Thomas Hardimann for the Supreme Court...YES!

mtrmn

Sergeant
Oct 7, 2009
864
90
28
57
Louisiana
#51
I understand. My statement required no rebuttal. Just pontificating the intracicies of our laws. No where in the constitution does it say anything about the death penalty.......or abortion for that matter. But it does say life liberty and pursuit........in our Declaration of Independence. Now when I said I have t reconciled it myself it’s because I don’t have a firm grasp personally on either of these issues. I can see it from all sides. When it comes to the death penalty, I sometimes wish we would apply to pedophiles rapists and child molesters as well as murderers. In lieu of that I’d settle for a long life of excruciating existence where they would kill themselves from the horrors of their daily life. But then we get the whole cruel and unusual thing. Did the founders include the death penalty as cruel and unusual? 🤷‍♂️

Then comes abortion. I get it. Once there is a heartbeat there is life right? So how is this ok? I don’t have the answer. But what I do know is that none of us have the right to decide for anyone else. We all have different belief systems and I don’t believe we have the right through our legal system to push that on others. That’s what this whole abortion argument is doing on both sides. Just keep it between the dr and patient and leave congress our presidents the Supreme Court our governors our state legislators out of it. It’s none of their business anyway. I do however believe that while it is a woman’s body, the father has a say in it as well. The procedure should require consent of both parties (save rape) or in the instance of death of the father his next of kin should perhaps have that choice in their absence.

Point being it’s conplicated and we oversimplify it. But we have had rulings on both issues yet we continue to divide our country to this day over it. It’s no different then heller. We all just keep screaming till we get what we want.
IMO, what makes abortion even worse is that we, the citizens, fund this with our tax money without any say-so in the matter. The .gov gives the baby-parts-sellers millions of dollars a year. Our money, used to kill the most innocent and helpless, and sell the parts like a junkyard sells a used engine out of a wrecked truck.
 
Jan 28, 2011
2,691
525
113
GA
#52
So RGB is a learned scholar, and Thomas is an idiot? That is a perfect demonstration between education and wisdom, and how the two are more often than not inversely proportional. I’ll take a wise idiot over an ignorant genius any day of the week.

Your feelings about Thomas are MSM generated. Laura Ingram clerked for Thomas and believes he’s brilliant. He doesn’t talk much because he believes the lawyers should make their cases and it isn’t the judge’s job to make the arguements for them.

I work right beside a Harvard Business School grad. He may be the “smartest” guy in the office, but he’s a total idiot.

A persons level of education and academic achievements are more a measure of how much the like school, and how good they are in a classroom than anything else. Not many can do shit in the real world, and often they know so much that just isn’t so.

The Ivy League sheepskin was nothing more than a passport into the club. It still is to some extent, but not like it used to be.

I’ve interviewed people with an Ivy League degree, and while not grounds for outright rejection it weighs heavily against them with me.

I’m not paying for that. I don’t care if my kids get in. I’d much rather invest a quarter million plus for them than give it to organizations indoctrinating kids to hate America.
Let me disambiguate this for you because I do think that point of view matters. I am an ivy league graduate. My first job after school was 80% ivy leaguers, most of whom had undergrad and graduate ivy degrees. I'm not sure how anyone could school me on ivies.

My "feelings" about Clarence Thomas are generated by Clarence Thomas and colored by my own worldview. I read Clarence's opinions before he was nominated to SCOTUS. I read his plagiarized works. I listened to his shit-for-brains defense of that plagiarism. I have listened to his speeches. Unless you are saying those were MSM plants I have no idea how how you could make such a wild assumption.

On the flip side my roots could not be more blue collar. I grew up the son of a boilermaker and most of my family (that I knew) were tradesmen, fishermen, and union laborers. Because I remain true to my roots there is very little about me that would lead most people, outside of work or engaging in meaningful conversation, to suspect that I have the education I have. The primary reason for this is the expectation that someone who went to such a school fits a nice little stereotype.

Some of my close friends who went to schools like Cornell or Dartmouth are also of blue collar roots who received tuition assistance either through the military or sports. They too have an outward appearance in many ways reflecting their roots. And for this, plus that they won't begin an argument with a recitation of academic achievement, often results in people discounting their arguments.

Sit me, my dad (who didn't go college), and 7 of my friends (who also may or may not have gone to college) in a room to argue like motherfuckers and it will be difficult to tell who has what formal education, short of a few scientific or highly technical topics.

Navigating a crew boat through the rigolets and struggling through the finer points of physical chemistry are equally important to who I am.

I have a fucking stellar academic record, the greatest part of which is reflected on transcripts from a state school, NOT from the storied institutions at the top of my resume.

I happen to appreciate the way Clarence votes. I view RBG with nothing but disgust. But I do not allow either of those things to color my judgement of their intellectual capacity. That is a dishonest and dangerous road.

I could not care less what Laura Ingram's assessment is. I take my own measurements of both Clarence and Ms Ingram. I hope you do the same.

Just letting you know where I come from.
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2017
1,939
1,736
113
#54
I understand. My statement required no rebuttal. Just pontificating the intracicies of our laws. No where in the constitution does it say anything about the death penalty.......or abortion for that matter. But it does say life liberty and pursuit........in our Declaration of Independence. Now when I said I have t reconciled it myself it’s because I don’t have a firm grasp personally on either of these issues. I can see it from all sides. When it comes to the death penalty, I sometimes wish we would apply to pedophiles rapists and child molesters as well as murderers. In lieu of that I’d settle for a long life of excruciating existence where they would kill themselves from the horrors of their daily life. But then we get the whole cruel and unusual thing. Did the founders include the death penalty as cruel and unusual? 🤷‍♂️

Then comes abortion. I get it. Once there is a heartbeat there is life right? So how is this ok? I don’t have the answer. But what I do know is that none of us have the right to decide for anyone else. We all have different belief systems and I don’t believe we have the right through our legal system to push that on others. That’s what this whole abortion argument is doing on both sides. Just keep it between the dr and patient and leave congress our presidents the Supreme Court our governors our state legislators out of it. It’s none of their business anyway. I do however believe that while it is a woman’s body, the father has a say in it as well. The procedure should require consent of both parties (save rape) or in the instance of death of the father his next of kin should perhaps have that choice in their absence.


Point being it’s conplicated and we oversimplify it. But we have had rulings on both issues yet we continue to divide our country to this day over it. It’s no different then heller. We all just keep screaming till we get what we want.
Intellectual debate and civil discourse requires civil if not respectful rebuttal. If you have issue with such I would suggest the man in the mirror as the place to start correcting the ills of the world . Roe V Wade is not the same subject as Capital Punishment for those proven to be feral. We as a People since our Republic's inception have had little issue dispatching the feral . Yes I personally would add pedophiles to the list of the dammed . Funny how so many call for instant swift dispatch of evil doers yet when the death penalty comes up they go all spineless .
 
Jun 26, 2012
2,645
1,337
113
N. Carolina
#55
Intellectual debate and civil discourse requires civil if not respectful rebuttal. If you have issue with such I would suggest the man in the mirror as the place to start correcting the ills of the world . Roe V Wade is not the same subject as Capital Punishment for those proven to be feral. We as a People since our Republic's inception have had little issue dispatching the feral . Yes I personally would add pedophiles to the list of the dammed . Funny how so many call for instant swift dispatch of evil doers yet when the death penalty comes up they go all spineless .
Was I uncivil or disrespectful?
 

