My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:
In the Wisconsin Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, it reads, “All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” That sentence does not end, “but those rights are void if the governor says so.”
Within days, our government stripped us of our most basic rights to freely assemble, practice our religion, use our property, operate a business, move freely, and even visit our own families. In Wisconsin, this was done on the sole authority and discretion of a single man. In other states, the same thing was done by the pen stroke of a single man or woman. And if a person dared to violate the order by simply having guests to their home or playing outside, the full police power of the state was brought to bear to force compliance. Such an arbitrary and cavalier use of police power is the stuff of totalitarian regimes. It does not belong in America.
When we have finally wrested our rights back from the tyrants, we must reform our statutes to ensure that such power may never be levied again under the color of law. Our nation has faced pandemics before and will face them again, but we must never let a health crisis be used an excuse for the wholesale abandonment of the very principles of liberty upon which our nation was founded.
Absolutely!
Never underestimate the insane liberal thirst for absolute power!
“and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
Yet no mention of the “right” to pass on your virus to your neighbor.
>Yet no mention of the “right” to pass on your virus to your neighbor.
Your neighbor in your petty example has every right to pursue virus free life. That is also enumerated indirectly in the constitution. Grow up and think freely.
Nord,
You are so dishonest. That is not a “right”.
“Rights” are freedom to be free from interference from government.
Your statement shows a fundamental stupidity about what “rights” are.
k:
“among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (bold mine)
Explain how those rights aren’t applicable? If you contract covid19 from someone such as you, you have a roughly 4% chance of perishing from it. Not much life left there. And from all reports, having covid19 isn’t a particularly happy experience, nor is being hooked to a ventilator very liberating.
Nord,
Using your same diseased argument….I could die in a car crash today…do we take away all cars becasue my life may be at risk?
Who’s going to tell Kev that they do take away the license in some circumstances, if you can’t avoid risky behaviors…
I missed the news stories about full police power bearing down on people having visitors.
Wait, are we talking about the full police power bearing down on homesteads that were claimed by the state for Foxconn again? Molon whatevs!
> If you contract covid19 from someone such as you, you have a roughly 4% chance of perishing from it.
I explained it as simply as I could already Leroy… see
> Grow up and think freely.
Dr. Jason, what are some other possible outcomes from contracting the virus?
k:
We disagree. That doesn’t make me diseased. Yes, you could die in a car crash, but you chose (assuming you have a free will) to get in that car. If you (or your mask free ilk) sneeze your virus on a previously uninfected individual, again that was your choice, not theirs.
j:
And your best explanation just isn’t very good. Never was.
Nord,
The “uninfected” individual has the choice (free will) not to be in a circumstance around other people. Outside of COVID issue, this can happen with the flu, anytime, anywhere. If you irrationally fear other people….stay home! “Rights” do not include forcing other change their behavior because of your crazy, diseased, fear.
Covid is not very much more fatal than flu,but yet you do not advocate Stalinist draconian measures for the flu….why not?
“Risk” is an individual rights decision, not a Stalinist statist decision.
>And your best explanation just isn’t very good. Never was.
Awww sorry that you’re the only one that feels that you. Of course that points to the proximate cause of your problem…
I’m actually surprised that we haven’t seen any “witty yet nonsensical” questions from Jiffy on this topic. I’ve made a couple of comments and he’s been MIA.
k:
There are all sorts of uninfected people that are placed in circumstances beyond their choice. Police, fire, health care, the checkout lady at walmart, etc. are but a few. You no doubt employ some in your local government.
So, if a person tests positive for the Chinese Virus but show no symptoms, are they really sick?
Apparently not simple enough Jason:
Le Roi, Your neighbor has the right to not let you onto his property, with up to lethal force in many places in the US. Is that simple enough Le Roi?
