2022 Elections Thread

[CID1990]

Don’t forget your inalienable right to kick your dog. And your opposition to minimum ages for consent to sex. And your breathtaking conclusion that Democrat dominance will enhance personal liberty.

Yes, I believe you have a right to kick your dog. I never said I had opposition to minimum ages of consent. What I have said is that, biologically, in is natural for a person who is at reproductive developmental stage of one sex to be sexually attracted to a person who is at reproductive developmental stage of another sex. A 24 year old male being sexually attracted to a 15 year old female who displays the characteristics of a reproductive female, for instance, is not unnatural. If someone disagrees with that, they are just in denial of biological reality.

And I can't believe someone smart enough to have been admitted to an Ivy League school can't see that the Republican Party is a threat to the infrastructure that protects our Liberty right now.

Ooooooh!!

I just spotted the “No True Scotsman” fallacy!

Don’t see that one very often


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Yes, I believe you have a right to kick your dog. I never said I had opposition to minimum ages of consent. What I have said is that, biologically, in is natural for a person who is at reproductive developmental stage of one sex to be sexually attracted to a person who is at reproductive developmental stage of another sex. A 24 year old male being sexually attracted to a 15 year old female who displays the characteristics of a reproductive female, for instance, is not unnatural. If someone disagrees with that, they are just in denial of biological reality.

And I can't believe someone smart enough to have been admitted to an Ivy League school can't see that the Republican Party is a threat to the infrastructure that protects our Liberty right now.

Ooooooh!!

I just spotted the “No True Scotsman” fallacy!

Don’t see that one very often


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Call it what you will. Anybody with a brain, much less anyone with a brain of sufficient power to get them into an Ivy League school, should be able to see that the Republican Party is the bigger threat to Liberty right now.

"Ivy should know better" is not a fallacy.

[BDKJMU]

Ooooooh!!

I just spotted the “No True Scotsman” fallacy!

Don’t see that one very often


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Call it what you will. Anybody with a brain, much less anyone with a brain of sufficient power to get them into an Ivy League school, should be able to see that the Republican Party is the bigger threat to Liberty right now.

"Ivy should know better" is not a fallacy.

Hey JSO, the Save America rally is going on in Texas now. Trump is schedule speak at 7 PM central.

[Ivytalk]

Ooooooh!!

I just spotted the “No True Scotsman” fallacy!

Don’t see that one very often


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Call it what you will. Anybody with a brain, much less anyone with a brain of sufficient power to get them into an Ivy League school, should be able to see that the Republican Party is the bigger threat to Liberty right now.

"Ivy should know better" is not a fallacy.

Hey, you Frauditarian, you still haven’t answered my question. Give me one reason why the Party of Guvmint, your beloved Donks, should be trusted to defend liberty in this country. And dumping on Republicans is not an answer.

[JohnStOnge]

Call it what you will. Anybody with a brain, much less anyone with a brain of sufficient power to get them into an Ivy League school, should be able to see that the Republican Party is the bigger threat to Liberty right now.

"Ivy should know better" is not a fallacy.

Hey, you Frauditarian, you still haven’t answered my question. Give me one reason why the Party of Guvmint, your beloved Donks, should be trusted to defend liberty in this country. And dumping on Republicans is not an answer.

I think that the Democrat Party has historically been more likely to defend liberties in terms of personal behavior. For example: The Democrat Party would be more likely to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution, etc. The Democrat Party is more likely to say people can engage in homosexual behavior if they want to. That sort of thing.

The Republican Party has been more likely to defend economic liberty. More likely to oppose regulation of business, etc.

I am more concerned about the personal liberties. Also, the Republican Party has become beholding to the White Evangelical Christian Right. When Trump beat Clinton, the 74% of the population that did not identify as "white born-again or evangelical christian" voted for Clinton by an estimated 60% to 34%. But the 26% of the population that identified as "white born-again or evangelical christian" voted for Trump by 80% to 16% and that is what allowed us to end up with that atrocity as President. The Republicans know where their bread is buttered in that regard. That's who they are going to pander to.