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Oct 1, 2005
2,415
2,005
113
Dallas, TX
#57
It’s not. A life is a life. To be against abortion and pro death penalty is the height of hypocrisy. It’s an issue I havent reconciled myself. We can justify killing certain people all we want for certain reasons, but it says all men are created equal and entitled to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t say the state gets to decide who lives and who dies.
Somebody has gotten you all mixed up with their modern philosophy and excusing away criminals.
They have been pumping out this idea of propaganda for a long time.
This is what comes from when you try to re-invent the basis of right and wrong to suit a SJW agenda.

Religion did a decent job thousands of years ago under Moses of explaining the difference and providing examples.
The Mosaic law has very strict respect for "the circle of life" (which like so much of the religion has been turned into a lawyers joke as if an omnipotent being would be impressed with loopholes people create for themselves). It also had no problems eliminating those who proved unworthy to be in society. Nor was there any issue when a group was considered bad enough to erase completely.

The simple way goes:
Everybody gets a chance to be born and try to become a decent human, your lease on life begins at conception
(sometimes you don't make it past the initial stages due to problems and that's just tough no guarantees you won't get culled by nature / accidents. The body itself culls out many anomalies without intervention)
God despises abortion and baby killing (which has existed for thousands of years) because killing the innocent without a chance is an affront to the circle of life & ultimately a selfish act, killing an innocent being of your own species for your own comfort or convenience when they caused you no harm.

That being very different from once you have the ability to think and understand your actions.
"Child" or Adult it didn't matter, death penalty for anyone and everyone who was evil.
(If you are a kid and kill your classmate on purpose or rape them... junior sized rock concert).
The laws were simple, very few and strict, don't do xxx and you won't die.. Do xxx and you get a rock concert in your honour.
If you turn out to be evil, it is the duty of everyone to put a permanent stop to your evil ways, so no questions about it, end of story, try again next life, we aren't going to let you mess up things for others.
If a whole area or group turns out way too evil, time to sterilize the area and keep the evil contagion from spreading.

Part of the problem today is that the "state" or "Justice system" hides people and protects them when they knowingly carry out miscarriages of justice. Previously everybody involved could be held accountable from lying witnesses, to evil prosecutors, to corrupt judges, to evil prison guards and wardens. Then they gave themselves blanket immunity that nobody said no to and now they don't worry... if they mess up they'll just pay off somebody with the tax money of their family and neighbors. Now if in a miscarriage of justice every single person involved was criminally and civilly responsible and the family or extended family group of the wronged / killed person had the right to seek vengeance, people would be a lot more careful.

It's kind of simple in the end:
Babies deserve their chance at life because that's how it is supposed to be.
If you prove evil to others and a danger to others in a significant and uncorrectable way, you get booted from the game permanently.
If you say somebody is going to prison for life, then you must enslave somebody else to pay for it, how is that fair to the others?
Now if you can send them on a 1 way ticket to a different planet all by themselves or dimension for just them... no problem we'll update policies once you get that capability built.
 

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Oct 1, 2005
2,415
2,005
113
Dallas, TX
#58
My "feelings" about Clarence Thomas are generated by Clarence Thomas and colored by my own worldview. I read Clarence's opinions before he was nominated to SCOTUS. I read his plagiarized works. I listened to his shit-for-brains defense of that plagiarism. I have listened to his speeches. Unless you are saying those were MSM plants I have no idea how how you could make such a wild assumption.

I happen to appreciate the way Clarence votes. I view RBG with nothing but disgust. But I do not allow either of those things to color my judgement of their intellectual capacity. That is a dishonest and dangerous road.
Personally I will always have a lot of respect for Clarence Thomas for his full frontal shirtless attack on the Democrat lynch mob in congress, calling them out to their faces for the scum they are. I also respect his defense of most freedoms, although I don't always agree on every ruling he makes.

I think too many of our judges are too "Intellectual" and have forgotten all about the simple truth of right & wrong and the simple clear straightforward writing of the constitution and constantly invent new far fangled ideas that all the "educated" ones like to pleasure themselves to. (Like somehow "Shall Not Be Infringed" is meaningless and please everybody go about stomping all over it... the states have all the rights to stop all over that right.... but somehow the bill of rights can be "interpreted" to create a new "Right" to same sex marriage and must be suddenly implemented without question and we'll send the feds if any state disagrees.)

You mention you appreciate the way Clarence Thomas votes, isn't that enough?
I'd rather have some "Uneducated" person who understands freedom and respects it than some "Educated" one who thinks freedom was something the "uneducated" thought should be allowed.

The whole "plagiarism" thing is a joke. There has hardly been an original thought in the Legal business for thousands of years. The difference between some greatly respected and worshiped "legal opinion" and something the intellectuals claim as "Plagiarized" is simply if you are too lazy to bother marking up your text with numbers and providing a whole book worth of references for each of the previously thought of ideas you are collating.

There is very little actual "original' thought or material put out into the world ever that does not base itself on something previously said, done, thought or implied. The more you read older and ancient writings, the more you realize that.
 
Jun 26, 2012
2,645
1,337
113
N. Carolina
#59
Somebody has gotten you all mixed up with their modern philosophy and excusing away criminals.
They have been pumping out this idea of propaganda for a long time.
This is what comes from when you try to re-invent the basis of right and wrong to suit a SJW agenda.

Religion did a decent job thousands of years ago under Moses of explaining the difference and providing examples.
The Mosaic law has very strict respect for "the circle of life" (which like so much of the religion has been turned into a lawyers joke as if an omnipotent being would be impressed with loopholes people create for themselves). It also had no problems eliminating those who proved unworthy to be in society. Nor was there any issue when a group was considered bad enough to erase completely.

The simple way goes:
Everybody gets a chance to be born and try to become a decent human, your lease on life begins at conception
(sometimes you don't make it past the initial stages due to problems and that's just tough no guarantees you won't get culled by nature / accidents. The body itself culls out many anomalies without intervention)
God despises abortion and baby killing (which has existed for thousands of years) because killing the innocent without a chance is an affront to the circle of life & ultimately a selfish act, killing an innocent being of your own species for your own comfort or convenience when they caused you no harm.

That being very different from once you have the ability to think and understand your actions.
"Child" or Adult it didn't matter, death penalty for anyone and everyone who was evil.
(If you are a kid and kill your classmate on purpose or rape them... junior sized rock concert).
The laws were simple, very few and strict, don't do xxx and you won't die.. Do xxx and you get a rock concert in your honour.
If you turn out to be evil, it is the duty of everyone to put a permanent stop to your evil ways, so no questions about it, end of story, try again next life, we aren't going to let you mess up things for others.
If a whole area or group turns out way too evil, time to sterilize the area and keep the evil contagion from spreading.

Part of the problem today is that the "state" or "Justice system" hides people and protects them when they knowingly carry out miscarriages of justice. Previously everybody involved could be held accountable from lying witnesses, to evil prosecutors, to corrupt judges, to evil prison guards and wardens. Then they gave themselves blanket immunity that nobody said no to and now they don't worry... if they mess up they'll just pay off somebody with the tax money of their family and neighbors. Now if in a miscarriage of justice every single person involved was criminally and civilly responsible and the family or extended family group of the wronged / killed person had the right to seek vengeance, people would be a lot more careful.