Kevin may not have made a strong case to you, but that is most likely because your ‘right to passing a virus to your neighbor’ was such a poor posit in the first place. There is obviously no ‘right to pass on a virus’ and are indeed rights to prevent it, so it brings up the age old question: How do you argue against stupidity?
Good question… How do you argue against stupidity? I would say that if you use deadly force to combat trespassing you will be charged with manslaughter in most places in the U.S.
People who arrive at their opinions without reason are rarely swayed by reason.
“”Rights” are freedom to be free from interference from government.”
You mean except for those pesky little things like eminent domain or marshal law.
“You mean except for those pesky little things like eminent domain or marshal law.”
I am not a big fan of eminent domain but at least the people having property taken from them are compensated and they have the right to go to court.
Not so in these “health care emergencies”.
And I would say there would be a reasonably winnable case if the ‘killer’ could prove they were being assaulted on their property by someone known to have Covid 19 who was trying to pass it to their neighbor, and were warned multiple times to leave.
The reason I said ‘up to and including’ was that I expect more than 99.9% of such occurrences would end in the ‘up to’, where you don’t answer your door or actually say “Go away” or “get off my property until you are well” or call the police for trespassing, or letting your large dog outside. It would be an extreme case to get to killing the offender, and there are rights that cover even those extremes. There are no rights to ‘pass on a virus to a neighbor’.
Now if you disagree and want to delineate the rights of the person to pass a virus on to their neighbor as described by the constitution or one you consider inalienable, I’ll be glad to try and refute that answer, but I won’t promise that the word stupid will not be used in it.
Need a more simplified explanation? See Jason.
Yes, you can get an amen!
Nord,
So then it comes down to statist decision making on what circumstances you feel are important, or noting, in your dictator like attitude?
That is not for politicians to decide, but individuals, on what risk is acceptable.
Police, fire, know the risks when they sign up.
k:
No.
Do you trust all “individuals” to be rational, considerate, and smart? I sure don’t.
Yes they do, and they can also expect respect from all the folks they protect and serve. And in tern they expect protection from the bad actors, hence ballistic vests, handguns, tasers and other protective devices and equipment. If somebody intentionally sneezes on someone, or otherwise attempts to pass on the virus, in jest or not, I sincerely hope the perp is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy claims to be a ‘hard science’ kinda guy. He’s not. He’s a poser.
Anybody can look up the diameter of a virus in microns and also look up a mask’s stopping-power in microns.
LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy won’t, because it would demolish his Holy Picture Posing.
Yeah, the full-on libertoonians would say our private insurance and police agencies would all agree that they don’t want to pay for virus infections, so they’d be enforcing distancing and masks.
Nord,
If being non-rational, inconsiderate, and stupid were a crime, all liberals should be instantly arrested…
That is why liberals ahould be pro-liberty, instead of authoritarian thugs.
Chants of “lock her up” don’t really convey a sense of liberty from your side. Nor does hanging the governor of KY in effigy. Nor do all the threats and bluster from your fearless leader. I don’t think you actually know what the word ‘liberty’ means.
Nord,
That is all incivil speech, but speech nonetheless.
We don’t need crazy authoritarian liberal politicians sorting what is civil and incivil speech from a statist point of view…
It is ridiculous for you to suggest such a sanction on free speech.
k:
And those are also assaults to the freedom of others. You should know that, as you claim everything else is an attempt to hinder your freedom. Just more of your selective application of freedom(s) to those that agree with you.
Is “statist” your new wack-a-doodle word of the week?
I don’t know about you, Le Roi, but I’m embracing my anti-authoritarian impulse right now.
jjf:
I always have been a bit of an anti-authoritarian, anti-bs kinda guy. Probably because I grew up in the 60’s. Kent State (1970) was sort of a turning point. But it took me a while to turn it around. One of my biggest regrets was casting my first presidential vote for nixon because he promised to get us out of VN. Never again.