The White Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is not at all friendly to personal liberty. I call it the American Taliban. No, it's not like the Taliban in terms of severity. But it is not a movement friendly to liberty.

[Ivytalk]

Hey, you Frauditarian, you still haven’t answered my question. Give me one reason why the Party of Guvmint, your beloved Donks, should be trusted to defend liberty in this country. And dumping on Republicans is not an answer.

I think that the Democrat Party has historically been more likely to defend liberties in terms of personal behavior. For example: The Democrat Party would be more likely to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution, etc. The Democrat Party is more likely to say people can engage in homosexual behavior if they want to. That sort of thing.

The Republican Party has been more likely to defend economic liberty. More likely to oppose regulation of business, etc.

I am more concerned about the personal liberties. Also, the Republican Party has become beholding to the White Evangelical Christian Right. When Trump beat Clinton, the 74% of the population that did not identify as "white born-again or evangelical christian" voted for Clinton by an estimated 60% to 34%. But the 26% of the population that identified as "white born-again or evangelical christian" voted for Trump by 80% to 16% and that is what allowed us to end up with that atrocity as President. The Republicans know where their bread is buttered in that regard. That's who they are going to pander to.

The White Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is not at all friendly to personal liberty. I call it the American Taliban. No, it's not like the Taliban in terms of severity. But it is not a movement friendly to liberty.

Spiro Agnew had an expression for your kind of Democrats over 50 years ago: the party of acid, amnesty, and abortion. Typical of you, you jump from that super-shallow definition of liberty to an attack on the GOP and the Christian Right. You relegate all-important economic liberty (freedom from taxes and excessive regulation) to a footnote in your diatribe, while ignoring other liberty interests on which Republicans are manifestly stronger, like gun rights, school choice, free speech, and right to work.

Question: are you actually a registered Libertarian in Louisiana? You claim to have been one for “decades.” Have you ever held political office? As a town councilman, I am one of two elected Libertarians in the state of Delaware. Have you ever been an officer or director of a state or county party? I am county treasurer right now. Have you ever read the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party? I doubt it. Back to you.

[CID1990]

Ooooooh!!

I just spotted the “No True Scotsman” fallacy!

Don’t see that one very often


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Call it what you will. Anybody with a brain, much less anyone with a brain of sufficient power to get them into an Ivy League school, should be able to see that the Republican Party is the bigger threat to Liberty right now.

"Ivy should know better" is not a fallacy.

Well, for someone who has so consistently said that Presidential administrations are not generally responsible for economic maladies that occur during their primacy (yes, you have consistently done this)

and yet you just pointed out that the last 5 recessions began under Republican presidential administrations as “evidence” that things dont go south under Democrats

I’d say that your entire body of work here is a logical fallacy

Scotsman or no (and yeah… you did employ that fallacy)

Ivy is correct. You are a fraud




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Hey, you Frauditarian, you still haven’t answered my question. Give me one reason why the Party of Guvmint, your beloved Donks, should be trusted to defend liberty in this country. And dumping on Republicans is not an answer.

I think that the Democrat Party has historically been more likely to defend liberties in terms of personal behavior. For example: The Democrat Party would be more likely to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution, etc. The Democrat Party is more likely to say people can engage in homosexual behavior if they want to. That sort of thing.

The Republican Party has been more likely to defend economic liberty. More likely to oppose regulation of business, etc.

I am more concerned about the personal liberties. Also, the Republican Party has become beholding to the White Evangelical Christian Right. When Trump beat Clinton, the 74% of the population that did not identify as "white born-again or evangelical christian" voted for Clinton by an estimated 60% to 34%. But the 26% of the population that identified as "white born-again or evangelical christian" voted for Trump by 80% to 16% and that is what allowed us to end up with that atrocity as President. The Republicans know where their bread is buttered in that regard. That's who they are going to pander to.

