What is something you agree with the "other side" about?

[sandorski]

Do we really want to live in a world where all laws are enforced with equal vigor? I know I don’t. It would be a very sad day if the police devoted exactly as much care and interest into prosecuting jaywalking as they did murder, for example. DACA said that, given limited resources, we would focus on criminal aliens and not people who were in every way but having been brought here illegally by their parents when they were small children, law abiding Americans. That to me seems pretty smart.

That’s not to trivialize the issue that you bring up, which is that while prioritized enforcement happens in every police station ever, there is a very real risk of it being taken too far and then the executive no longer follows the law. DACA is definitely troubling in that way but as it stands I don’t think it’s possible to enforce US immigration law in a sane way so what is to be done?

Do we devote equal resources to deporting grandmas and small children as we do to deporting violent gangsters? That’s what Trump is doing and it’s just dumb.

Not only that, but most DACA recipients have proven themselves to be good members of Society. Seems utterly foolish to toss them out on a technicality when you are also trying to attract Immigrants not fully knowing if they will ever fit in.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I’ve always been of the opinion that true freedom includes accepting the consequences for that action as well. People often want the freedom but aren’t willing to accept what comes from that.

Yes but the question is where do you draw the line?

Someone can say they are for the president and be heavily scrutinized to the point of resigning.

I'm just saying there should be some clear distinction between "I like x" and "I hate <racial slur>". One of those is worthy of scrutinizing, the other one isn't unless x is the kkk, Hitler, etc.

Let me ask you this, if there was a fat obese woman and someone was asked "Do you find her attractive?" And you answered "No sorry, I find obese women to be unnatractive" is that something you should be fired for? Because that's the equivalent of where lefties are going. It's to the point where they want you to hold in the truth and only answer with political correctness statements of "She is a very attractive woman and I'm sure she will find the right person someday".

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yeh, put form ahead of substance to fuck those icky browns. Trump is doing exactly that when it comes to the Salvadoran refugees. Both GWB & Obama let 'em stay. 17 years into it Trump tells 'em to get fucked. That's right- get fucked. Their lives, their jobs, their American kids, their businesses & mortgages? Fuck them too! GTFO!

Jesus fuck way to misinterpret and spew your ignorance of strawmen everywhere. I said the executive branch should execute laws, that's it.

Somehow you turned that into I hate and want to burn brown people even though - coincidentally - I'm married to one you dumb fucktard. Go put your foot further in your mouth.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes but the question is where do you draw the line?

Someone can say they are for the president and be heavily scrutinized to the point of resigning.

I'm just saying there should be some clear distinction between "I like x" and "I hate <racial slur>". One of those is worthy of scrutinizing, the other one isn't unless x is the kkk, Hitler, etc.

I think what should or should not be criticized is best left up to the individual. People should be free to set their own standards for conduct.

Let me ask you this, if there was a fat obese woman and someone was asked "Do you find her attractive?" And you answered "No sorry, I find obese women to be unnatractive" is that something you should be fired for? Because that's the equivalent of where lefties are going. It's to the point where they want you to hold in the truth and only answer with political correctness statements of "She is a very attractive woman and I'm sure she will find the right person someday".

I can’t say I’ve ever been in a workplace where someone would get fired for saying they don’t find fat people attractive or anything even approaching that.

I think most workplaces function best where coworkers are treated with respect and graciousness. If I had a very overweight coworker and someone asked me that question I wouldn’t answer that I found overweight people unattractive because it serves no purpose and I wouldn’t want to hurt someone’s feelings for no purpose. I would not worry for even one second that saying that would get me fired.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Edit: this was a reply to someone1mind

I disagree, you represent your employer so they should have the right to protect themselves. I get it. I disagree with the smear campaigns to dig up shit and then try to attack people’s careers. That seems to go beyond a company protecting its brand, that’s a very deliberate attack on a person by attacking their career. Not a fan. Came to head in many cases recently, Sarah Jeong being one of them. I think she’s a racist POS but I’ll admit those calling for her firing weren’t actually offended. This is not a tactic solely for the right, it’s becoming more and more common across the board. I have no clue what the answer is other than companies need to grow some balls and tell these people frick you (NYT admittedly did, but it seems to be hit or miss whether they do. They fired someone several months before from the same position for the exact same thing).

Stop being (fakely) offended everyone

 

[woolfe9998]

Let me ask you this, if there was a fat obese woman and someone was asked "Do you find her attractive?" And you answered "No sorry, I find obese women to be unnatractive" is that something you should be fired for? Because that's the equivalent of where lefties are going. It's to the point where they want you to hold in the truth and only answer with political correctness statements of "She is a very attractive woman and I'm sure she will find the right person someday".