Nord,
When you demand government prohibit people from moving about freely because of your fear of a potential sneeze….that is disgusting liberal authoritarianism your part.
k:
You lost this debate long ago. Don’t embarrass yourself any further.
>Don’t embarrass yourself any further.
Spoken from experience. I see you’ve ignored a number of retorts to your inane bullshit. And jiffy and Holland both wonder why people respond agressively around these parts. It’s because you’re an obnoxious troll, just like they.
>Need a more simplified explanation? See Jason
Dont bother, I was clear enough and I foresaw it was a waste of my time typing that much. The fact that there has been no response to either of us is deafing.
nord,
The cry of a whiney, elitist, liberal statist…
k:
Calling me a ” whiney, elitist, liberal statist…” doesn’t make it so. No more than you calling me a murderer, a fascist, or a communist made me one. What it does show is your inability to have any type of conversation with folks that disagree with you unless you try to diminish them with name calling and insults. Mighty big of you. And it puts your teeny-tiny vocabulary on display for all to see.
Saying you win a debate without making an argument does not make it so either.
So that makes you an arrogant elitist statist.
OK k, let’s have a debate: you get to argue the pro side of the 6000 year old earth theory, I’ll use science to defend the con side – that the earth is >6000 years old.
Oh, that’s right, we had this debate, but all you did was mumble something about “absolute truth”, and call me a communist.
Tuerqas,
You are a silly misguided individual with limited understanding of law. I suggest doing some case study research.
I have done quite a bit of reading concerning Castle Doctrine. I figure you probably have never heard of it if you are calling me silly, so I can wait while you look it up. You seem to think that there is no case and no basis for defense if one kills an attacker on his property. That is the line of reasoning that you are using to claim my statements are silly. However, if my argument was silly there would be no legal defense based upon current law and individual rights listed in the constitution.
The Castle Doctrine or Defense of Habitation Law is well known by even people with limited understanding of law, so where does that put you on the silliness scale? I would say that your commentary so far puts you high on it.
My base contention is that there are no rights or laws allowing one individual to infect his neighbor and that there are indeed rights and laws allowing one to protect himself from being infected by his neighbor. You are disagreeing with me. It is now time for you to defend your position. What right or law are you citing (with your self proclaimed superior knowledge of law) that gives the right of one individual to infect his neighbor? Or if you are actually agreeing with me (again making you silly by your own definitions this time), but you just take exception to my most extreme case of defense, that of stopping an infected attacker from coming at to you or your loved ones with lethal force in your own home, defend your opinion that there is no such thing as the Castle Doctrine.
Turquoise,
You keep changing your narrative, putting words in my mouth and falsely saying I gave an opinion there is no such thing as Castle Doctrine but are still coming up short. Delusions don’t an argument make!
Those who need to endlessly defend a position typically didn’t hold the position to begin with.
Nord,
I cannot help that you reject objective, absolute truth of the Gospel.
Which version of the Gospels Kevin? You do know editors have changed the words in the Gospels to fit their agenda.
k:
And what “objective, absolute truth” would that be? And if it were true, you shouldn’t have any difficulty proving it, right? Proceed with your proof.
Excellent point Le Roi. Why would “objective, absolute truth” have so many versions? That’s even more versions of the truth than Trump has…..
Randall,
The “version” where Christ is your Crucified, died and risen again redeemer from sin.
What other “version” is there….besides the godless/satanic pervesion of the Gospel?
Well, Le Roi is a hater, so obviously he rejects the Bible and most religious teachings.
What other “version” is there…..I know you are smarter than that Kevin. At least I hope you are.
Mar:
Which religious teaching are you referring to?
Is it that a pastor needs a new jet because God told him he deserved it?
Is it the pastor selling a fake coronavirus cure?
And still no proof from k.
mar, I don’t hate anyone, not even you.
Randall,
No. Really. Explain to me what other Gospel is out there?
If the “gospel” goes outside what I just stated in one sentence, it is no gospel at all.