It's kind of simple in the end:
Babies deserve their chance at life because that's how it is supposed to be.
If you prove evil to others and a danger to others in a significant and uncorrectable way, you get booted from the game permanently.
If you say somebody is going to prison for life, then you must enslave somebody else to pay for it, how is that fair to the others?
Now if you can send them on a 1 way ticket to a different planet all by themselves or dimension for just them... no problem we'll update policies once you get that capability built.
I’m hardly an SJW. I’m also not afraid to challenge my beliefs. But if god wanted the alleged criminals dead he would kill them. You could argue he did that through the will of the people. But if he wanted all babies born, he wouldn’t have allowed the will of the people to create abortion methods.

Religion only has a place in ones personal belief system. Keep that to oneself. It has no place in our legal system. The two are completely separate because it states, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Be clear, I’m not attacking religion or your beliefs. I’m merely pontificating so don’t take it personal. I have no intention of making this personal against anyone.
 
Likes: RNWRKNP

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,201
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#60
Somebody has gotten you all mixed up with their modern philosophy and excusing away criminals.
They have been pumping out this idea of propaganda for a long time.
This is what comes from when you try to re-invent the basis of right and wrong to suit a SJW agenda.

Religion did a decent job thousands of years ago under Moses of explaining the difference and providing examples.
The Mosaic law has very strict respect for "the circle of life" (which like so much of the religion has been turned into a lawyers joke as if an omnipotent being would be impressed with loopholes people create for themselves). It also had no problems eliminating those who proved unworthy to be in society. Nor was there any issue when a group was considered bad enough to erase completely.

The simple way goes:
Everybody gets a chance to be born and try to become a decent human, your lease on life begins at conception
(sometimes you don't make it past the initial stages due to problems and that's just tough no guarantees you won't get culled by nature / accidents. The body itself culls out many anomalies without intervention)
God despises abortion and baby killing (which has existed for thousands of years) because killing the innocent without a chance is an affront to the circle of life & ultimately a selfish act, killing an innocent being of your own species for your own comfort or convenience when they caused you no harm.

That being very different from once you have the ability to think and understand your actions.
"Child" or Adult it didn't matter, death penalty for anyone and everyone who was evil.
(If you are a kid and kill your classmate on purpose or rape them... junior sized rock concert).
The laws were simple, very few and strict, don't do xxx and you won't die.. Do xxx and you get a rock concert in your honour.
If you turn out to be evil, it is the duty of everyone to put a permanent stop to your evil ways, so no questions about it, end of story, try again next life, we aren't going to let you mess up things for others.
If a whole area or group turns out way too evil, time to sterilize the area and keep the evil contagion from spreading.

Part of the problem today is that the "state" or "Justice system" hides people and protects them when they knowingly carry out miscarriages of justice. Previously everybody involved could be held accountable from lying witnesses, to evil prosecutors, to corrupt judges, to evil prison guards and wardens. Then they gave themselves blanket immunity that nobody said no to and now they don't worry... if they mess up they'll just pay off somebody with the tax money of their family and neighbors. Now if in a miscarriage of justice every single person involved was criminally and civilly responsible and the family or extended family group of the wronged / killed person had the right to seek vengeance, people would be a lot more careful.

It's kind of simple in the end:
Babies deserve their chance at life because that's how it is supposed to be.
If you prove evil to others and a danger to others in a significant and uncorrectable way, you get booted from the game permanently.
If you say somebody is going to prison for life, then you must enslave somebody else to pay for it, how is that fair to the others?
Now if you can send them on a 1 way ticket to a different planet all by themselves or dimension for just them... no problem we'll update policies once you get that capability built.
Thats a lot of words to express such foolishness.
 
Jan 28, 2011
2,691
525
113
GA
#61
Personally I will always have a lot of respect for Clarence Thomas for his full frontal shirtless attack on the Democrat lynch mob in congress, calling them out to their faces for the scum they are. I also respect his defense of most freedoms, although I don't always agree on every ruling he makes.

I think too many of our judges are too "Intellectual" and have forgotten all about the simple truth of right & wrong and the simple clear straightforward writing of the constitution and constantly invent new far fangled ideas that all the "educated" ones like to pleasure themselves to. (Like somehow "Shall Not Be Infringed" is meaningless and please everybody go about stomping all over it... the states have all the rights to stop all over that right.... but somehow the bill of rights can be "interpreted" to create a new "Right" to same sex marriage and must be suddenly implemented without question and we'll send the feds if any state disagrees.)

You mention you appreciate the way Clarence Thomas votes, isn't that enough?
I'd rather have some "Uneducated" person who understands freedom and respects it than some "Educated" one who thinks freedom was something the "uneducated" thought should be allowed.

The whole "plagiarism" thing is a joke. There has hardly been an original thought in the Legal business for thousands of years. The difference between some greatly respected and worshiped "legal opinion" and something the intellectuals claim as "Plagiarized" is simply if you are too lazy to bother marking up your text with numbers and providing a whole book worth of references for each of the previously thought of ideas you are collating.

There is very little actual "original' thought or material put out into the world ever that does not base itself on something previously said, done, thought or implied. The more you read older and ancient writings, the more you realize that.
Being in agreement with someone doesn't mean they are astutue. Because I disagree with someone, or even loathe everything about them, doesn't make them dumb. In neither case is that a judgment of good or evil.

You might spend some time with bright lawyers and witness how creative they are in thinking shit up, for better or worse, before you write off the legal business as nothing but historical rehash. The best of them are creative to the point of artistry. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing.

Back to the topic at hand, I demand more than just a half-way decent jurist to sit on the Supreme Court. It is not nearly enough to be right minded. The arguments presented are often nuanced, complex, and exceedingly well thought out. To simply disagree as a matter of principle, even if I agree with those principles, is a cop out. If you do not understand all that is before you can not properly agree or disagree. On the SCOTUS there are ramifications for that which may last centuries.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,565
4,063
113
#62
The Ivy league spawn need to be treated as the bacteria they are, they are all very self impressed with themselves. They are incestuous, they put alum before country, guarantee these people are at the core of our governmental corruption and criminality, in other words it seems all of the deep state criminals are tied to the ivy league. Each and every Deep Stater seems to be IVY LEAGUE. You seem like a nice guy MTT your should distance yourself from that crowd. The deserve the Khmer Rouge treatment if you ask me.

Read the WaPO comments section on any story about the crime family we call the Justice department and you will see a disturbing groupthink, one that has to be disrupted or extinguished.



Let me disambiguate this for you because I do think that point of view matters. I am an ivy league graduate. My first job after school was 80% ivy leaguers, most of whom had undergrad and graduate ivy degrees. I'm not sure how anyone could school me on ivies.

My "feelings" about Clarence Thomas are generated by Clarence Thomas and colored by my own worldview. I read Clarence's opinions before he was nominated to SCOTUS. I read his plagiarized works. I listened to his shit-for-brains defense of that plagiarism. I have listened to his speeches. Unless you are saying those were MSM plants I have no idea how how you could make such a wild assumption.

On the flip side my roots could not be more blue collar. I grew up the son of a boilermaker and most of my family (that I knew) were tradesmen, fishermen, and union laborers. Because I remain true to my roots there is very little about me that would lead most people, outside of work or engaging in meaningful conversation, to suspect that I have the education I have. The primary reason for this is the expectation that someone who went to such a school fits a nice little stereotype.

Some of my close friends who went to schools like Cornell or Dartmouth are also of blue collar roots who received tuition assistance either through the military or sports. They too have an outward appearance in many ways reflecting their roots. And for this, plus that they won't begin an argument with a recitation of academic achievement, often results in people discounting their arguments.