No, you got it wrong. You must first say something about her amazing intellect and personality before you're allowed to comment on her looks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Jesus fuck way to misinterpret and spew your ignorance of strawmen everywhere. I said the executive branch should execute laws, that's it.

Somehow you turned that into I hate and want to burn brown people even though - coincidentally - I'm married to one you dumb fucktard. Go put your foot further in your mouth.

If you don't want to be identified as a hater don't use their lexicon & don't agree with their policies.

 

[compcons]

I'm more of a libertarian, so if anything, I would agree with things from both sides


Agree with the right: No matter what it is, I support your right to state whatever you believe or feel. I don't believe you should ever be punished or fired from a job just because someone doesn't agree with your stance. That doesn't mean that you have a right to not be offended - there is no such thing as "hate speech" - this is where the left turn into looney tunes

Also agree that in general - government is incompetent. We need as little government as possible.

For example: Our city was hit by hurricane Harvey. Bad. We are JUST NOW - over a year later about to get federal funds. It seriously takes 365+ days to simply allocate and transfer funds? It's the perfect example of how many monkey's does it take to screw in a lightbulb? You know who has done a fuckload more already? EVERYONE. Every non-profit, a furniture store owner, the food bank, the city, etc..

And an organization has the freedom and right to protect themselves as well. If you put your shit out there, your employer has the right to terminate/ban/ whatever you for affecting them negatively. Hell, in many states, your employer can terminate just because. You have to own up to sharing your thoughts with the world. If I work for a gun manufacturer and am cosntantly posting about how awful guns are, I'd expect to be fired. Hell, if I say a competitor is way better than I am, I expect to be fired.

Perhaps jumping all the way to less government isn't what you want. I agree it has to be more responsible or efficient government. It could be so much better, but "less" is a simlpetons answer to the problem. In your example, having to wait for a long time for help is a question of efficiency. That's what you want to fix. Less government could mean you get shit. They didn't have to take care of you AT ALL, but here you are finally getting some help (unfortunately after a year). Also, all that shit you use to function as a society (roads, law enforcement, education, etc., etc.) is a function of your government. It is what makes us a civilized society. You know who has "less government"? Shitholes. Perhaps you would like to visit a place like Sierra Leonne?

 

[Sunburn74]

I agree with the other side that the budget should be balanced and that government interference should aim to be minimal. However I disagree with what we spend our money on and what the threshold for minimal is.

 

[HomerJS]

I asked earlier what the Democrat party platform is for the mid-terms. Did I miss the answer?

For starters decency, ending mass corruption and a return to American values.

There are many others.

 

[glenn1]

Freedom of speech only means the government won't punish you for speech; it doesn't mean that private individuals have to provide you a platform or put up with your shit.

You're saying this with a straight face when "hate crime" laws exist? Repeal thoughtcrime laws and maybe you'll have a point.

 

[fskimospy]

You're saying this with a straight face when "hate crime" laws exist? Repeal thoughtcrime laws and maybe you'll have a point.

Every right in the constitution is subject to restrictions. For example you cannot use your 'free speech' to incite others to violence and if your religion involved child sacrifice the government would happily limit your right to freedom of religion.

Basically every law is a 'thoughtcrime' law as mens rea is required for most crimes. If you don't have a guilty mind, you aren't guilty. It's perfectly sensible that if someone is killed in order to terrorize a population that is more damaging to society than if someone is killed in a personal dispute. We came up with these laws specifically because right wing terrorist groups used targeted murders to do just that.

 

[glenn1]

Every right in the constitution is subject to restrictions. For example you cannot use your 'free speech' to incite others to violence and if your religion involved child sacrifice the government would happily limit your right to freedom of religion.

Basically every law is a 'thoughtcrime' law as mens rea is required for most crimes. If you don't have a guilty mind, you aren't guilty. It's perfectly sensible that if someone is killed in order to terrorize a population that is more damaging to society than if someone is killed in a personal dispute. We came up with these laws specifically because right wing terrorist groups used targeted murders to do just that.

It's hardly "perfectly sensible." If I kill you silently then you're just as dead if I said "kill the $#&$#*@ (insert some ethnic/racial/religious group identity here)!!!!" beforehand and thus giving me double the sentence for "hate crimes" is not only stupid but profoundly anti-liberal.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're saying this with a straight face when "hate crime" laws exist? Repeal thoughtcrime laws and maybe you'll have a point.

We have thought crime laws? Really? Last I checked, it's legal to hate people because of their skin tone, gender, sexuality, whatever. When that turns into action it becomes a hate crime.

 

[fskimospy]

It's hardly "perfectly sensible." If I kill you silently then you're just as dead if I said "kill the $#&$#*@ (insert some ethnic/racial/religious group identity here)!!!!" beforehand and thus giving me double the sentence for "hate crimes" is not only stupid but profoundly anti-liberal.