For instance, if you say there are many way to heaven beyond Jesus. False gospel.
If you say you can merit your way to heaven outside Christ’s unmerited grace. False Gospel.
If you say there is no eternal punishment for evil because “God is all pure love.” False gospel.
If you think unbeleivers are not going to hell for rejecting Jesus. False Gospel.
Which godless “gospel” do you want to talk about?
Kevin:
Simply tell me which version of the bible is correct so I can experience this gospel. I mean, if it is truth, why are there 450+ English versions alone. Does the truth need 450 versions?
“OK k, let’s have a debate: you get to argue the pro side of the 6000 year old earth theory, I’ll use science to defend the con side – that the earth is >6000 years old.”
Ok, Uneducated, provide 100% proof the Earth is 6000 years old.
And please don’t say science because science has been wrong so many times.
Mar, you moved the goal posts. The challenge was to debate each side, not prove. Oh, and if you don’t know what moving the goal posts is, google it.
Randall, people depended on science for the China Virus. They were wrong.
People depend on science for the climate change hoax and they are wrong.
Scientists believed the Earth was flat. They were wrong.
Scientists believed the center of the universe was Earth and things revolved around the Earth. They were wrong.
And the list can go on and on about how many times scientists have been wrong.
Personally, I think the Earth is older than 6000 years but there is no factual evidence to prove it one way or the other.
Le Roi cannot prove his argument. Even cannot prove his side since we don’t have any 6000 year old men or women. Though we do have a 1000 year man…Mel Brooks.
RF:
mar is just being a bully about this as he doesn’t any scientific background or knowledge, nor does he have a clue as to how advances in science and knowledge are made. He gets all his facts from the guy sitting next to him at the bar, sneezing into his drink.
And here is a great big fat lie: “but there is no factual evidence to prove it one way or the other.. But there is, lots of it, and I have provided dozens of examples to this site.
Yeah but Mar’s not at no sushi bar!
And he’s back to being certain there’s no certainty!
jjf:
Correct. And this would be wasted on him:
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
Sir Isaac Newton 1675
LRdN:
Furthermore he doesn’t understand science. Science is about continual discovery, not coming to an answer and sticking with it. And, Science is willing to admit it was wrong. For example the right is showing a video of Dr. Facui saying masks are not needed, but never seem to mention that was form months ago. As we have learned more, he has updated his advice.
I have not seen Mar’s hero, Trump, admit he was wrong when he said we had 15 cases and would be at 0 in days.
So in science vs religion (including Trump worshippers), I’ll pick science every time. After all, when science discovered the earth revolved around the Sun, religion called is heresy.
“The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church.”
RF:
On the money!!
Again, jjf and Le Roi and others believed in science when it came to the China virus and they were wrong. I said there would be no crisis and I was right.
But again, they are also sheeple and hate religion.
So, prove that you are right, the world is older than 6000 years old.
You cannot. Kevin also cannot prove his case.
If you want to believe in science, fine, but science has been wrong numerous times.
If you want to believe on faith, great, but you cannot prove it.
But if you put your faith entirely on science, then you are an idiot.
When it comes to science it is impossible to prove anything, as it always leaves open the possibility of new evidence. As such the goal of science is not proof.
That is what differentiates it from religious faith. Faith leaves no room for evidence. In fact the definition for (religious) faith is “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”(Oxford dictionary)
So, neither faith nor science requires proof. The differentiator is the later requires evidence, the former does not.
Thus LeRoi (correctly) never said proof in the statement “OK k, let’s have a debate: you get to argue the pro side of the 6000 year old earth theory, I’ll use science to defend the con side – that the earth is >6000 years old.”
And yet Randall, nothing from Le Roi.
But then it is late.
He takes his nightly Geritol and it knocks him silly, so I will cut him some slack.
Nothing from Kevin either. Maybe the rally is running late.