Sit me, my dad (who didn't go college), and 7 of my friends (who also may or may not have gone to college) in a room to argue like motherfuckers and it will be difficult to tell who has what formal education, short of a few scientific or highly technical topics.

Navigating a crew boat through the rigolets and struggling through the finer points of physical chemistry are equally important to who I am.

I have a fucking stellar academic record, the greatest part of which is reflected on transcripts from a state school, NOT from the storied institutions at the top of my resume.

I happen to appreciate the way Clarence votes. I view RBG with nothing but disgust. But I do not allow either of those things to color my judgement of their intellectual capacity. That is a dishonest and dangerous road.

I could not care less what Laura Ingram's assessment is. I take my own measurements of both Clarence and Ms Ingram. I hope you do the same.

Just letting you know where I come from.
 
Last edited:

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Oct 1, 2005
2,415
2,005
113
Dallas, TX
#63
I’m hardly an SJW. I’m also not afraid to challenge my beliefs. But if god wanted the alleged criminals dead he would kill them. You could argue he did that through the will of the people. But if he wanted all babies born, he wouldn’t have allowed the will of the people to create abortion methods.

Religion only has a place in ones personal belief system. Keep that to oneself. It has no place in our legal system. The two are completely separate because it states, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Be clear, I’m not attacking religion or your beliefs. I’m merely pontificating so don’t take it personal. I have no intention of making this personal against anyone.
I would be more than happy to make a new world based on unbiased logic, free from religious based biases / personal prejudices in the laws, and fully respecting individual freedom & personal choice at all levels. You would most likely need significant time to adjust to it, as it would be completely alien to just about everybody. I would bet the majority of people if suddenly living in that society would find at least something to be horrified at and demand changes to suit their personal biases. Even those who are proud of being militant atheists would dislike it.

If you don't think the Judeo/Christian religious roots and prejudices, prevalent in those that founded this country from the start, don't still fully wrap themselves into the law and politics you aren't looking very hard. Just start with our current laws & attitudes towards all things regarding your body, your sex, your clothing, your marriages, your divorces, your reproductive cycle, the raising of your children, beverages you drink, substances you take, commerce you engage in. Our current laws and what society demands are clearly not based on logic, science, equality, individual freedom at all levels, by any means. Most are based on somebody's religious interpretations or social philosophy, or hate of such, with a cloak of "Morals" or "Public Good" thrown over the top.

We are not actually a real secular state with laws based on unbiased logic & respect for individual freedom at all levels, rather we have the idea of secularism over a deep rooted Puritanical streak with justice based on the old laws of vengeance. We are more of a state where we officially are atheist, but you best do what the previous major religions said you should do or else. With the odd addition that those vocally against social mixing of religion only seem to fight against it, if it's "Christian" based but have no problem if it's from a "Minority" religion.

The police and justice system gladly enforce laws daily that have no other basis rather than somebody's religious views.

Interestingly enough your example given about a theoretical viewpoint based on "if god wanted..." kind of bear out the whole point.. Not to state you should pick one over the other, but rather to state that your argument in that line is actually a well known difference between the Judeo/Christian/Roman/Greek religions where mankind is supposed to strive to create the positive outcome and avoid the negative outcome, and the gods help those that help themselves and allow more free choice. Compared to for example Muslim sects or versions of Hinduism where it's the opposite and "it must have been god's will" is the answer to everything negative as they believe if god didn't want something negative to happen he would have stopped it.
 

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,201
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#64
I would be more than happy to make a new world based on unbiased logic, free from religious based biases / personal prejudices in the laws, and fully respecting individual freedom & personal choice at all levels. You would most likely need significant time to adjust to it, as it would be completely alien to just about everybody. I would bet the majority of people if suddenly living in that society would find at least something to be horrified at and demand changes to suit their personal biases. Even those who are proud of being militant atheists would dislike it.

If you don't think the Judeo/Christian religious roots and prejudices, prevalent in those that founded this country from the start, don't still fully wrap themselves into the law and politics you aren't looking very hard. Just start with our current laws & attitudes towards all things regarding your body, your sex, your clothing, your marriages, your divorces, your reproductive cycle, the raising of your children, beverages you drink, substances you take, commerce you engage in. Our current laws and what society demands are clearly not based on logic, science, equality, individual freedom at all levels, by any means. Most are based on somebody's religious interpretations or social philosophy, or hate of such, with a cloak of "Morals" or "Public Good" thrown over the top.

We are not actually a real secular state with laws based on unbiased logic & respect for individual freedom at all levels, rather we have the idea of secularism over a deep rooted Puritanical streak with justice based on the old laws of vengeance. We are more of a state where we officially are atheist, but you best do what the previous major religions said you should do or else. With the odd addition that those vocally against social mixing of religion only seem to fight against it, if it's "Christian" based but have no problem if it's from a "Minority" religion.

The police and justice system gladly enforce laws daily that have no other basis rather than somebody's religious views.

Interestingly enough your example given about a theoretical viewpoint based on "if god wanted..." kind of bear out the whole point.. Not to state you should pick one over the other, but rather to state that your argument in that line is actually a well known difference between the Judeo/Christian/Roman/Greek religions where mankind is supposed to strive to create the positive outcome and avoid the negative outcome, and the gods help those that help themselves and allow more free choice. Compared to for example Muslim sects or versions of Hinduism where it's the opposite and "it must have been god's will" is the answer to everything negative as they believe if god didn't want something negative to happen he would have stopped it.
Contemporary Christianity is rife with that sentiment, YOu didnt take a plane and it crashes..."God protected me." What about the other 200 on board. I hear all the time "It just wasnt God's will (that I get that new Cadillac LOL)." thats why I say all religion is poison and best avoided.
 
Jun 26, 2012
2,645
1,337
113
N. Carolina
#65
I would be more than happy to make a new world based on unbiased logic, free from religious based biases / personal prejudices in the laws, and fully respecting individual freedom & personal choice at all levels. You would most likely need significant time to adjust to it, as it would be completely alien to just about everybody. I would bet the majority of people if suddenly living in that society would find at least something to be horrified at and demand changes to suit their personal biases. Even those who are proud of being militant atheists would dislike it.

If you don't think the Judeo/Christian religious roots and prejudices, prevalent in those that founded this country from the start, don't still fully wrap themselves into the law and politics you aren't looking very hard. Just start with our current laws & attitudes towards all things regarding your body, your sex, your clothing, your marriages, your divorces, your reproductive cycle, the raising of your children, beverages you drink, substances you take, commerce you engage in. Our current laws and what society demands are clearly not based on logic, science, equality, individual freedom at all levels, by any means. Most are based on somebody's religious interpretations or social philosophy, or hate of such, with a cloak of "Morals" or "Public Good" thrown over the top.

We are not actually a real secular state with laws based on unbiased logic & respect for individual freedom at all levels, rather we have the idea of secularism over a deep rooted Puritanical streak with justice based on the old laws of vengeance. We are more of a state where we officially are atheist, but you best do what the previous major religions said you should do or else. With the odd addition that those vocally against social mixing of religion only seem to fight against it, if it's "Christian" based but have no problem if it's from a "Minority" religion.

The police and justice system gladly enforce laws daily that have no other basis rather than somebody's religious views.

