The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Hypocrisy Of The Right

[Panzermann]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbYzithDNZI

 

 

That background photo

 

is he being sponsored by the scottish tourism department now?

[Paul G.]

People are choosing to see the kneeling protest as an insult to service members for a reason. To disparage and distract from the true intent of the protest. To bring attention to an issue Kapernick feels strongly about in a venue that is relevant to him. The protest is thoughtful, respectful, and well intentioned. That people find it threatening says more about their own issues with who is protesting and what about.

 

It is actually far more disrespectful to ignore the anthem...out of shear laziness, and continue sitting, talking or stuffing your face with nachos..which i have witnessed consistantly at events.

[Panzermann]

People are choosing to see the kneeling protest as an insult to service members for a reason. To disparage and distract from the true intent of the protest. To bring attention to an issue Kapernick feels strongly about in a venue that is relevant to him. The protest is thoughtful, respectful, and well intentioned. That people find it threatening says more about their own issues with who is protesting and what about.

 

It is actually far more disrespectful to ignore the anthem...out of shear laziness, and continue sitting, talking or stuffing your face with nachos..which i have witnessed consistantly at events.

 

where else to apply shifting the goal posts than in football?

[JWB]

 

 

Right wingers are fighting a fight to put the blacks back into place working for the(ir) owners and keeping their opinion to themselves.

Totally incorrect. There is no return to slavery element in US conservatism.

[Paul G.]

 

 

Right wingers are fighting a fight to put the blacks back into place working for the(ir) owners and keeping their opinion to themselves.

Totally incorrect. There is no return to slavery element in US conservatism.

he didnt say "conservatism".

[JWB]

 

 

 

Right wingers are fighting a fight to put the blacks back into place working for the(ir) owners and keeping their opinion to themselves.

Totally incorrect. There is no return to slavery element in US conservatism.

he didnt say "conservatism".

 

Right wingers are synonymous with conservative.

[lastdingo]

Well, in the U.S. they do indeed call themselves conservatives mostly, though some call themselves libertarians and not all who identify as conservatives also identify as Republicans.

 

Anyway, I suppose every adult understands that no-one in the Western World calls for a return of official slavery. This doesn't keep people from strongly indicating that they want lots of non-white groups to not express opinions, be submissive and content with whatever fate the whites hand to them. Such people freak out about something as tiny and marginal as some dudes choosing a different pose during a piece of music.

 

The supposed patriotism motive behind the - let's call it "chimp out" - of the right wing about the kneeling is in my opinion hypocrisy/dissimulation/cant, as shown by the perfect tolerance for lots of officially or obviously unpatriotic things. Such as dividing the country, disparaging tens of millions of citizens, pretending that Hawaii/New York isn't really America, disrespectful instrumentalisation and commercialisation of the flag, opposition to acts of national solidarity, disregard for constitutional norms, disparaging the free press, vote suppression, gerrymandering or supporting a politician who lies three times a day.

 

 

Did I mention that POTUS claimed that a House representative has lied, only to have confirmed shortly after by his own staff that she hadn't, and it was POTUS who lied (again)? And then the top staff members went on to smear the rep only to be proven by a video to be liars about that, too? I mean, who votes such people into power and keeps supporting them? Especially after they practically accomplished nothing in ten months while being in total control of the federal government?

In Germany you have to wait for a year or two till a ruling coalition politician accumulates as many proven, obvious lies as Trump does in a day or his press speakers in a single WH press conference.

 

What has to go wrong for a political culture to reach such a low point?

[mnm]

Anyway, I suppose every adult understands that no-one in the Western World calls for a return of official slavery.

 

 

And rightly so. If the erstwhile slave owners knew in advance of these long term consequences of slavery (well, they aren't, not really...) they would have left the Africans stay in peace in their beloved Continent

[Paul G.]

 

 

 

 

 

Right wingers are fighting a fight to put the blacks back into place working for the(ir) owners and keeping their opinion to themselves.

Totally incorrect. There is no return to slavery element in US conservatism.

he didnt say "conservatism".

Right wingers are synonymous with conservative.

