Buffarukus

Banning books = not providing access to young children. I cant believe R movies have been banned my whole life. Cigarettes/ alcohol/ entering legal contracts/ voting. So much "banning" in this country.im not sure how we all grew up in such a oppressive right wing authoritarian country. 😅

Id like to see how a ton of cities all over the US burning and looting and violence was from outsiders coming in. If that was true why were democrat mayors and police chiefs so lenient with outside provoked destruction. Portland mayor walked up to the gates of federal building showing solidarity. Multiple blocks closed off for summers of (violent) love. Our commander and chief along with other dem officials collecting bail donations chanting riot is the voice of the unheard. Dismantling police, so agitators can do MORE? Either your thought process is extremely flawed on the topic or the democrats sure love them some racist instigators. They would have accepted trumps call for the national guard to stop these outside agitators/racists destroying a peaceful movement. Didnt happen...at all. Ill go with the former.

I thought the people of this country should have picked the democratic canidate. 🤷‍♂️ 😁

Is it a trump supporter or boogaloo boi? This post is confusing. I dont think a anarchist group who hate the gov are supporters of either party but they did have the same goal as BLM radicals to start a race war and create anarchy in the streets. so this is not the gotcha you or liam think. Heres a good explaination.

If i was a competent leader i wouldnt make excuses for violence being used against innocent people. That might be just me.

Yikes its 2024 and you still go with that b.s. It wasnt brilliance. Just the ability to decern basic facts and logic from utter garbage state propaganda. Some Examples: Suggesting Wuhan VIRAL LAB responsability is racist. So logical. Closing schools when kids had a incredible recovery rate THE ENTIRE TIME. Suddenly Sun and excercise became a detrement to health. Litterally the only time that would be true? lol. That was a good one. A noble prize winning medicine given out billions of times becoming deadly Horse paste. On and on and you still are talking about "it was necessary and saved lives". Own the aftermath and the damage it caused to the working class and children. the guy you all believed would "defeat the virus" has to leave the race cause the virus defeated him..ironic. Interested in more amazing info My news letter can be found in the covid thread the entire time it was happening.

How about stores lock and keying isles that a couple years ago were trusted to the public. That's a good source in my neck of the woods theft is way up.

Strange how trump did not need the democrats to secure the boarder even as they were screaming sanctuary come one come all. I think your actually proving two points at once. Democrats caused this and democrats have no clue how to fix it without republicans.

I agree that bill should have continued but I dont think the people who demanded the economy should be locked down and schools closed for YEARS can really pretend to care about poverty or children either.

"We're not a cult" now listen to how we are totally going to fix the boarder crisis we created and how someone that is not even in gov is the issue. my jaw is on the floor guys! Harris 2024! build that wall! Build that wall! Lol. Sometimes this place is a good time.

Im sure your trauma councilor can direct you to the nearest safe space where a few hours of rocking in a fetal position will make the mean words go away.

the side that never shuts up about micro aggression and historic trauma, and words that are LITTERALY killing everyone is somehow joking about a guy who had hot bullets hissing next to his head, gets hit, then goes to work the next day. Good stuff.

Why were stimulus checks needed is my question to you? I think Because a few weeks to stop the spread turned into years. Protect the vulnerable turned into arrest people for being outside and shut every buisness down. By the way as democrats did that. pelosi announced a second round would be held back until after the election aka blackmail voters who had no choice but starve as biden promised free money as soon as he got in.

I agree but biden could have been great on both. There is no law preventing the man to implement good policies. He didnt need to bust open the boarder. He was selected over the other nominees because he was the most moderate canidate and "return to normal" is what was promised. Not a far left tool. Imagine the billions that are currently being transfered to illegals going to blue collar citizens getting crushed by inflation. Imagine the time/energy/money devoted to student forgiveness going towards a less divisive federal college reform program where kids were actually given what they are promised and the SCHOOLS were responsible for the outcome. The same rhetoric energy and talk about taking law abiding gun owners going to punish ILLEGAL gun ownership in this country. A reasonable acceptance of trans and lgbt rights but not a religion that can never be doubted. supporting it implemented in schools...against the parents wishes? He had a trans women flaunting fake breasts on the white house lawn. Can you be any farther to a particular side regarless of how you feel? Imagine dnc coming clean about biden and transparently moving on and not COVERING up what everyones lying eyes could see. Spitting on the intellect of average everyday voters. On and on The dems concider trump a existential threat to the nation and at the same time they flush clear moderate positions down the drain. where political lawfare would not be needed or a senile old man is their best bet to stop him such a menacing threat. Now we get threads like this. Instead of figuring out what must be destroyed about the system if the dems lose they should think about all the ways thier leaders pushed independents to the position where they have to use any of these tactics in the first place.

Sounds like you are gearing up for some good old fashioned election denial.