I hope he didn’t cut holes in his mom’s white sheets again.
mar:
You didn’t need me, you were doing a fine job of making a fool of yourself all on your own.
But you seem to be beating a dead horse on some of your talking points.
Were the “experts” wrong on the virus? The self-proclaimed one in the WH sure was, and 100000 have died, it’s warm, and the virus is still here. And hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help, nor does injecting disinfectant.
I’ve provided lots of proof on this site over several years that the world is >6000 years old, but reading it, let alone comprehending it, would be far too much work for someone as highly educated as you. But neither you, nor k, have provided anything to prove that it is <6000 years old. Nothing.
Sure science has been wrong at times, but then so have you, just ask Keith Hernandez. You won’t win that conservation.
Randall,
There is only one Gospel. I stated it.
You defined no other “versions” that you wanted to talk about.
Pretty sad you cannot define just 1 other “version”.
So you had no real substance to comment on.
Randall,
You are also disgusting in your false witness with your “white sheet” comment.
I rail against racists, especially all Democrats who were members of the Klan past and present.
I ESPECIALLY RAIL AGAINST TGE DISGUSTING LIBERAL INTERSECTIONAL VICTIMHOOD PYRAIMID THAT DEFINES MINORITIES BY VICTIMHOOD LEVEL BASED ON SKIN COLOR! It is reprehensible and disgusting.
Your liberal accusation toward me is reprehensible, disgusting and dishonest.
I’ll accept your apology at anytime.
Well, Pathological Liar Le Roi, you are right that science has been right occassionally, which is a far better record than yours as you have never been right in any debate.
But hey, keep on hating and lying.
Uh oh, he’s got the caps lock on. Defining minorities? Sounds kind of intersectionalist to me. I thought for sure he was going to run right for the “I’m the least racist” and “I don’t see color.”
As I understand it, “imminent deadly danger” does not include virus stuff.
jjf,
Joining in the disgusting false witness.
You are awful. Just awful.
I suppose if I told you, that one of my favorite writers and conservative activists is Cadace Owens…would that obliterate your disgusting false witness?
…or will you treat her like the racist Democrats treated her in Congress?
My money is on your disgusting liberal racism shining through.
Don’t disappoint.
You Libs should watch this, just to grasp how racist your leftist ideology truly is:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RmuFIM4meXg
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theblackwallsttimes.com/2020/05/10/candace-owens-downplays-ahmaud-arberys-murder-on-twitter/amp/
Pat,
So you follow up, as a white guy, posting a vicious liberal, racist smear of Candace Owens?
What does that make you?
No, Kevin. I posted an opinion made by a black person, from a black perspective, about Candace Owens. The opinion is that of the author. The interpretation is that of the reader.
…ignoring the racist liberal smears you linked to, just what do you disagree with Candace Owens on? I read her quotes on Aubrey killing, and I cannot disagree with any of them.
I do disagree with racist article writer that Candace needs he “magicblackgirl” card taken away…for simple sin of not fanning the pathetic liberal intersectional victim narrative here.
She really violates the church of liberalism commandments badly that you demand her “magic black girl” card be taken away.
If you demand that, I will call you a pathetic racist as well.
Wow, Pat, the post you linked was about as racist, bigoted and anti-woman.
What does that say about you?
Racist, bigoted and anti-woman?
Yeah, pretty much.
What’s that, Kev? You can’t have racist ideas because you read words written by a black person? And she’s a woman? And a conservative? Now you’re getting all intersectionalist again.
Kevin,
What, in context, did the author write that you disagree with, and why?
Well obviously, Pat, you agree with the writer.
How sad. How racist. How bigoted. How anti-woman.
Mar,
How so?
Mar,
I invite you to help Kevin. What, in context, did the author write that you disagree with, and why?
Pat, you just read the headline and not the article. Otherwise you would not have asked such a moronic question.
Mar, I read the article. So what, in context, did the author write that you disagree with, and why?
