I think you need to remove the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from someone else's.
Charlie Kirk Assassinated
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And how many people here have you persuaded? And I mean actually persuaded, not your usual "I know you agree with me but you just can't admit it" idiocy.
It remains true that Theordore Roosevelt was the president in 1905.
But they aren't trying to make an analogy. There are serious disagreements, just as there was long ago causing wars between factions. It's quite literal.
I find it fascinating that you think you can drub everyone here in debate and yet not understand the analogy just posed to you.
3 in a meaningful sense that I am aware of, none of whom still hang out here.
One was a long time ago, and began with an admission that while they were not yet opposed to abortion, they understood that it's going to be looked back on the same as infanticide. The next after years of supporting those who would tear down the system was helped to the epiphany that they didn't want to tear anything down, they just wanted a place inside for themselves. The third did not believe me when I described what the crazy lefties here wanted, and then you all confirmed it voluntarily, and they never argued with me again. It's never changing people's core beliefs, it's always getting them to understand what they do believe and how it relates to others.
And it is not true that he is the current president: so if you expect Roosevelt to solve one of the country's problems, it's not going to work. Now start trying to think about this in all sorts of areas. There are a huge number of policies based on the USA of 1905 that simply will not work today because the USA of 2025 is so different.
They imagine that they are renegotiating the Treaty of Westphalia. This was a treaty to end the Thirty Years War, which to a large extent was a war between Protestants and Catholics (although also involved a great deal more). But five conservatives who are debating cannot adequately represen an entire side of the political debate. Thus, it would be like a Treaty of Westphalia without having to consider religion: in other words, a treaty negotiation with the major source of conflict and disagreement removed. So, in fact, what they are doing is not even remotely as complex as the real Treaty of Westphalia, and not addressing a lot of important considerations.
Which is what I said earlier that they are politicised source which can only ever come out with conservative answers: there is no meaningful representation of the most fundamental differences in society. Just one side arguing between different flavours of their own side, and thereby incapable of addressing many of the potential realities of the world. So in other words, partisan junk.
In your estimation alone. Similarly, in my estimation, you embarrass yourself constantly.
Where are the "points" from this? Where is the winning?
The difference is that you think I embarrass myself because you disagree with me and think my positions themselves are an embarrassment. I don't think disagreeing with me is embarrassing, I respect you for stating your disagreements with me, the face plants are not the in the content of the positions you take but in the reasoning used to support it.
Do you really want to keep pursuing this analogy? This started with comments about true things becoming ordinary. My words were "that the truest and realest things become ordinary tropes". Do you really think an analogy about the changing of trivial facts over time is a successful counterargument? More importantly, do you actually even disagree?
Set aside the analogy. Do you disagree that true things tend to become ordinary tropes? This came from you criticizing me for sounding ordinary, but when exploring reality through words and ideas, do you actually believe that an idea being ordinary is something to criticize? If we're making trivial analogies, you can say that Theodore Roosevelt isn't the president anymore and that fact has changed, but I could just as easily say that most of the ocean between us is made of water. Would you criticize that statement on the basis of being true 100 years ago? My point is that boring, ordinary, and orthodox are often true, more often than not, I would say, as being true is an effective way to become boring, ordinary, and orthodox. It's not the only way, so some ordinary orthodox things end up being false, and some truths can change over the passage of time. But in a vacuum with no specifics, who do you expect to be closer to reality in their understandings: the person who states ordinary things, or the person saying something unheard of?
So, I have to presume then that you don't consume any political media that lacks conservative representation then. Is that correct?
No, that's simply not true. I find your approach to the discussions, your reasoning, and your attitude to be an embarrassment quite often.
But you see, it doesn't matter, does it? It hasn't won any points on a scoreboard anywhere. If you imagine any sort of 'competition' outside of discussion, or any sort of victory is occurring when nobody has been convinced of anything, you're hallucinating.
When I say you repeat boringly orthodox tropes, you chose to reframe that as timeless wisdom about eternal truths in a manner. I was not very interested in that reframing.
By "boring, ordinary tropes", I sort of mean "the party line": very conventional, off-the-peg, conservative / Republican beliefs and attitudes. Typical, long-standing ideas of the world, medium term ideology and policy, and short term fads. One of the ironies about your criticism of others for being dull stooges of liberal-left parties and media is that I'm not sure you realise just how little you appear to deviate from so many norms.
I consume media written by conservatives that has no non-conservative representation. I'm just not interested in theirs, for reasons already stated.
Hopefully by this point you have considered the reframing quietly, and aren't just trying to avoid thinking about it because it doesn't help you.
That's just exceptionally untrue. I say that single payer healthcare is better than what we have, I see value it gun control measures, I oppose most foreign intervention, I would like stronger use of anti-trust laws, and I actively campaign for the reclamation of the title of Progressivism. Even in the cases I fundamentally agree, my arguments rarely align rhetorically with the average Republican politician, provided we are in the present and not like 1915.