White Nationalists, alt right are right wingers too. There is a spectrum.

[rmgill]

Anyway, I suppose every adult understands that no-one in the Western World calls for a return of official slavery. This doesn't keep people from strongly indicating that they want lots of non-white groups to not express opinions, be submissive and content with whatever fate the whites hand to them. Such people freak out about something as tiny and marginal as some dudes choosing a different pose during a piece of music.

I guess you've failed to notice the cries that Algrebra is racist? Perhaps people who are rejecting cultures that aren't 'white' are doing so because the culture are foreign to them and seemingly have nothing to offer.

 

How do you even arrive at the bolded conclusion? What's your evidence for this?

 

 

 

Such as dividing the country, disparaging tens of millions of citizens, pretending that Hawaii/New York isn't really America,

You've got this backwards boyo.

 

disrespectful instrumentalisation

What is this?

 

and commercialisation of the flag,

An ongoing issue that's older than you and I put together.

 

opposition to acts of national solidarity, disregard for constitutional norms, disparaging the free press, vote suppression, gerrymandering or supporting a politician who lies three times a day.

You think this is isolated to being a conservative issue only? The Democrats and Some republicans tried to pass a law limiting what could be reported on or said about a politician. That was codified in LAW and then after a SCOTUS decision that the left decried and still decries, was pushed around to be inclusive of anyone wanting to identify as press.

 

And ss to disparaging the constitutional norms? 2nd amendment cases.....Do you read them?

[lastdingo]

"Others do it too" is no defence.

 

About constitutional norms - that was among other things a hint at the Title of Nobility Clause.

The ( R ) would have cried foul from breakfast till dinner if Clinton had done anything approaching what Trump does; for example the profit from foreign diplomatic delegations who spend a lot in a Trump hotel in DC.

The verbal/written attacks on the press are another such issue.

 

 

2nd amendment cases? Cry about that in the other hypocrisy thread. This one is rather the place to complain about the constant attempts to cheat against Roe vs. Wade, the highly questionable refusal of a Republican-dominated Congress to do its job in the SCOTUS judge confirmation process and the overt gerrymandering. IIRC it was Texas where the government is on court record stating that the gerrymandering was meant to discriminate against Democrats (and thus supposedly not against a racial group).

Edited October 25, 2017 by lastdingo

[rmgill]

 

About constitutional norms - that was among other things a hint at the Title of Nobility Clause.

The ( R ) would have cried foul from breakfast till dinner if Clinton had done anything approaching what Trump does; for example the profit from foreign diplomatic delegations who spend a lot in a Trump hotel in DC.

He OWNS THE FREAKING HOTEL. Is he supposed to let them stay and fund government operations at a loss? I don't know about Europe but it's SOP to re-imburse at a reasonable rate for expenses incurred for one's business OR they become a tax write off.

 

Funny how you cry fowl about that when there's a documentable exchange of services for the money while ignoring the Donations given to the Clinton Foundation.

 

 

 

 

2nd amendment cases? Cry about that in the other hypocrisy thread.

Well, Sparky, you objected to ignoring the Constitution. I guess you're one of those evil anti-Constitution types eh?

 

 

 

 

This one is rather the place to complain about the constant attempts to cheat against Roe vs. Wade

Where in the Constitution is Abortion listed? Can you cite it?

 

 

 

 

overt gerrymandering

Yeah.....this is a really new issue....Democrats are being hoisted by their own petard. I'm not gonna lose sleep over this.

 

 

 

 

 

Democrats (and thus supposedly not against a racial group).

 

Well, it's not. Democrat demographics range across racial groups. This is easily demonstrated.

 

Conversely the gerrymandering that is responsible for the district that I live in is easily documented as being by Democrats shaping the district based on inclusion of Democrat voters. Is that ALSO supposedly not racist or not?

Edited October 25, 2017 by rmgill

[lastdingo]

 

 

About constitutional norms - that was among other things a hint at the Title of Nobility Clause.

The ( R ) would have cried foul from breakfast till dinner if Clinton had done anything approaching what Trump does; for example the profit from foreign diplomatic delegations who spend a lot in a Trump hotel in DC.