So huge conglomerates of people stacked on top of one another in urban areas who are in ideological bubbles are the ones who shall now and forever dictate federal law on how anyone who chooses not to live that way? Maybe convince your party to implement good policies that work for everyone and genuinely help its citizens. Ooooor maybe just not to run a guy that is clearly mentally depleted whose best hope is political lawfare to destroy his competion and you might not need to desperately seek to destroy what the country was built on. Just a thought. Blame your party, not the system.

the dnc is effectively working towards taking the choices selected by the people from BOTH parties in this election. put their opponent in jail and sub out their own ONLY because they cannot deny the truth they worked so hard to cover. Its inconceivable that they could not convince a feeble old man to step aside or at the very least back a legitmate primary canidate and "leak" bidens condition during that time to nudge their voters to move on. They really believed they could drag him to the finish line, after that who cares. Up to the debate who could say they were wrong. Guy sounded the same as numerous other speeches he has blathered. Im not sure what has changed anyones mind. We believe Democracy is at stake this election. Now wait while we decide for you who we want to be in it. Hilarious.

I think people need to ask themselves are they here to talk politics or are they here to win a argument. Has there ever been a discussion on here that made them reconsider a position they did not have? Is there a single instance where they conceeded a good point to someone else or admit they could be wrong on a topic? Answers to these questions probably also answers who is most contributing to cesspool behavior. I like this place. I rarely post. a little nook in the internet that isnt heavily moderated in one direction or another is getting pretty rare. I think we should not be so quick to recommend flushing it all. Id love to see a thread called (devils advocate). See who here can even stomach arguing the other sides points. If anything it would be pretty funny which would be a nice change of pace for the room.

This is the equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming nuh uh lalalala! Your assement of my "idea" you implanted for me doesnt change any the points made. You should probably take your own advice.

Stop me when im wrong in root causation. Democrats offer sanctuary and will not work with feds. Democrats are offering free medical, schooling, pay cards and will displace american citizens and their children for illegal immigrants. Biden lied about boarder security whipping illegals. Liberals Have repeatedliy fire bombed and attacked ICE. Enfocing boarder laws was deemed as racism for 7 years until a election year. Now want "real solutions" that werent necessary to control the boarder right before they were in power. This administrarion sued and have repeatedly removed baricades texas installed to deter illegals. You dont need more then that to show how "real" their solutions are. Ill stop there. Thats more then enough. This was all intentional. We all know they only care now because it hurts polls and they are isolated in their idiotic ideology in a election year. secret flights and open boarders will be back as soon as they reclaim power. No, you guys can wallow in this mess and sound like fools trying blame the people you ignored and demonized repeatedly as bigots. Just like you say abortion is a republican killer, i agree. Immigration is a dem killer and everyone knows your true stance on it. Simply saying now you decided the last 7 years never happened doesnt make it true. Even people not paying attention can see that is delusional.

Havent read the bill but i watch alot of pundits that are skeptical of government. Supposedly this is not a tik tok ban at all. It is a bill so that 4 hostile states alone cannot have large investments in websites or services that operate in the US. China, russia, north korea, iran. If tik tok divests from chinese interests it can operate as it does today with no changes. Its refusing. Theory is the reason they are going after it now is because it is the prime website used promoting the gaza stance. Bipartisan agreement is in backing Israel so bipartisan agreement in this bill. They read specific wording to back the claim that this bill is highly focused on specifics so doesnt sound like broad overreach for the most part so far.

I get your points with duality but frame of reference could also be simply how some people rationalize things they dont want to face. It seems to have little to do with evidence from signs of life and more to do with how people want to perceive what they condone. Thats not how most things work and why we have laws to begin with. Ill explain. Your example of a meat eater. One can say animals have no souls and are objects on this planet primarily for man. A gift to use at will. Unless you know the creator/reason animals exist noone can disprove that thought. The point is not whos right or wrong in that debate but how it becomes much easier to look past moral issues like slaughter and mistreatment when a person maintains that frame of mind. You say you would not want a law in place for meat eaters but i think that you agree with laws and oversight for animals being humanly treated and respected before their lives are sacrificed to create the meat. I personally dont think there are enough of them to protect that cause. Like i said im libertarian on the subject but do so knowing that abortion is now promoted far past the "safe and rare" limits. Thats the frame of reference pro abortion has taken up. A last resort to save women from what you mention is only part of a story. The other side is extremely irresponsable/ vindictive/ and self serving part in humanity. It can capitalize on women in need for monetary reasons as well. At a certain point should we not try to make a distinction between what most see as understandable examples and the others that exist? How do we do that if not for laws/exceptions/ or limits. A do what you want mentality when it comes to human life at its infancy should be given alot more respect then absolute trust and advocation for all procedures all the time as "none of our buisness". Who speaks for those who have no voice? Animal or fetus? How does civilized society promote more of your outlook and use? The way it always has. laws that are hopefully built on logic that exclude those who wish to proceed recklessly. If not, then we should all mind our own buisness on almost everything we are not directly involved in. I have a belief in my right to protect myself and family but there are plenty of laws that govern what limits constitue that human right. The only place we really disagree is in how we perceive the intentions of everyone involved. Thats the duality. the nature that people are capable of dark things is my perception. Its not always the empathetic best case scenario that advocates seem to use all the time as broad reasoning. If my outlook is true, and human history is full of examples showing it, then there has to be some form of check and balance. even more carefully when dealing with the defensless. You see that as a infringment on a god given right and i see it as a way to hold a basic standard if its necessary. Either way it was nice to discuss on this level. It deserves it.