You must really have absolutely no idea what people say if you think they are saying what I do.
Sue their fascist asses. I'm glad she's doing that. Funny how the ones in government going on about how free speech is important don't wanna support it when they're getting their asses kicked, or they lose a pathetic pawn, they don't give a damn about.
The video should've been a short, it's that simple of a legal argument. States don't have the authority to interpret federal law, this had no chance of ever being able to fly. That is literally what I known 5 seconds after hearing Trump was removed from ballots and what I said on here.
What happened (extremely predictable):
"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the court decision concluded.
What Legal Eagle said:
most commentators are assuming that the court will overturn the rulings and let Trump run for president in one way or another but the way they do it it's going to be of course very fascinating
He also thought the vaccine mandate was constitutional:
@11:15 he says the order is likely constitutional
But it objectively wasn't... Funny how I with no legal degree was able to figure out the legality of it within 5 seconds. Funny how 4 of the 7 DEMOCRATIC State Supreme Court justices didn't know basic law.
LMAO, that is not a free speech issue...
Have fun with that you delusional butt fucks.
variety.com
Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA Sets ‘All American Halftime Show’ in Protest of Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl Performance
Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA announced the 'All American Halftime Show,' a Super Bowl alternative in protest of headliner Bad Bunny.
variety.com
Trevor Noah on Charlie Kirk, Saudi Arabia and US comics ‘s‑‑‑ting themselves’ under Trump
Trevor Noah says one of the “first things you lose” in authoritarianism is comedy and that fellow comics are “s‑‑‑ting themselves” under President Trump. “When I was g…
thehill.com
In what way is "government employee fired for political speech" not a free speech issue?
Yeah, that's the thing: if there was no ambiguity whatsoever to be tried in a higher court of law the Colorado Supreme Court would've tossed out the case. But they didn't. They were convinced by the argumentation and had him removed from the ballots. And I trust their judgments more than I do yours. Hence it was reasonable for LegalEagle to present the nuances and reasoning present in the case instead of outright cutting to the case and saying "this is going to get overturned"; until tested he did not know.
That's my generous read; he did not know how it would turn out and therefore presented it as best able.
My cynical read would be that he reasoned it would be overturned but thought stringing a few hopeful Trump-haters along for a video could gather some viewers, and that would be dishonest and that read holds up with the presentation.
Another read, also viable, would be that he actually did think it would hold up.
That's the thing: he kept to the facts and information available and kept his own speculation to himself, meaning any read is frankly possible. Meaning he did not, as you earlier claimed, say "it would hold up", neither that he wasn't "factual, logical and truthful" as you with sarcasm claimed he wasn't. He only presented the facts and legal people's statements. A very dry and boring approach but one that makes it hard to really be wrong.
The only thing I can grant you is that the reasoning the Supreme Court used wasn't fascinating; it was rather boring.
And before you repeat yourself about you knowing how it would turn out 5 seconds after hearing it: You got it right. Well done. I've gone through some commentaries at the time; they mostly argue that it would be overturned since no jury had convinced him of an insurrection, not from the perspective of his banning being beyond the scope of what the Colorado Supreme Court is able to do.
In other words, claiming it was obvious that was the reason they would use is untrue, and LegalEagle not bringing it up does not make him wrong, in particular since that was not the focus of the video.
You can't be punished legally for saying something. It doesn't mean a public institution like a school or a private company can't fire you for saying things. Teachers have been fired for saying things quite a lot, this isn't some new thing, and it's not a freedom of speech issue. Teachers have been fired for having OnlyFans accounts.
Ohio teacher forced out over OnlyFans says a part of her died
An Ohio high school English teacher who was forced to resign after her secret OnlyFans account was discovered has revealed she sold the explicit content to service debt.
If you just think about it for a second, how can you have Colorado and then say Texas interpreting a federal law (a constitutional law) differently? That literally can't happen. States don't have the ability to interpret a federal law. The most they could probably do is rule that XYZ is in violation of federal aw ABC, then it goes to the Supreme Court to confirm/deny that ruling, and then all states have to abide by that. You could at most In theory say that could've happened with the Trump Colorado ballot thing (SCOTUS agrees and all states have to remove Trump) but in actuality, that couldn't have ever happened because Trump would at least have to be tried for actually being an insurrectionist and he wasn't and also as the Supreme Court said, it's on Congress to enforce it, not the states (because federal law, not state law). The fact that Legal Eagle said it will be fascinating to see how the Supreme Court overturns the Colorado ruling and didn't mention anything that I just said shows either how bias he is or incompetence with legal knowledge. The video should've been at most like 5 minutes of him saying what I said but better legally articulated than I can do obviously.
The video could've been nice and condensed like this following short about the Bill Cosby case that Legal Eagle did that was just simply the law and why they had to rule they way they did.
The fact that Biden had to backdoor that through OSHA was super obvious red flags. And why would the federal government be able to force private companies to force their employees to get a medical intervention?