfer claimed Greenpeace was responsible for defamation, disruption and property damage for the protests that captured national attention in 2016. Greenpeace claimed the lawsuit threatened its freedom of speech.

In a statement, Energy Transfer said, “This win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace. It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.”

Greenpeace plans to appeal the verdict. “This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight. Energy Transfer knows we don’t have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.” Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace Inc., told CBS News.

 

 

 

 

 

[Murph]

UniLever has had enough of the far left stupidity coming out of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, and sh**cans the CEO.  Predictable whinging and outrage ensues on the left.  They make pretty decent ice cream, but I quit buying their product for over a decade due to the hard left BS.  

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/ben-jerrys-parent-company-ousts-its-far-left/

Ben & Jerry’s reputation as America’s wokest brand may soon be at an end.

The ice cream company, notorious for its calorie-laden products, has accused its parent company of sacking CEO Dave Stever after he refused to “oversee the dismantling” of its progressive values.  (i.e LEFT WING BS! My comment)

Ben & Jerry’s claimed in a filing to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that Unilever, the UK-based consumer giant behind brands like Marmite and Dove, sought to prevent the company’s leadership from making political statements.

 

These included statements critical of President Donald Trump.

 

 

 

[Murph]

Lordy, I just love Senator Kennedy from Louisiana:

Sen John Kennedy: The Loon Wing Of The Dem Party Is In Control

Chuck Schumer "is as popular as chlamydia. That to me says as much about the Democratic Party as it does about Senator Schumer. What it tells me is that the loon wing of the Democrat Party is firmly in control.… pic.twitter.com/wXkBaI0XX6

— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) March 20, 2025

[Murph]

Trannie violence is real:

[Murph]

The latest Assassin's Creed game, with the black samurai, well now he is a GAY black samurai!  But copies are just flying off the shelves!