He OWNS THE FREAKING HOTEL. Is he supposed to let them stay and fund government operations at a loss? I don't know about Europe but it's SOP to re-imburse at a reasonable rate for expenses incurred for one's business OR they become a tax write off.

 

Funny how you cry fowl about that when there's a documentable exchange of services for the money while ignoring the Donations given to the Clinton Foundation.

 

Donations to Clinton Foundation do not matter. Get over your Clinton derangement syndrome already. Besides, Trump taking Trump foundation money to buy decorations for Trump tower (the infamous painting) is obviously illegal, while Clinton foundation stuff is about 99% smear campaigning. Moreover, this is the right wing hypocrisy thread and I did not suppose that the left wing are saints. If you could muster the intellect to read what I wrote in the other thread you'd see how utterly pointless your primitive display of hyperpartisanship is.

 

 

 

 

2nd amendment cases? Cry about that in the other hypocrisy thread.

Well, Sparky, you objected to ignoring the Constitution. I guess you're one of those evil anti-Constitution types eh?

 

Hey, troll, learn to think. Nothing in that line of yours makes sense.

 

 

 

 

This one is rather the place to complain about the constant attempts to cheat against Roe vs. Wade

Where in the Constitution is Abortion listed? Can you cite it?

 

The supremacy of SCOTUS rulings over federal and state legislative, executive and judicative branches is in the constitution. Roe vs. Wade is a non-overturned SCOTUS ruling. Read both.

And guess whaat? Assault rifles aren't mentioned in the constitution. Its authors lived in a world that knew nothing but single shot-per-barrel blackpowder firearms for 300+ years.

The right wing nutjob interpretation of the 2nd amendment is nothing but a fabrication of NRA propaganda over the past 60 years. Their extremist interpretation simply didn't exist before WW2 and it's logically incoherent and indefensible in its unlimited nature.

 

 

 

 

overt gerrymandering

Yeah.....this is a really new issue....Democrats are being hoisted by their own petard. I'm not gonna lose sleep over this.

 

Learn to make sense or go away, troll.

 

 

 

Democrats (and thus supposedly not against a racial group).

 

Well, it's not. Democrat demographics range across racial groups. This is easily demonstrated.

 

Conversely the gerrymandering that is responsible for the district that I live in is easily documented as being by Democrats shaping the district based on inclusion of Democrat voters. Is that ALSO supposedly not racist or not?

 

WOW; how much of a shill one has to be to not think that a ruling party creating an uneven playing field in elections by gerrymandering is not utterly incompatible with a democracy.

And you have a severe problem with logic. You seemingly cannot understand that others doing bad stuff doesn't absolve your favoured folks doing bad stuff from being bad. Besides, it's very much proven by math that Republicans are gerrymandering to much more effect.

 

.

[Paul G.]

Gerrymandering violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution regardless of who does it. But Ryan doesn't care about that.

[JWB]

 

 

it's very much proven by math that Republicans are gerrymandering to much more effect.

You're ignorance of American politics shows in how you can't recognize improper use of mathematics.

[lastdingo]

 

 

 

it's very much proven by math that Republicans are gerrymandering to much more effect.

You're ignorance of American politics shows in how you can't recognize improper use of mathematics.

 

 

Or you're in denial and in need of better spelling.

 

examples

 

 

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

 

https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/25/partisan-gerrymandering-republicans-2016-report

[JWB]

 

 

 

 

it's very much proven by math that Republicans are gerrymandering to much more effect.

You're ignorance of American politics shows in how you can't recognize improper use of mathematics.

 

 

Or you're in denial and in need of better spelling.

 

examples

 

 

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

 

https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/25/partisan-gerrymandering-republicans-2016-report

 

Read and rejected. "Studies" like these don't take into account states that use "independent" commissions for drawing districts. At least 20% of the Ca Bay Area is republican with another 10% fellow travelers. There are no republicans from the region in Congress.

[lastdingo]

You should learn about the difference between gerrymandering on the one hand and the disadvantages that majority elections have compared to proportional elections on the other hand.