Interestingly enough your example given about a theoretical viewpoint based on "if god wanted..." kind of bear out the whole point.. Not to state you should pick one over the other, but rather to state that your argument in that line is actually a well known difference between the Judeo/Christian/Roman/Greek religions where mankind is supposed to strive to create the positive outcome and avoid the negative outcome, and the gods help those that help themselves and allow more free choice. Compared to for example Muslim sects or versions of Hinduism where it's the opposite and "it must have been god's will" is the answer to everything negative as they believe if god didn't want something negative to happen he would have stopped it.
Secular only in that we have no national declared religion. That’s all it’s meant by freedom of religion. Free to practice your belief and we shall not impose ours upon the whole of the land. I fully embrace the Judeo Christian principles that our country is based upon. The purpose of those principles in our legal system is to say that when deciding what laws to craft that you let those beliefs guide you but that no law, even gods law is above the constitution. In that, I believe that many, not all, founders would be anti death penalty and anti abortion as it should be because they valued all life, even the most vile of it. I’ll leave you with what dr Ron Paul pontificated many years ago.

Nebraska’s legislature recently made headlines when it ended the state’s death penalty. Many found it odd that a conservatives-dominated legislature would support ending capital punishment, since conservative politicians have traditionally supported the death penalty. However, an increasing number of conservatives are realizing that the death penalty is inconsistent with both fiscal and social conservatism. These conservatives are joining with libertarians and liberals in a growing anti-death penalty coalition.

It is hard to find a more wasteful and inefficient government program than the death penalty. New Hampshire recently spent over $4 million dollars prosecuting just two death penalty cases, while Jasper County in Texas raised property taxes by seven percent in order to pay for one death penalty case! A Duke University study found that replacing North Carolina’s death penalty would save taxpayers approximately $22 million dollars in just two years.

Death penalty cases are expensive because sentencing someone to death requires two trials. The first trial determines the accused person’s guilt, while the second trial determines if the convicted individual “deserves” the death penalty. A death sentence is typically followed by years of appeals, and sometimes the entire case is retried.

Despite all the time and money spent to ensure that no one is wrongly executed, the system is hardly foolproof. Since 1973, one out of every ten individuals sentenced to death has been released from death row because of evidence discovered after conviction.

The increased use of DNA evidence has made it easier to clear the innocent and identify the guilty. However, DNA evidence is not a 100 percent guarantee of an accurate verdict. DNA evidence is often mishandled or even falsified. Furthermore, DNA evidence is available in only five to 10 percent of criminal cases.

It is not surprising that the government wastes so much time and money on such a flawed system. After all, corruption, waste, and incompetence are common features of government programs ranging from Obamacare to the TSA to public schools to the post office. Given the long history of government failures, why should anyone, especially conservatives who claim to be the biggest skeptics of government, think it is a good idea to entrust government with the power over life and death?

Death penalty supporters try to claim the moral high ground by claiming that the death penalty deters crime. But, if the death penalty is an effective deterrent, why do jurisdictions without the death penalty have a lower crime rate than jurisdictions with the death penalty? And why did a 2009 survey find that the majority of American police chiefs consider the death penalty the least effective way to reduce violent crime?

As strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the moral case is much stronger. Since it is impossible to develop an error-free death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are embracing the idea that the government should be able to execute innocent people for the “greater good.” The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.

Opposition to allowing the government to take life is also part of a consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology who oppose abortion or preemptive war should also oppose the death penalty. Until the death penalty is abolished, we will have neither a free nor a moral society.


Again I fully grasp the judeo christian principles of our legal system. But it doesnt mean that your religious faith has any precedence or superiority over the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land and any argument based on faith fails before it starts.
 
Likes: W54/XM-388

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Oct 1, 2005
2,415
2,005
113
Dallas, TX
#66
Excellent points.
There are a couple things about that.

In regards to the deterrent effect, I agree that due to "public squeamishness" today it serves less of a deterrent effect because execution is so far removed from the time of the crime and also kept under a blanket of secrecy.

I would suggest that in more "rough" times when you did the crime & got caught and promptly got strung up or invited to be the star of a rock show and the whole town turned out and the adults thought it was important to give the children a front row seat to show them that crime doesn't pay, the death penalty was much more of a deterrent, (if at the same time much more unfairly administered).

In regards to cost, our current judicial system is setup to maximize costs at every turn practically as it keeps a huge amount of people at all levels well paid and politicians in office. While death row cases get all the publicity, there are even more that have spent most of their lives in jail before being exonerated, you can give someone money, but it's not all that much to offer if you have taken just about all their lifetimes from them.

There are many pros and cons to both execution as the final punishment, or life in prison. I think eventually execution will be the norm only in totalitarian / communist countries and over the next 50 to 100 years, it will die out completely everywhere else due to the concern with being unable to go back and fix a mistaken execution or cost issues.

The current US legal system and laws, not just regarding death penalty cases, but even down stupid stuff like drug cases and the like, are very heavily seeped in Puritanical Vengeance and a desire to endlessly punish & never let a person live down a mistake.

Other places, most notably northern Europe, for better or worse (arguments can be sustained for both sides), have a justice system more tuned to rehabilitating the criminal and trying to let them once again enter mainstream society as a contributing member & letting them start over fresh if they show the ability to be a good member of society. They work hard to have a person fully trained, equipped, educated and socialized to integrate back into society when they are released from custody.

Then there is the whole argument over why personal choices should be a crime, but every country in the world has rules on what things they consider "horrible" and "beyond the pale" based on personal choice or ownership that in many other countries are perfectly normal and don't raise an eyebrow.
 
Jun 26, 2012
2,645
1,337
113
N. Carolina
#67
Excellent points.
There are a couple things about that.

In regards to the deterrent effect, I agree that due to "public squeamishness" today it serves less of a deterrent effect because execution is so far removed from the time of the crime and also kept under a blanket of secrecy.

I would suggest that in more "rough" times when you did the crime & got caught and promptly got strung up or invited to be the star of a rock show and the whole town turned out and the adults thought it was important to give the children a front row seat to show them that crime doesn't pay, the death penalty was much more of a deterrent, (if at the same time much more unfairly administered).

In regards to cost, our current judicial system is setup to maximize costs at every turn practically as it keeps a huge amount of people at all levels well paid and politicians in office. While death row cases get all the publicity, there are even more that have spent most of their lives in jail before being exonerated, you can give someone money, but it's not all that much to offer if you have taken just about all their lifetimes from them.

There are many pros and cons to both execution as the final punishment, or life in prison. I think eventually execution will be the norm only in totalitarian / communist countries and over the next 50 to 100 years, it will die out completely everywhere else due to the concern with being unable to go back and fix a mistaken execution or cost issues.

The current US legal system and laws, not just regarding death penalty cases, but even down stupid stuff like drug cases and the like, are very heavily seeped in Puritanical Vengeance and a desire to endlessly punish & never let a person live down a mistake.

Other places, most notably northern Europe, for better or worse (arguments can be sustained for both sides), have a justice system more tuned to rehabilitating the criminal and trying to let them once again enter mainstream society as a contributing member & letting them start over fresh if they show the ability to be a good member of society. They work hard to have a person fully trained, equipped, educated and socialized to integrate back into society when they are released from custody.

Then there is the whole argument over why personal choices should be a crime, but every country in the world has rules on what things they consider "horrible" and "beyond the pale" based on personal choice or ownership that in many other countries are perfectly normal and don't raise an eyebrow.
I like the idea of making the running man movie reality 👍
 
Jun 26, 2012
2,645
1,337
113
N. Carolina
#68
Excellent points.
There are a couple things about that.

