BullBuchanan

Also things which are not protected under our country's "free speech"

You should really try re-reading that.

I did not. I don't care about your psuedoscience. Edit: Ah, It's an OAN conspiracy theory. That's why this is all on the tip of the extreme right's tongues after going unknown for 40 years.

It wasn't? Could gay people get married or adopt children in 2005? Does society look down on unmarried parents or single parents? The "requirement" in question is the accepted social norm. here it is: "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable." Their claim is that that western culture states that a family is a mom, a dad, and a kid. Other cultures, like those in the east and native Americans have extended families with multiple generations living under one roof. Some cultures have children raised by neighbors or villagers. They are saying that they reject the notion that to be a family you need one Dad, one mom and a child. How do they do that? "by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another" It's a statement and an example. That's really it.

So, I read a line and state that the words mean what they mean and back it up with the context of the rest of the document. You reject all of that and say I don't know what words mean, because you have a conspiracy theory that you and the sandwich avatar guy are pushing. Occam's razor?

Maybe try reading up on what the word "requirement" means?

If you read the sentence and you see the phrase "disrupt requirement" and you interpret that as "completely eliminate", I'm honestly not sure if there are different words in the English language that would make it more clear. I mean that in all sincerity. The words mean what they mean.

You lack the capability to put anything over my head.

It shouldn't, because I don't have much of a posting history of saving the whales, blood drives, or march of dimes.

Personally, I'm not typically a person that's invested in specific social missions/causes. It's not my place, and honestly I'm not that interested. Where I do step in is on matters of oppression, and so this is a weird one for me. However, this whole anti-nuclear family thing is just straight up reading comprehension failure, and that I can't abide. Everyone that's come out against that line has conveniently taken it out of context, skipping down to that specific line and cutting out the parts that don't help them make their argument. The entire mission statement of one that is of inclusiveness. They reject the "requirement", not the option. They used the word specifically. The rest of their mission statement is much the same. The entire message is an expansion of ideas and accepted beliefs, not one of contractions as some folks are trying to characterize it as. I reject tomatoes as a requirement for something to be called a sandwich, but if you want tomatoes on your sandwhich, you do you. That's what's being said there. I have no idea why Marcellus Wiley is such a lightning rod for this.

I would be in jail in the UK for typing the things I have? I think not. Are we actively in wars or have we been in the last 100 years with China, Russia or Mexico? They were all allies in WW2. Is Mexico is trying to take my freedom to challenge your assertions on the internet? When has the military protected us against our own tyrannical government?

When did they fight for it previously? Why would I cease to have it? Who is capable of taking it that the military prevents?

Perfect.

I mean I do, but ok. I come from a family with a lot of service members. I politely reject the notion that the military protects our freedoms and I'm not interested in handing out 'attaboys for it. It's a job.

You did? Are you sure it wasn't due to lack of viable alternatives or self interest? Did we not have the right before you took that job? What about folks in other countries that have that right without you doing a job you were paid for.

He's not.

But that's not at all what I said. You will definitely continue to see outrage when it happens. From my perspective you're mischaracterizing the argument which makes it easier to defend from your side. I'm not suggesting you're doing it on purpose, but that's what I see.

Perhaps we should call this The Ryan O'Reilly Effect.

That doesn't make any sense. No one put in a claim.

Precisely. If the Bills think they are ready to win it all this year, they should investigate any opportunity to add talent. if they determine that he isn't an upgrade, so be it.

Wow - this is next level stupidity.

I don't think this is the picture that people are painting. What's being said is that the problem is systemic rather than individual.

That's because America as a whole is drastically to the right compared to most countries in the world. Our whole sense of scale is off kilter Edit: those things that you mentioned are what should be defined as "politics". I have no problem with you holding those beliefs even if I oppose all of them, and I don't need you to believe otherwise, even if I'd prefer it. That's not what's being referred to as "politics in sports" most of the time though.

Politically speaking fiscal discipline and standing against Russia are more center-right policies. IF you're looking for an example of that in American politics, the closest would be the Democratic Party. Globally speaking however, "far-right" is much more about nationalism, anti-union sentiment, corporatism, religious extremism, "traditional values", elimination of economic safety nets, and imperial practices.

The data suggests this is false