Your ignorance is disqualifying.

[JWB]

You should learn about the difference between gerrymandering on the one hand and the disadvantages that majority elections have compared to proportional elections on the other hand.

Your ignorance is disqualifying.

None of your blatherings changes the fact that California has de facto gerrymandering. The democrat political machine tricked the members of the commission. The authors of the studies you cited either cannot understand that or intentionally overlooked it.

[rmgill]

His blatherings also ignore that the Democrat South has been Gerrymandered for what, 100+ years?

He also ignores that even with republican gerrymandering in my own area we STILL have a district that ends up being a Democrat Bastion EVEN With the representative in question confused as to how islands work. How many freaking times to I have to point to the Georgia 4th congressional district?

"And guess whaat? Assault rifles aren't mentioned in the constitution. Its authors lived in a world that knew nothing but single shot-per-barrel blackpowder firearms for 300+ years.

 

This argument is idiotic and imbecilic. Here's why.

The 1st amendment covers and protects electronic media which didn't exist at the time of the passage of the 1st amendment. There's piles of case law to explain why this SHOULD be so. You can start with Reno v ACLU if you need some reading material.

The 4th amendment covers and protects electronic communications, which didn't exist at the time of the passage of the 1st amendment. There's piles of case law to explain why this SHOULD be so. You can start with Katz v US or this material from Harvard Law School.

So, if you're going to take the position that the 2nd doesn't cover later changes in technology....you're failing to think past your nose.

Additionally, you're ignorant of technology of the time.

Militia units had cannons. A muzzle loading cannon loaded with grape shot or cannister is at least as powerful as an M16 on full auto. More powerful arguably.

Militia units had warships with cannons. The war of 1812 saw 300 + Militia warships with the USN having 12.

Rapid fire weapons existed at the time of the founding of this country. One need look no further than the Pucklegun.

The right wing nutjob interpretation of the 2nd amendment is nothing but a fabrication of NRA propaganda over the past 60 years. Their extremist interpretation simply didn't exist before WW2 and it's logically incoherent and indefensible in its unlimited nature.

 

Sure if you ignore any caselaw which mentions it up to and including US v Miller, the writings from the time it was passed and the congressional discussions relating to the passage of the NFA.

Edited October 27, 2017 by rmgill

[lastdingo]

I give you that there's a recent scientific study that disagrees with ealier ones and comes to the conclusion that the balance in the U.S. House of R. is only barely affected by gerrymandering. This study makes it look as if gerrymandering was more about job security for representatives than for changing majorities.

Evaluating partisan gains from Congressional gerrymandering: Using
computer simulations to estimate the effect of gerrymandering in the
U.S. House*
Jowei Chen a, David Cottrell b, *
a Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, USA
b Program in Quantitative Social Science, Dartmouth College, USA

 

Last time I checked was before that article and I came up with studies that showed substantial influence of gerrymandering, so the effect may at least vary between legislative periods. We may also check later if other, later studies falsified this one.

 

Still, what you ignore is that Democrats doing one thing still doesn't absolve Republicans from being anti-democracy by doing the same thing.

 

-------------

 

Now about the NRA thing;

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856_Page2.html

 

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”
At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely. An essay contest, grants to write book reviews, the creation of “Academics for the Second Amendment,” all followed. In 2003, the NRA Foundation provided $1 million to endow the Patrick Henry professorship in constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School.
This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.

 

and some more sources that right wingers usually avoid due to cognitive dissonance issues

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/how_the_nra_perverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/us-gun-policy-nra

 

 

Besides; free speech is about expressing thoughts and was so from the beginning. "the right to bear arms" was about hardware from the very beginning. That makes the change of hardware relevant. The real issue is whether it was meant to be a state's right or an individual right and the narrative on this moved from the former to the latter due to NRA propaganda.