It's definitely perfectly sensible. Your interpretation relies on the idea that a murder in a personal dispute and a murder intended to terrorize a community are equivalently damaging things to society.

That's transparent nonsense, hence why we don't treat them the same. Regardless - nearly all crimes require a specific mental state where someone has the intent to commit the crime. Two people can achieve an identical result, one with intent, one without. The one with intent goes to prison, the one without intent does not. Thoughtcrime.

 

[HomerJS]

Jesus fuck way to misinterpret and spew your ignorance of strawmen everywhere. I said the executive branch should execute laws, that's it.

Somehow you turned that into I hate and want to burn brown people even though - coincidentally - I'm married to one you dumb fucktard. Go put your foot further in your mouth.

Strom Thurmond banged black women so what's your point.

 

[compcons]

It's hardly "perfectly sensible." If I kill you silently then you're just as dead if I said "kill the $#&$#*@ (insert some ethnic/racial/religious group identity here)!!!!" beforehand and thus giving me double the sentence for "hate crimes" is not only stupid but profoundly anti-liberal.

Incorrect!

The alleged purpose of you yelling "kill the $#&$#*@" is to incite broader unrest. If I were to yell "All Glenns need to be sent to Siberia!" and then shipped you off, the other Glenns in the world would be like "WTF!?!? I too am a Glenn. Is that crazy ass hat gonna try to ship me off too? I'm super afraid of what can happen to me if more of them get together and hunt down Glenns. I don't like Siberia"

The example is silly I know, but hate crimes are those committed to promote unrest. Now the determination of what constitutes a hate crime can fall into a gray area. That can be something to focus on. The message with harsher punishment is basically that we don't want more unrest. "Don't incite the masses."

 

[jackstar7]

Maybe don’t think party but ideology. What is something the right supports but you disagree with, or the left supports and you agree with that?

Answer your own questions.

 

[glenn1]

Incorrect!

The alleged purpose of you yelling "kill the $#&$#*@" is to incite broader unrest. If I were to yell "All Glenns need to be sent to Siberia!" and then shipped you off, the other Glenns in the world would be like "WTF!?!? I too am a Glenn. Is that crazy ass hat gonna try to ship me off too? I'm super afraid of what can happen to me if more of them get together and hunt down Glenns. I don't like Siberia"

The example is silly I know, but hate crimes are those committed to promote unrest. Now the determination of what constitutes a hate crime can fall into a gray area. That can be something to focus on. The message with harsher punishment is basically that we don't want more unrest. "Don't incite the masses."

Then you prosecute for the separate crime of incitement to violence. You don't say "well you incited to violence in a hateful way thus I'm doubling your sentence because it was doubleplusungood."

 

[Stokely]

I'm in the middle, so I only have a "side" because I'm opposing the off-the-rails insanity of one party.

Anyway, you'd have to clarify whether you mean what they SAY, vs what they actually DO. Because those are very, very different things, I might say they are opposites in fact.

 

[realibrad]

Answer your own questions.

He did earlier in the thread. Post #6.

 

[jackstar7]

I didn't see any anti-corporatist positions.

 

[glenn1]

I didn't see any anti-corporatist positions.

That's part of your problem, you're looking for positions which are exclusively designed to be "anti" something. Whereas the proper role of government is to create the rule of law which would apply equally to all including corporations. That doesn't mean you can't create laws that don't accomplish things that are anti-corporatist in their results, but setting about the task of creating them expressly to damage corporations is merely an authoritarian means of trying to punish class enemies.

The Chief Justice got the balance exactly correct:

“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.”

 

[Jhhnn]

That's part of your problem, you're looking for positions which are exclusively designed to be "anti" something. Whereas the proper role of government is to create the rule of law which would apply equally to all including corporations. That doesn't mean you can't create laws that don't accomplish things that are anti-corporatist in their results, but setting about the task of creating them expressly to damage corporations is merely an authoritarian means of trying to punish class enemies.

The Chief Justice got the balance exactly correct:

“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.”

You confuse punishment with economic self defense. You also fail to attribute class warfare to those actually waging & winning it, the rich class. Do I need to quote Warren Buffet? Do I need to drag out all the evidence supplied many, many times in this forum to establish that honest point?

 

[glenn1]

You confuse punishment with economic self defense. You also fail to attribute class warfare to those actually waging & winning it, the rich class. Do I need to quote Warren Buffet? Do I need to drag out all the evidence supplied many, many times in this forum to establish that honest point?

It would be much easier if you would just admit you feel rule of law is secondary in importance (if to be considered at all) relative to outcomes. Maybe your Mom should have read you some more nursery rhymes and maybe you would have learned something.