Pat,
Well, let’s start with this little nugget.
“Over the weekend, the seemingly confused talking right-wing conservative stuck her bobbling head out the window, fiddled her thumbs and tweeted her political objections to the Twitter universe.”
That is classic “mansplaining” in church of liberalism.
Sexist and disgusting.
You approve of describing a woman as “bobbling her head out the window”?
Awful. Just awful.
You want to continue on with your racist, bigoted, sexist article? this will be fun, but you are taking the heat of of Randal for his gross anti-Christian bigotry and his claim there is more than 1 Gospel of salvation. Why are you running interference for bigotry there as well?
You read the article and you ask that?
Wow, just wow.
Kevin/Mar,
As it’s impossible for me to have the same perspective as a person of color, I can’t defend, nor dismiss Nehemiah Frank’s opinion.
You both evidently have an opinion contrary to Frank’s. It would be interesting to hear what you found in it that you disagreed with, within the context it was written.
Just coming out and bellowing the usual, rant of racist, bigot, sexist, disgusting, and anti-Christian, doesn’t address, in context, what Frank said. You instead take the usual easy way out.
jjf,
Candace preaches NOT being judged by skin color.
You preach people are victims based on skin color.
Who is the racist?
I agree with her ideas. I could care less she id black. She is awesome human being. Only liberals go out of their good because she is black preaching a non-slavery, non-victim mindset!
We should solicit and opinion from one of the many African Americans who follow this site.
pat,
You can’t defend/dismiss the article?
YOU POSTED IT!
Are you in habit of posting stuff to smear and then backtrack when called out on your awful racist smear?
POSTING A RACIST SMEAR YOU CAN’T DEFEND, BUT THEN CLAIM YOU ARE DISMISSIVE OF THE SMEAR, IS A WHOLE OTHER LEVEL OF DISGUSTING INCIVILITY!
Kevin,
It’s one person’s opinion. Candace Owen has an opinion also. They evidently would disagree. I was curious what you disagree with, and why? It’s possible we can all learn from your insight.
Pat, go reread the article and if you still think it is not racist, bigoted and anti-woman, then you are beyond help and if that is the case, then you are in need of some serious help.
The article is a vile piece of garbage. And not from the thoughts of the “writer” but how it was written.
Pat,
That piece was a total smear of Candace Owens.
Don’t play coy. You posted it as a leaning white liberal to discredit her. It backfired on you horribly.
I only posted about Candace Owens after Randall, in a horrible, disgusting, pukey, comment (which he has yet to apologize for) about “white sheeets” towards me. We know that is a klan implication, probably centered around his celebration of the 1924 Democrat convention. If I was a klan-like liberal Democrat of 1924, I’d hate Candace Owens….but I don’t. Unlike you, I judge her by her ideas, not skin color. The 1924 klan convention attending Democrats would hate Candace Owens. As you demonstrated with your article, today’s liberal Democrats still hate Candace Owens…for her skin color! Yet, you post hate about her skin color…the sick, diseased leftist idea she is not black enough. The article was extra disgusting when they were put off by her marrying a white husband! You and Randall were both racist vomit on this exchange, the only difference was: one was chunky, the other was more bile.
Why would you post something so vile? That is what I want to know.
In the past you have tried to feign some decency, but this article is indecent on so many levels. You don’t even want to defend the simple mansplaining in second parargraph, which is least of the articles horrendous sins. You asked about the problems with article and do not want to even tackle the first indecency.
So let us stop with your dishonest intellectual inquiry when you fail to defend the least innocuous “bobbling [female] head” comment.
Why are you purposely taking heat off of Randall? That is what I want to know. He made an over the line comment,and you are distracting from his horrible sin on it, rather than allowing him to repent.
Kevin/Mar,
Was Frank being a little hyperbolic? Sure. Not much different than what we see here on a regular basis. Rage and insults are the soup du jour.