The White Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is not at all friendly to personal liberty. I call it the American Taliban. No, it's not like the Taliban in terms of severity. But it is not a movement friendly to liberty.

BS.
-Conks have been the ones that have historically defended that personal liberty that is actually enshrined in the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment.
-Conks have been the bigger defender of the 1st Amendment since the Wokahadist movement took hold, especially the last 2 years with the China Virus.
-Conks weren’t the ones pushing shutdowns.
-Conks haven’t been the ones pushing mask mamdates.
-Conks haven’t been the ones pushing vaccine mandates, while ignoring natural immunity.

Right now the conks are the bigger defenders of personal freedom. Its really not even close.

[SDHornet]

It's always fun watching JSO get skull fucked for his weak stance on his "principles".

[Ibanez]

I think that the Democrat Party has historically been more likely to defend liberties in terms of personal behavior. For example: The Democrat Party would be more likely to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution, etc. The Democrat Party is more likely to say people can engage in homosexual behavior if they want to. That sort of thing.

The Republican Party has been more likely to defend economic liberty. More likely to oppose regulation of business, etc.

I am more concerned about the personal liberties. Also, the Republican Party has become beholding to the White Evangelical Christian Right. When Trump beat Clinton, the 74% of the population that did not identify as "white born-again or evangelical christian" voted for Clinton by an estimated 60% to 34%. But the 26% of the population that identified as "white born-again or evangelical christian" voted for Trump by 80% to 16% and that is what allowed us to end up with that atrocity as President. The Republicans know where their bread is buttered in that regard. That's who they are going to pander to.

The White Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is not at all friendly to personal liberty. I call it the American Taliban. No, it's not like the Taliban in terms of severity. But it is not a movement friendly to liberty.

BS.
-Conks have been the ones that have historically defended that personal liberty that is actually enshrined in the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment.
-Conks have been the bigger defender of the 1st Amendment since the Wokahadist movement took hold, especially the last 2 years with the China Virus.
-Conks weren’t the ones pushing shutdowns.
-Conks haven’t been the ones pushing mask mamdates.
-Conks haven’t been the ones pushing vaccine mandates, while ignoring natural immunity.

Right now the conks are the bigger defenders of personal freedom. Its really not even close.

Just an observation...JSO said " historically" and you're saying "right now". Again...just an observation.

I think both parties defend liberty that they agree with. Texas doesn't allow sex toys to get yourself off. Libs don't want you to say anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

[AZGrizFan]

BS.
-Conks have been the ones that have historically defended that personal liberty that is actually enshrined in the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment.
-Conks have been the bigger defender of the 1st Amendment since the Wokahadist movement took hold, especially the last 2 years with the China Virus.
-Conks weren’t the ones pushing shutdowns.
-Conks haven’t been the ones pushing mask mamdates.
-Conks haven’t been the ones pushing vaccine mandates, while ignoring natural immunity.

Right now the conks are the bigger defenders of personal freedom. Its really not even close.

Just an observation...JSO said " historically" and you're saying "right now". Again...just an observation.

I think both parties defend liberty that they agree with. Texas doesn't allow sex toys to get yourself off. Libs don't want you to say anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

JSO STARTED his argument about defending liberty with THIS gem:

Call it what you will. Anybody with a brain, much less anyone with a brain of sufficient power to get them into an Ivy League school, should be able to see that the Republican Party is the bigger threat to Liberty right now.

Then shifted to “historically”. And now he’s gotten his ass handed to him.

And WTF is that with Texas? Not even remotely true.

[Ibanez]

Just an observation...JSO said " historically" and you're saying "right now". Again...just an observation.

I think both parties defend liberty that they agree with. Texas doesn't allow sex toys to get yourself off. Libs don't want you to say anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

JSO STARTED his argument about defending liberty with THIS gem:

Call it what you will. Anybody with a brain, much less anyone with a brain of sufficient power to get them into an Ivy League school, should be able to see that the Republican Party is the bigger threat to Liberty right now.

