It looks as though you are suggesting that conservatism is best defined as an ideology that "forces others to live by your beliefs", which I think is incredibly myopic. You base that suggesting primarily on 2 issues -abortion and equality. Abortion is a terrible example of anything because of the nexus with murder. Likewise, suggesting that the historic issues of inequality is a conservative politics phenomena seems almost as inaccurate.That's one of those things that sounds nice, or makes someone feel better about themselves.
There is a difference between "holding beliefs" for half a century vs. actively trying to force others to live by your beliefs. That's the difference between what has generally been considered the right vs. the far right. The mainstream right knew they had to compromise because they aren't the only ones who live in this country.
The mainstream right is now the far right. There is no denying the shift. Or at least, they got more far right leaders elected.
Jeff Flake is not even a centrist. He was just slightly reasonable and traditional.
I can be personally against abortion. I can counsel anyone who bothers to ask my opinion and suggest they go the adoption route instead.
I can't then cross the line and force someone else to live by what I've decided for myself. Who am I? Just another citizen.
And before anybody tries it, no, forcing non-discrimination is not the same thing. We ARE all equal in this country, whether some like it or not. That cannot be abridged because one group doesn't think another group should have equal rights. That doesn't work here. Wrong country.
I'm not one who thinks carrying out our civic duties should be accomplished through each of us voting for whatever or whomever suits our own personal interests at the expense of the critical principles without which we have no United States. I also think it's it's wrong to be inherently suspect of black or gay people voting Republican. Why? Because it presupposes that overall, the nation would be a better place for them when the inverse is entirely arguable. Doing so diminishes the idea that these have done due diligence and are exercising an informed opinion.So that man may vote in his own self interest rather than in the interest of his category (i.e. more worried about his tax rate than if people are denied their right to vote.)
So, I will just respond with a question. . .what are people supposed to take from this? You criticize it as "total garbage", but base it on your "gut" without offering anything of substance in reply. Well done. It's really sort of amusing from my perspective, given that I have the benefit of knowing the likes of who wrote the original and the "work" here of the one responding to it.I've rewritten a response to this about 4 times and none of them seem to fit. So maybe I will just respond with a question...what are people supposed to take from this? What are the takeaways for the "left" and the "right" from this piece?
My gut says this is total garbage and nothing but an eloquent semantics game about labels. And neither this person or most here on this forum for the past few pages has been willing to define their own terms for left and/or right to even invite the discussion...which is completely not surprising.
You mean there are still people on here denying climate change??? What a bunch of....well...I better just say that they are truly living in Fantasyland and leave it at that. If they refuse to believe scientific fact, there is no helping them. A few of them probably believe the earth is flat too!I mean, how can you win this debate when his source is the Conservative Tribune?
They aren’t sending their best.You mean there are still people on here denying climate change??? What a bunch of....well...I better just say that they are truly living in Fantasyland and leave it at that. If they refuse to believe scientific fact, there is no helping them. A few of them probably believe the earth is flat too!
*Worst violence since the KKK*Violence doesn't mean "directed at people" - it means "use of destructive physical force" against a person or thing.
Considering how much damage they did, starting with throwing bricks through windows - yes, I would call it violence.
It was actually bordering on terrorism, given that it was a planned violent act that they even left a note detailing that they did it specifically to intimidate them.
Maybe he already was reprimanded. He’s been unhinged for about a year now.I was about to stand corrected until I clicked your link, and then the link to his “offensive tweet storm.”
I would argue this was one of those things most of us never heard of while it began as a right wing story. They took something and blew it up to get someone fired because he expressed progressive views and used some bad words. It was, in fact, a Fox-esque story to begin with, like so many fake illegal-voting outrage pieces, Antifa pieces, etc.
I expected a lot worse when I clicked to read his tweets. They were just his personal opinion, very similar to mine, in a moment of outrage over the hearing.
I guess I can never work for a big company because I posted something similar about Kanye yesterday.
Sometimes we calm down first and control ourselves; sometimes we don’t. These platforms encourage casual speech as if you were having a conversation with your friends. It’s no big deal.
He maybe could have been reprimanded, taught that what he did was unprofessional and reflected poorly on his employer, make an apology and don’t do it again.
youre right. There were also a couple of broken windows.You might want to read the definition again.....and then look at the story as it wasn’t just graffiti
Keep trying though
You can downplay whatever you like. I used the Webster’s dictionary definition to prove a point. Unfortunately, no one has been able to dispute it. You can swing that however you want, but the fact remains. Based solely on the definition, they are domestic terrorists.youre right. There were also a couple of broken windows.
Stay safe out there. These are scary times. Those domestic terrorists may target your windows next.