I’ve yet to hear from you what you found incorrect with Frank’s observations of what Owens has said on Twitter.
And there is k, again spreading more factually incorrect conspiracy theories about the D’s and the 1924 convention. We had a similar conversation over a year ago. You were wrong then, and still wrong now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/03/15/how-social-media-spread-a-historical-lie/
Pat,
Let’s start with Frank’s “mansplaining” I quoted.
We can’t talk about hi comment on Candace’s tweets, properly if we cannot callout his gross sexism first.
That is one of commandments we need to follwo in church of intersectional liberalsim.
One step at a time.
Will you defend Frank’s gross, sexist, mansplaining…or not?
If you will, that says a lot about you.
Kevin,
We’ve already concluded that you have an issue with Frank’s mansplaining. So you’ve called that one out. First step down. Next.
Pat,
But are you calling the sexism out?
I know I can take a moral stand, but will you?
Kevin,
I’ll address that right after you comment on what you found incorrect with Frank’s observations of what Owens has said on Twitter.
Kevin and Candace Owens do share at least one thing in common; their views on Hitler.
Why is it that those that dish it out the most whine so much when it is thrown back?
Pat,
So ignore the sexism in the discussion?
Why?
Randall,
Difference between decency and indecency.
It is clear you do not know the difference, or don’t care.
Karen:
The correct answer is c) Don’t care what you think is decent or indecent.
Randall,
Thanks for confirming you are an utterly disgusting human being, unrepentant about your disgust.
I will treat you as such going forward.
Kevin,
I said I would address that right after you comment on what you found incorrect with Frank’s observations of what Owens has said on Twitter. If you don’t want to answer that, do be it.
………..so be it.
pat,
I want to confirm the first awfulness in story you posted. This is only second paragraph.
Why are you a bucky whiner. Afraid you will be accused of agreeing with an awful, savage, sexist?
I could bring up Frank’s demanding Candace’s, “magic black girl” card being taken away… how can you recognize racism and sexism, if you cannot recognize the initial sexism?
Or do we ignore racism and sexism because writer is black?
If so, that is horrible racism on your part.
Decency and indecency should be decided on ideas, not decided on skin color!
Kevin,
Okay, you refuse to answer. Like I said, so be it.
Candace Owens says she would have been fine with Hitler if he had just stuck to Germany:
“I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want,” Owens said. “Whenever we say ‘nationalism,’ the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine.”
She continued, “The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That’s not, to me, that’s not nationalism. In thinking about how we could go bad down the line, I don’t really have an issue with nationalism. I really don’t. I think that it’s OK.”
Pat,
You asked me what was wrong with article.
I brought up 2 points now, and you refuse to talk about them!
That is indecent.
You want to talk about the point of view of a racist and a sexist, without acknowledging his statements are racist and sexist…why?
Does he get a pass on issue because he is black?
If so, that makes you a racist.
Let’s agree this guy is a racist and sexist first, and we can zoom ahead to part you seem desperate to talk about….
That will need you to call out his gross racism and sexism first, you can do it!
Courage!
Kevin,
No I asked, “what, in context, did the author write that you disagree with, and why?“
Some Birthday I have today.
Accused of being in klan by an indecent anti-Christian bigot.
Pat refuses to acknowledge simple sexism and racism in attempt to smear one of my favorite conservative activists I reference as evidence I care about ideas, not skin color
2 more liberals chime in with their false witness.
Liberals are disgusting and reprehensible.
pat,
If you want “context” we have to deal with author’s sexism and bigotry first.
If not, does “context” mean anything at all?
Kevin,
No we don’t. One has nothing to do with the other.
Pat,
So “context” for you is ignore the horrible behavior of the critic smearing Candace Owens?
That is horribly indecent….and racist.
I hope someone got Karen some cheese for his birthday.
Sorry, Kevin, you don’t want to give an answer. So be it.