Then shifted to “historically”. And now he’s gotten his ass handed to him.

And WTF is that with Texas? Not even remotely true.

I didn't go all the way back and read his diatribes. Still - look at the record as a whole (and keep in mind that Democrats were once the personal liberty, small government party and that Republicans were the opposite. )

But in 2007, when he was solicitor general of the state of Texas, Cruz took a slightly more expansive view of the appropriate role of the federal government, when he participated in a federal court case in an effort to maintain Texas’s ban on the sale of sex toys.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -case-2007

Cruz defended Texas's invasion of your privacy. The law was eventually dismissed (rightfully so) but it was argued by Cruz. He doesn't believe you have the right to masterbate. Or at least he argued it.

[AZGrizFan]

JSO STARTED his argument about defending liberty with THIS gem:


Then shifted to “historically”. And now he’s gotten his ass handed to him.

And WTF is that with Texas? Not even remotely true.

I didn't go all the way back and read his diatribes. Still - look at the record as a whole (and keep in mind that Democrats were once the personal liberty, small government party and that Republicans were the opposite. )

But in 2007, when he was solicitor general of the state of Texas, Cruz took a slightly more expansive view of the appropriate role of the federal government, when he participated in a federal court case in an effort to maintain Texas’s ban on the sale of sex toys.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -case-2007

Cruz defended Texas's invasion of your privacy. The law was eventually dismissed (rightfully so) but it was argued by Cruz. He doesn't believe you have the right to masterbate. Or at least he argued it.

And that was 14 fucking years ago.

Find another patsie.

[Ibanez]

I didn't go all the way back and read his diatribes. Still - look at the record as a whole (and keep in mind that Democrats were once the personal liberty, small government party and that Republicans were the opposite. )



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -case-2007

Cruz defended Texas's invasion of your privacy. The law was eventually dismissed (rightfully so) but it was argued by Cruz. He doesn't believe you have the right to masterbate. Or at least he argued it.

And that was 14 fucking years ago.

Find another patsie.

Ignore it all you want, it's a fact. Boobs and the Republican Party in Texas felt you had no right to privacy when it comes to your Hand to Gland relationship. Let's not pretend that either party are great stewards of our democracy or faithful defenders of the Constitution. They aren't.

[BDKJMU]

BS.
-Conks have been the ones that have historically defended that personal liberty that is actually enshrined in the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment.
-Conks have been the bigger defender of the 1st Amendment since the Wokahadist movement took hold, especially the last 2 years with the China Virus.
-Conks weren’t the ones pushing shutdowns.
-Conks haven’t been the ones pushing mask mamdates.
-Conks haven’t been the ones pushing vaccine mandates, while ignoring natural immunity.

Right now the conks are the bigger defenders of personal freedom. Its really not even close.

Just an observation...JSO said " historically" and you're saying "right now". Again...just an observation.

I think both parties defend liberty that they agree with. Texas doesn't allow sex toys to get yourself off. Libs don't want you to say anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

Show me the list of people who have been arrested of fined for using sex toys in Texas..

[AZGrizFan]

And that was 14 fucking years ago.

Find another patsie.

Ignore it all you want, it's a fact. Boobs and the Republican Party in Texas felt you had no right to privacy when it comes to your Hand to Gland relationship. Let's not pretend that either party are great stewards of our democracy or faithful defenders of the Constitution. They aren't.

You stated it like it was a fact in TODAY’S texas. I’m just pointing out you’re 14 years behind. Which, being from SoCo, that’ doesn’t surprise me, but whatever….if you’re going to start attacking states’ beliefs/freedoms, how about pick one that actually exists?

[Ibanez]

Ignore it all you want, it's a fact. Boobs and the Republican Party in Texas felt you had no right to privacy when it comes to your Hand to Gland relationship. Let's not pretend that either party are great stewards of our democracy or faithful defenders of the Constitution. They aren't.