I also mentioned the impracticability of the NRA's extremism. So who's fine with an unlimited right to bear arms? For that gives prison inmates the right to have an assault rifle. It gives Muslim jihadist loudmouths the right to have a Stinger launcher. And no doubt the NRA also fights for the right to own munitions, right? There HAS TO BE a limit, and once that's admitted the setting of the limit becomes a product of political judment at the legislative (law-giving) level, and if that's vague enough at the executive or judicative brnach's interpretation fo the law. The idea of the constitution as a blank check on all weapons for everyone is inconsistent with sentient behaviour. The NRA is an extremist propaganda organisation, and it's also lying and hypocritical. It contradicted itself often denough over time. They once proposed more and better background checks, you know?

Edited October 27, 2017 by lastdingo

[Jeff]

His blatherings also ignore that the Democrat South has been Gerrymandered for what, 100+ years?

 

He also ignores that even with republican gerrymandering in my own area we STILL have a district that ends up being a Democrat Bastion EVEN With the representative in question confused as to how islands work. How many freaking times to I have to point to the Georgia 4th congressional district?

 

When Democrats create minority majority districts, it's to give them a voice in government. When Republicans do the same thing, it's because they want to create political ghettos for minorities. Heads we win, tales you lose.

[Paul G.]

 

His blatherings also ignore that the Democrat South has been Gerrymandered for what, 100+ years?

 

He also ignores that even with republican gerrymandering in my own area we STILL have a district that ends up being a Democrat Bastion EVEN With the representative in question confused as to how islands work. How many freaking times to I have to point to the Georgia 4th congressional district?

When Democrats create minority majority districts, it's to give them a voice in government. When Republicans do the same thing, it's because they want to create political ghettos for minorities. Heads we win, tales you lose.

The egregious nature of gerrymandering is not in like voter grouping, its in intentionally dividing voter blocks. It completely violates 'one person one vote' EPUTL.

[Paul G.]

His blatherings also ignore that the Democrat South has been Gerrymandered for what, 100+ years?

 

He also ignores that even with republican gerrymandering in my own area we STILL have a district that ends up being a Democrat Bastion EVEN With the representative in question confused as to how islands work. How many freaking times to I have to point to the Georgia 4th congressional district?

 

"And guess whaat? Assault rifles aren't mentioned in the constitution. Its authors lived in a world that knew nothing but single shot-per-barrel blackpowder firearms for 300+ years.

 

This argument is idiotic and imbecilic. Here's why.

 

The 1st amendment covers and protects electronic media which didn't exist at the time of the passage of the 1st amendment. There's piles of case law to explain why this SHOULD be so. You can start with Reno v ACLU if you need some reading material.

 

The 4th amendment covers and protects electronic communications, which didn't exist at the time of the passage of the 1st amendment. There's piles of case law to explain why this SHOULD be so. You can start with Katz v US or this material from Harvard Law School.

 

So, if you're going to take the position that the 2nd doesn't cover later changes in technology....you're failing to think past your nose.

 

Additionally, you're ignorant of technology of the time.

 

Militia units had cannons. A muzzle loading cannon loaded with grape shot or cannister is at least as powerful as an M16 on full auto. More powerful arguably.

 

Militia units had warships with cannons. The war of 1812 saw 300 + Militia warships with the USN having 12.

 

Rapid fire weapons existed at the time of the founding of this country. One need look no further than the Pucklegun.

 

The right wing nutjob interpretation of the 2nd amendment is nothing but a fabrication of NRA propaganda over the past 60 years. Their extremist interpretation simply didn't exist before WW2 and it's logically incoherent and indefensible in its unlimited nature.

 

Sure if you ignore any caselaw which mentions it up to and including US v Miller, the writings from the time it was passed and the congressional discussions relating to the passage of the NFA.

Just put a long post in that was sabotaged by the captcha BS thing. So i summerize:

 

1. Whataboutism is no argument. Wrong is wrong.

 

2. 1st amend is not about an implement. 2nd is. Both refer to a body, the press and the militia. One of which is no longer relevent.

[JWB]

 

 

1st amend is not about an implement. 2nd is. Both refer to a body, the press and the militia. One of which is no longer relevent.

That is true and it is not true. 1st is about an action. 2nd is both an object and an action, bare (sic) and not just keep.