I want to, but we have to declare your source racist and sexist first…if we can’t make that simple discrenment, that really nullifies ant discussion of right and wrong from there.
Unless you excuse Frank’s behavior because he is black, which would be racism on your part.
So which is it? Will you admit your source is a racist, or you?
We have to have “context” for racist article you have latched onto.
So now “context” is bad?
Figures.
“but we have to declare your source racist and sexist first”
You already did. So you should be able to move on.
Pat,
We need to have your agreement on that because it is obvious in the article…in fact it is grossly obvious.
If you deny that fact, then we must accept you are a racist and sexist because you ignore that kind of awful, incivil, behavior.
Kevin,
As I said previously, I will address that after you state what, in context, did the author write that you disagree with, and why.
Pat,
I can’t discuss overtly racist and sexist opinions with honestly if other party refuses to acknowledge the liberal racism and sexism.
That would be dishonest.
Are you purposely dishonest?
I don’t think you are. So what is the problem with openly acknowledging that we are discussing the opinion of a disgusiting racist and sexist? and why you are gravitated to someone so awful?
Kevin,
I know better. You are able to answer. I will address your question afterwards. If you don’t want to to that, then I guess the conversation will be over by your doing. It’s up to you.
Pat,
You know better because you know your author is being awful, obviously.
Why are you failing to acknowledge that?
This is why we cannot have a legitimate discussion on decency and civility, you are willing to accept indecency.
Let’s agree your author is indecent, and then let’s proceed to discuss the indecent assertions of your new favorite author.
Kevin,
I’m sorry you decided you can’t answer.
Time to move on.
Oo, changing my moniker up, I bet you gave yourself a stiffy with that one, eh? Very proud of yourself?
So you know of and understand what Castle Doctrine is and that 24 of 50 states have such laws (my bad, I took your comment to the logical conclusion as opposed to taking it in no context at all), but you still maintain that one would be charged with manslaughter in most states, correct? Well I guess you are right on two counts of word manipulation. 26 of 50 states can technically be defined as ‘most’ and even in the other 24 states you will most likely be charged with manslaughter. You did not use the word ‘convicted’ did you. Of course, your wording was clearly disagreeing with me, but your meaning apparently actually agreed with me? Thanks, sorry for the misunderstanding. However, next time you try and show agreement, you may use words like “I agree”.
My position has been that there are rights and laws to stop one’s neighbor from coming to one’s own home and infecting them with a deadly virus and that there are no rights (or laws or doctrines) giving one a right to infect a neighbor. It is what my commentary has been about. The Castle Doctrine supports my position in the most extreme case. So if the Castle Doctrine was not the underlying target of your statements that I need to research law and that I am silly, please give me the case studies you want me to look up. I can find a case study that will support just about any position and to be honest, I have no freaking idea what you believe, you have given nothing but a series of shaded meaning attacks of my comments. If you disagree with me, you must believe there is some doctrine, law, right or something that actually supports the opposite view, which is that one man does have the right to infect his neighbor with a deadly virus. Or in essence, you do agree with me and we can silly and unlearned together. You have given no conflicting position.
You keep changing your narrative
Those who need to endlessly defend a position typically didn’t hold the position to begin with.
These statements just miss the mark entirely, you would have to explain meaning or relevancy on them. I have only been on one topic. Please delineate the various changings of my narrative. Just listing them, is fine.
I think most people who believe in an idea should and will defend it multiple times, especially from twaddle such as you have been writing. “…didn’t hold the position to begin with.“? Dude, no one ‘begins’ with a position. In fact, the opposite of your last statement is true. People who do not defend their opinion once given are the ones who have likely just parroted someone else and don’t really hold any opinion at all. Endlessly attacking and defending a position is exactly how one gets a ‘position’. Try it sometime, and comment with something meaningful.
pat,
I’m willing to answer.
We just need agreement on decency to have a productive discussion.
Why do you resist basic agreement on decency?