In regards to the deterrent effect, I agree that due to "public squeamishness" today it serves less of a deterrent effect because execution is so far removed from the time of the crime and also kept under a blanket of secrecy.

I would suggest that in more "rough" times when you did the crime & got caught and promptly got strung up or invited to be the star of a rock show and the whole town turned out and the adults thought it was important to give the children a front row seat to show them that crime doesn't pay, the death penalty was much more of a deterrent, (if at the same time much more unfairly administered).

In regards to cost, our current judicial system is setup to maximize costs at every turn practically as it keeps a huge amount of people at all levels well paid and politicians in office. While death row cases get all the publicity, there are even more that have spent most of their lives in jail before being exonerated, you can give someone money, but it's not all that much to offer if you have taken just about all their lifetimes from them.

There are many pros and cons to both execution as the final punishment, or life in prison. I think eventually execution will be the norm only in totalitarian / communist countries and over the next 50 to 100 years, it will die out completely everywhere else due to the concern with being unable to go back and fix a mistaken execution or cost issues.

The current US legal system and laws, not just regarding death penalty cases, but even down stupid stuff like drug cases and the like, are very heavily seeped in Puritanical Vengeance and a desire to endlessly punish & never let a person live down a mistake.

Other places, most notably northern Europe, for better or worse (arguments can be sustained for both sides), have a justice system more tuned to rehabilitating the criminal and trying to let them once again enter mainstream society as a contributing member & letting them start over fresh if they show the ability to be a good member of society. They work hard to have a person fully trained, equipped, educated and socialized to integrate back into society when they are released from custody.

Then there is the whole argument over why personal choices should be a crime, but every country in the world has rules on what things they consider "horrible" and "beyond the pale" based on personal choice or ownership that in many other countries are perfectly normal and don't raise an eyebrow.
The current US legal system and laws, not just regarding death penalty cases, but even down stupid stuff like drug cases and the like, are very heavily seeped in Puritanical Vengeance and a desire to endlessly punish & never let a person live down a mistake.

Couldn’t agree more. We ruin lives for the dumbest Shit.
 
Likes: W54/XM-388
Jan 28, 2011
2,691
525
113
GA
#69
The Ivy league spawn need to be treated as the bacteria they are, they are all very self impressed with themselves. They are incestuous, they put alum before country, guarantee these people are at the core of our governmental corruption and criminality, in other words it seems all of the deep state criminals are tied to the ivy league. Each and every Deep Stater seems to be IVY LEAGUE. You seem like a nice guy MTT your should distance yourself from that crowd. The deserve the Khmer Rouge treatment if you ask me.

Read the WaPO comments section on any story about the crime family we call the Justice department and you will see a disturbing groupthink, one that has to be disrupted or extinguished.
These eight schools have always produced people who gravitated to positions of power, be it for public service or nefarious reasons. Of course there is no shortage of outrageous arrogance. To blankly dismiss every alum... not even sure how to respond to that.

There is zero doubt that the prevailing political winds on these campuses smell of rotten socialist fish, and I have had my share of nasty arguments. But everyone? That is just not true.

The universities with the most Medal of Honor recipients is, in order from most to least; West Point, Annapolis, Harvard, followed by Princeton.
 

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,201
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#70
RE: the death penalty, here is the bottom line.

"Since 1973, one out of every ten individuals sentenced to death has been released from death row because of evidence discovered after conviction. "

Think about that. How many innocent persons have died because of this. How would you feel if it were you or your son or daughter?

Innocence Project - Official Site
www.innocenceproject.org
The Innocence Project exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustices.
 

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,201
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#71
These eight schools have always produced people who gravitated to positions of power, be it for public service or nefarious reasons. Of course there is no shortage of outrageous arrogance. To blankly dismiss every alum... not even sure how to respond to that.

There is zero doubt that the prevailing political winds on these campuses smell of rotten socialist fish, and I have had my share of nasty arguments. But everyone? That is just not true.

The universities with the most Medal of Honor recipients is, in order from most to least; West Point, Annapolis, Harvard, followed by Princeton.
Well said MTT. I went to whats commonly referred to as "The Public Ivy". I sickens me to see the liberal direction our U is going in. Looks like we only had one MOH winner, but he was pretty significant otherwise.

Alexander Archer Vandegrift (1887-1973) (CLAS 1909) - Medal of Honor winner and 18th Commandant and the first 4-star general of the US Marine Corps.
 
Feb 15, 2017
1,939
1,736
113
#72
Was I uncivil or disrespectful?
Quite respectful and you interjected opinion that I countered . You stated no need for rebuttal just pontifiation . Well we openly challenge each other in conversation and debate . Did I give you a metaphorical elbow shove ? Absolutely . Not a character attack and an invitation to nut up behind which ever side of the fence you find youself on . Your statement about not needing rebutal wasan opportunity to push . Meh I pushed . It's the Bear Pit .

As for the spineless comment , funny that Maggot jumped on that . Just callin it like I see it . There are countless threads where guys go all eight hundred pound gorilla about how the would fuck a bitch up for this n that and that mother fucker needs to meet his maker . Yet when the reality of dispatching shitbags comes up it's all tin foil hat they're just tryin ta keep a brotha down . So yeah spineless . I mean really , stand and be counted or squat and pee. I don't see middle ground . Or is it I wish a motherfucker would cause I'll fuck em up , but not enough ta kill em cause well that would be like abortion and abortion is wrong and the moral high ground is wherever I stand cause it came outta my mouth so it must be the truth and. ...........
Nut up for fuck sake !
 
Jun 26, 2012
2,645
1,337
113
N. Carolina
#73
Quite respectful and you interjected opinion that I countered . You stated no need for rebuttal just pontifiation . Well we openly challenge each other in conversation and debate . Did I give you a metaphorical elbow shove ? Absolutely . Not a character attack and an invitation to nut up behind which ever side of the fence you find youself on . Your statement about not needing rebutal wasan opportunity to push . Meh I pushed . It's the Bear Pit .

As for the spineless comment , funny that Maggot jumped on that . Just callin it like I see it . There are countless threads where guys go all eight hundred pound gorilla about how the would fuck a bitch up for this n that and that mother fucker needs to meet his maker . Yet when the reality of dispatching shitbags comes up it's all tin foil hat they're just tryin ta keep a brotha down . So yeah spineless . I mean really , stand and be counted or squat and pee. I don't see middle ground . Or is it I wish a motherfucker would cause I'll fuck em up , but not enough ta kill em cause well that would be like abortion and abortion is wrong and the moral high ground is wherever I stand cause it came outta my mouth so it must be the truth and. ...........
Nut up for fuck sake !
Understood. I left the door open. Just wanted to be sure I didn’t come off in a way I did not intend. I’m all for respectful discourse.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,565
4,063
113
#75
what the heck does MOH have to do with the threat "the club" now poses to the republic?

Its like he old saying that not every Muslim is a terrorist but just about every terrorist is a Muslim, except the "the club" solution is easier managed i.e. eliminated from positions of power they have shown they are not responsible (smart or honorable) enough to be entrusted.

The club has expended any value it might have once had, it just the vassal they is being used by the socialists to subjugate the constitution, undermine the rule of law and the very fabric and foundations upon which we operate as a country.

They need to be removed from government service and from the ranks of our elected class. And publicly shunned like they are trying to do to Dershowitz

These eight schools have always produced people who gravitated to positions of power, be it for public service or nefarious reasons. Of course there is no shortage of outrageous arrogance. To blankly dismiss every alum... not even sure how to respond to that.