A well thought out reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to articulate. I agree with most of what you wrote. Seems relatively rational, makes good points and just has a leftist slant in spots. overall there isnt alot anyone who isnt following a ideology of life at conception can truley think is extreme. Warning...equally as long. I find this argument interesting because it is easy to flip perspectives and ideology along with it. Both sides take on the others attributes. The right wants to protect the innocent and the left is saying "dont tread on me". move a circumstance or two and suddenly they are back to form. The question i posed does just that because it shifts the view on who is the victim. Your moral prioritization point for example. You say republicans dont care after they leave the womb. The left doesnt care before. How many stories from children are told of a beginning where mothers who were convinced by pro life/concervative groups to change their mind? Did the right save the lives of people that the left did not consider to have a life in the first place? Mitigated to a clump of cells that could be destroyed at will before a word of their story, their success, could be heard? If fetuses are looked at as living beings does abortion now exceed gaza atrocities and many others the left care about? those stories exist but we rarely hear them. The left controls the culture so only stories of how pro life hurts society are repeated. lets be honest, theres no logical evidence that the left will conceed that a fetus has life. Heartbeat, brain activity, pain receptors. I dont think they want any of those basic factors that represent life in the narrative. its much easier to just to say "if its in the mother its not alive" even if it really makes no sense in any other context. im playing devils advocate for the most part. Your point on 5 could be equally told about the "safe and rare" becoming far different over time. Sure you pointed the left extreme is not utilized much but It was advocated for under the same umbrella. Conservatives had the exact same view you have now. One could argue if one extreme was not so readily accepted and normalized the other would also be universally shunned as extreme. Pendulum swings both direction and now i think moderates are hoping both figure out a compromise. So for absolute clarity ill ask again. If a cluster of cells is prevented from developing into a child against the mothers consent. Should that be considered murder? " Unequivocally yes?" Without using intent or courtroom stances. Is that your personal answer? I think the only reason we would have to go in depth into criminal scenerios is to maintain the lefts view. Otherwise it is extremely straight forward. That suggests a fallacy to me.

I respect that opinion even if I dont see alot of logic in it. Intent can be fluid and change over time. If a attacker ends the fetus of a woman who has gone to a clinic and thinking about abortion, is it Murder? If a father who is ecstatic about conception and fully intends to take care of the child outside of a relationship? His intent is not even concidered? Of coarse not. All i know is Intent can get very messy which is why i was curious if it mattered more then when the "women choice" side concider life to exist in the first place. It seems it is the most important thing in the ideology if its considered a murder charge before its considered a life. So it seems the presumption of human life all falls to one person and how they feel at the moment under a time table of when it exits a womans body. The second after it absolutely exists to everyone (including yourself) regardless of intent or any other factor. Seems a bit primitive to me. Especially since induced or C section can artificially create it on a given date. So theroetically life can be created or delayed with a doctors schedule. supporting abortion to the point of birth (even theoretically) is even more perplexing. That means a child who could absolutely survive and go on to live a productive life if given the proper care and family is still (not alive) because not ending it is a afront to womens rights. That one is extreme as the christian right contracetive bans imo. Im in the middle. Humanity needs to come to a consensus of when a ball of cells developes whatever we determine is a undeniable attribute of life and that can be used to set laws. But at the end of the day im a libertarian on the issue. The choices people make in that regard is for them to live with, not me. But i find those adament on each side to have interesting takes. Just trying to pose some arguments that arent as straight forward as many try to make the topic.

I dont think anyone on the GOP side has any problem with enforcing much stricter gun laws on anyone who obtains or carries a gun illegally. What would that do to mass shootings and gun deaths? Seems the majority are committed by people with long violent records and caught carrying numerous times. Yet those people are in revolving doors that inevitably end up with lives taken...then ignored. Yet there is only talk of removing "types of guns" and restriction of law abiding carriers. Its pretty hypocritical that is not the MAIN TOPIC of conversation. People should be terrified to illegally carry and that simply not the case. Hell they dont even call mass shooting by that name unless it meets specific cryteria that focuses on democrat talking points.