You stated it like it was a fact in TODAY’S texas. I’m just pointing out you’re 14 years behind. Which, being from SoCo, that’ doesn’t surprise me, but whatever….if you’re going to start attacking states’ beliefs/freedoms, how about pick one that actually exists?

If Republicans cared about personal freedoms and privacy, they wouldn't be passing laws about banning sex toys and then defending them. That's the point you've missed.

[Ibanez]

Just an observation...JSO said " historically" and you're saying "right now". Again...just an observation.

I think both parties defend liberty that they agree with. Texas doesn't allow sex toys to get yourself off. Libs don't want you to say anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

Show me the list of people who have been arrested of fined for using sex toys in Texas..

That isn't the point. The point is that Republicans wrote, approved and then defended such a thing.

[UNI88]

Show me the list of people who have been arrested of fined for using sex toys in Texas..

That isn't the point. The point is that Republicans wrote, approved and then defended such a thing.

I think the point is bigger than that - it's that Republicans have traditionally been the party of liberty when it comes to your gun closet but not your bedroom. Democrats have traditionally been the opposite.

Both parties are the party of liberty when it suits their purposes and they deflect and obfuscate when it doesn't.

[Ibanez]

That isn't the point. The point is that Republicans wrote, approved and then defended such a thing.

I think the point is bigger than that - it's that Republicans have traditionally been the party of liberty when it comes to your gun closet but not your bedroom. Democrats have traditionally been the opposite.

Both parties are the party of liberty when it suits their purposes and they deflect and obfuscate when it doesn't.

Of course. That's politics for you.

[AZGrizFan]

You stated it like it was a fact in TODAY’S texas. I’m just pointing out you’re 14 years behind. Which, being from SoCo, that’ doesn’t surprise me, but whatever….if you’re going to start attacking states’ beliefs/freedoms, how about pick one that actually exists?

If Republicans cared about personal freedoms and privacy, they wouldn't be passing laws about banning sex toys and then defending them. That's the point you've missed.

So you’re just as bad at missing JSO’s narrative as he is.

[Ibanez]

If Republicans cared about personal freedoms and privacy, they wouldn't be passing laws about banning sex toys and then defending them. That's the point you've missed.

So you’re just as bad at missing JSO’s narrative as he is.

JSOs long winded word salads don't interest me. You're still missing MY point.

[AZGrizFan]

So you’re just as bad at missing JSO’s narrative as he is.

JSOs long winded word salads don't interest me. You're still missing MY point.

Your point is as invalid as JSO’s. He claimed there was nothing worse CURRENTLY than the Republican Party, then when proven to be a dumbass, he moved to “historically”….then you come along and use a 14 year old example to try and make a point—just like JSO. Is that REALLY the group you want to align yourself with?

[SDHornet]

You stated it like it was a fact in TODAY’S texas. I’m just pointing out you’re 14 years behind. Which, being from SoCo, that’ doesn’t surprise me, but whatever….if you’re going to start attacking states’ beliefs/freedoms, how about pick one that actually exists?

If Republicans cared about personal freedoms and privacy, they wouldn't be passing laws about banning sex toys and then defending them. That's the point you've missed.

It was 14 years ago. Be like Elsa and let it go, homie.

[Ibanez]

JSOs long winded word salads don't interest me. You're still missing MY point.

Your point is as invalid as JSO’s. He claimed there was nothing worse CURRENTLY than the Republican Party, then when proven to be a dumbass, he moved to “historically”….then you come along and use a 14 year old example to try and make a point—just like JSO. Is that REALLY the group you want to align yourself with?

How do you know my point is invalid if you have kept missing it?

My point - is that Reps and Dems do stupid shit that go against their "beliefs". And regardless of time frame, it all matters.

You've also just stated that if something happens long ago it doesn't really matter. Good to know.


And for the record, there's plenty of things worse than the Republican Party but should we really try to be rationalizing which party is a more appetizing pile of cow manure? Seems futile to me.