There is zero doubt that the prevailing political winds on these campuses smell of rotten socialist fish, and I have had my share of nasty arguments. But everyone? That is just not true.

The universities with the most Medal of Honor recipients is, in order from most to least; West Point, Annapolis, Harvard, followed by Princeton.
 

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,201
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#76
Quite respectful and you interjected opinion that I countered . You stated no need for rebuttal just pontifiation . Well we openly challenge each other in conversation and debate . Did I give you a metaphorical elbow shove ? Absolutely . Not a character attack and an invitation to nut up behind which ever side of the fence you find youself on . Your statement about not needing rebutal wasan opportunity to push . Meh I pushed . It's the Bear Pit .

As for the spineless comment , funny that Maggot jumped on that . Just callin it like I see it . There are countless threads where guys go all eight hundred pound gorilla about how the would fuck a bitch up for this n that and that mother fucker needs to meet his maker . Yet when the reality of dispatching shitbags comes up it's all tin foil hat they're just tryin ta keep a brotha down . So yeah spineless . I mean really , stand and be counted or squat and pee. I don't see middle ground . Or is it I wish a motherfucker would cause I'll fuck em up , but not enough ta kill em cause well that would be like abortion and abortion is wrong and the moral high ground is wherever I stand cause it came outta my mouth so it must be the truth and. ...........
Nut up for fuck sake !
Thats pretty confused.

Ive never hidden in anyway my objection to the death penalty. I stand on that. Do I at time say Id love to fuck that one up, or they 'deserve' to be fucked up permanently. Yep, but thats just rhetoric.

Many, in my opinion, may deserve to die for what theyve done, but the simple fact that 10% of those on death row are eventually released speaks too loudly against.

On the other hand, if I caught someone molesting a child, in the instant of rage, someone would surely die, and Id surely go to trial. I see a difference.

So spineless goes back to your house.
 
Likes: W54/XM-388
Jan 28, 2011
2,691
525
113
GA
#77
what the heck does MOH have to do with the threat "the club" now poses to the republic?

Its like he old saying that not every Muslim is a terrorist but just about every terrorist is a Muslim, except the "the club" solution is easier managed i.e. eliminated from positions of power they have shown they are not responsible (smart or honorable) enough to be entrusted.

The club has expended any value it might have once had, it just the vassal they is being used by the socialists to subjugate the constitution, undermine the rule of law and the very fabric and foundations upon which we operate as a country.

They need to be removed from government service and from the ranks of our elected class. And publicly shunned like they are trying to do to Dershowitz
WTF? You said:

The Ivy league spawn need to be treated as the bacteria they are, they are all very self impressed with themselves. They are incestuous, they put alum before country, ...
Are you excluding or including the MOH recipients in that strain of bacterium? I want to know.

Dershowitz went to Yale law school, and you're saying is one of the shunned instead of being a shunner himself? Yale Law school is out? Hillary went to Wellesley (not Ivy) but then proceeded to Yale law. Venn diagram the intersection of those bacteria.

Comey Went to the College of William and Mary. Does this absolve him, or do we simply include the 2nd oldest institution in the country and all of their alums in the cesspool? Do tell.

Peter Stzrok went to Georgtown. Not too shabby. But where do they sit?

Andrew McCabe went to Duke. A lot of people who went to Duke are sore that it is not an Ivy league school. But since Andy went there I'm guessing we could apply the same disinfectant?

Ted Cruz, Princeton. Fuck him.

Speaking of Princeton conservatives (holy shit, I am here to tell you that there are more than a few) we find the likes of Ramesh Ponnuru. He likes the 2nd Amendment. He fucking hates the swamp and he hates hipsters.

https://paw.princeton.edu/article/conservatives-conservative

This could go on forever and ever... maybe we just kill them all?
 
Jun 26, 2012
2,645
1,337
113
N. Carolina
#78
WTF? You said:



Are you excluding or including the MOH recipients in that strain of bacterium? I want to know.

Dershowitz went to Yale law school, and you're saying is one of the shunned instead of being a shunner himself? Yale Law school is out? Hillary went to Wellesley (not Ivy) but then proceeded to Yale law. Venn diagram the intersection of those bacteria.

Comey Went to the College of William and Mary. Does this absolve him, or do we simply include the 2nd oldest institution in the country and all of their alums in the cesspool? Do tell.

Peter Stzrok went to Georgtown. Not too shabby. But where do they sit?

Andrew McCabe went to Duke. A lot of people who went to Duke are sore that it is not an Ivy league school. But since Andy went there I'm guessing we could apply the same disinfectant?

Ted Cruz, Princeton. Fuck him.

Speaking of Princeton conservatives (holy shit, I am here to tell you that there are more than a few) we find the likes of Ramesh Ponnuru. He likes the 2nd Amendment. He fucking hates the swamp and he hates hipsters.

https://paw.princeton.edu/article/conservatives-conservative

This could go on forever and ever... maybe we just kill them all?
As a duke alum, I. Glad it’s not ivy.

Anyone who hates hipsters and is pro gun is ok in my book.
 
Likes: MosesTheTank
Feb 15, 2017
1,939
1,736
113
#80
Thats pretty confused.

Ive never hidden in anyway my objection to the death penalty. I stand on that. Do I at time say Id love to fuck that one up, or they 'deserve' to be fucked up permanently. Yep, but thats just rhetoric.

Many, in my opinion, may deserve to die for what theyve done, but the simple fact that 10% of those on death row are eventually released speaks too loudly against.

On the other hand, if I caught someone molesting a child, in the instant of rage, someone would surely die, and Id surely go to trial. I see a difference.

So spineless goes back to your house.
Must be tiresome hopping from one side of the fence to the other and back like that . If you had my spine you'd pick a side and take a stand as I have .
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,565
4,063
113
#92
The MOH award has no relation to their university, they were at the right place at the wrong time and did the right thing that someone recognized and nominated them for. Yes I am including every person associated with the club. They are a existential threat to the republic, deny all you want but they infest the SES in our government and have become a shadow and shadowy government.

I would include Georgetown in this group of Universities. Duke,, well most are shitbirds but they do produce good engineers. The Ivy League,,, not so much. I grew up next to Princeton, your definition of conservative needs calibrating.



https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/06/19/reactionary-case-dennis-rodman/




WTF? You said:



Are you excluding or including the MOH recipients in that strain of bacterium? I want to know.

Dershowitz went to Yale law school, and you're saying is one of the shunned instead of being a shunner himself? Yale Law school is out? Hillary went to Wellesley (not Ivy) but then proceeded to Yale law. Venn diagram the intersection of those bacteria.

Comey Went to the College of William and Mary. Does this absolve him, or do we simply include the 2nd oldest institution in the country and all of their alums in the cesspool? Do tell.

Peter Stzrok went to Georgtown. Not too shabby. But where do they sit?

Andrew McCabe went to Duke. A lot of people who went to Duke are sore that it is not an Ivy league school. But since Andy went there I'm guessing we could apply the same disinfectant?

Ted Cruz, Princeton. Fuck him.

Speaking of Princeton conservatives (holy shit, I am here to tell you that there are more than a few) we find the likes of Ramesh Ponnuru. He likes the 2nd Amendment. He fucking hates the swamp and he hates hipsters.

https://paw.princeton.edu/article/conservatives-conservative

This could go on forever and ever... maybe we just kill them all?
 
Last edited:
Feb 14, 2017
1,075
194
63
all over see below:
#93
Roe v wade is a dead issue. i dont know why we still talk about it. let the states be the states.

probably because planned parenthood is murdering babies everyday. Lets not be ignorant to facts. A babies heartbeat is detectable at 19 days. The sad part is America is brain washed to think there is no life inside the womb but if you to just little bit of research you would see PP kills millions of babies that could have survived outside the womb.


Its excactly the same as people thinking it was ok to have slaves taken from their home country and families thrown in a boat like cattle or the germans murdering millions of jews. You might as well throw away your MAN card if you dont stand up for children.



“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

Ronald Reagan
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2012
2,645
1,337
113
N. Carolina
#94
probably because planned parenthood is murdering babies everyday. Lets not be ignorant to facts. A babies heartbeat is detectable at 19 days. The sad part is America is brain washed to think there is no life inside the womb but if you to just little bit of research you would see PP kills millions of babies that could have survived outside the womb.


Its excactly the same as people thinking it was ok to have slaves taken from their home country and families thrown in a boat like cattle or the germans murdering millions of jews

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

Ronald Reagan
Not totally brainwashed, in some states it’s double homicide if you kill the fetus and the mother. Just another hypocritical area of some laws.
 
Likes: W54/XM-388
Jan 28, 2011
2,691
525
113
GA
#95
The MOH award has no relation to their university, they were at the right place at the wrong time and did the right thing that someone recognized and nominated them for. Yes I am including every person associated with the club. They are a existential threat to the republic, deny all you want but they infest the SES in our government and have become a shadow and shadowy government.

I would include Georgetown in this group of Universities. Duke,, well most are shitbirds but they do produce good engineers. The Ivy League,,, not so much. I grew up next to Princeton, your definition of conservative needs calibrating.



https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/06/19/reactionary-case-dennis-rodman/
Be careful Jerry, these are words typed by one of the unthinking subverts...

Thank you for the clarification. And I especially thank you for the opinion piece. It distills down the essence of many thousands of people, all thrown into a neatly labeled box ready to be chained with a cannonball and thrown overboard. When the article speaks about specific people it, for the most part, makes sense to me. But when it steps back and swings wide to scoop up a huge group of people, making solid use of the word "they", based on where they went to school, it looses me completely.

This is for two reasons, the first of which is that I am not part of the various groups it says that I must be associated with, none of the reading list has ever fouled my eyesight and the political beliefs categorically ascribed to every single person in that box are antithetical to my own. He leaves no more wiggle room than you do. The second reason is that the premise of the article and its entire construction is reminiscent of my experience while enrolled class on political geography. It was my first real encounter with the far left and it was a bit jarring.

Whatever that author thinks I read, my childhood reading list was more along the lines of Jack London and Jack O'Connor. In college, outside of technical stuff, it was the classics. Since 2011 I have quoted them here on the Hide probably a thousand times. The record of what my influences are is pretty easy to ferret out. The author cannot reconcile this, but I will just a few paragraphs forward.

As for the references to hedonistic behavior, I have to admit that this is not unfamiliar. Coming from New Orleans this is saying something. Most of my friends went to big southern schools like LSU, MS State, Ole Miss, 'Bama, Florida, and the like. During breaks from school we would convene at a house in Bay St Louis MS to get hammered on cheap beer and share stories. I learned that hedonism was enjoyed on lots of campuses, and the world seemed a more interesting place for it. I cannot imagine either apologizing for or rationalizing this behavior.

As for my little campus, two of the biggest influences amongst my classmates were a pair of baseball players from TX. They discovered that I too was a hunter and loved muscle cars (and had actual experience building them). After a careful vetting process they invited me to their room to share Schaeffer beer from a freezer. The tops of the beer were frozen over and I quickly found out that you had to finish the beer before it got warm enough to taste because it tasted like shit. During one conversation we were bemoaning the fact that our guns had to be kept off campus, which made it sometimes difficult to make a morning hunt, stash the guns, and still make whatever campus event on time. More than once this meant showing up in camo and maybe a few duck feathers stuck to clothing. I'm not sure if this too, is pinko commie behavior. But I hold on to these fond memories.

That political geography class... in short, as we traced shifting borders across the globe the conversation often turned to the relative morality of victor and loser. There was plenty of healthy disagreement until we got to the United States. A very vocal part of the class suddenly lost their shit and called various events out for their supposed imperialistic and evil aims. There was the side of the class I was on that, at first, chose to just offer counter points. That went OK until someone on my side, I don't remember who, used the word "patriotism". The first to explode was a girl who, although a little chunky, I had always thought was pretty hot. This made what followed more disappointing than it otherwise would have been.

In spite of my dad's strict adherence to the democratic party, something that I observed to be an almost religious aspect of labor union dogma, I didn't give much thought to politics until I was forced to. When I found people screaming in my face about my faulty point of view I found convictions I didn't know I had flowing out of my mouth. I was a bit of a follower of William F Buckley Jr and Ronald Reagan. The overarching reason for this was not because what they had to say rung true to me (there were gobs of people who filled that role) but because they did so with great wit. When forced into a corner my natural inclination is to make a run at mockery rather than reaching for the verbal flame thrower. And that is what I did to the pretty girl with the wonderful ass who was busy clawing at her desk while telling me what a barbarian I was. I stood up and made fun of everyone who spoke, including the thoughtful and mild mannered professor who, with his west TX drawl, tried to calm things down.

We were talking about war and my view was shaped by the elders in my family who had actually fought in wars. What lessons I took from them did not exactly agree with what an Army ROTC guy had to say about things like the Geneva convention. Suddenly my group was split and instead of one collective target, the left now had two to scream at, one even more deplorable than the original. This caused confusion in their ranks. The screaming did not abate until I went low, bringing forth the worst insults I could muster. Relatively clean examples of this can be found here on the Hide in a thread started by The German. Some of y'all took part in it. The professor finally called an end to the hostilities. I don't recall if I was more disappointed in letting Professor Johnson down by my actions or in knowing that my chances with that girl were ruined forever. Even socialists can have truly delicious thighs.

Jerry, the reason the author of that article must lump everyone he doesn't agree with into a neat little box is the same reason that socialist group couldn't assail more than one point of view and is the same reason Obama lumped small town residents across all of the Midwest into a little bucket of those who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...". They are both arrogant and lazy. Ideologues always are. The reasons why are irrelevant to me.

And so goes the weekly lineups of the damned and the saved, though it is sometimes hard to tell which is which. From Simone de Beauvoir we may find an anthropological truth

No group ever sets itself up as the One without at once setting up the Other over against itself. If three travelers chance to occupy the same compartment, that is enough to make vaguely hostile ‘Others’ out of all the rest of the passengers on the train.

There is no escape from identity politics. Off the train or on campus, any grouping of human race, creed, color, nationality, bloodline, net worth, zip code, alma mater or hat size serves to distinguish a We from a They. Identity politics, it seems, comes not from just the self's need of adherence to a group (there's a Maslow joke in there somewhere) but from qualities ascribed by others.

I once worked for a firm that one day found it important to protect itself from vulgarities hidden in emails. "Intelligent" software was installed to protect sensitive sensibilities. One morning several financial analysts were complaining that their email was not working. That spread to all of finance, accounting, the legal group. By end of day much of the company could not even access the company website. Turns out that hidden in the signature lines of the analysts was the word anal. This software followed that word as it spread its foul electronic dust from one computer to the next and neutered each offending machine as the cancer spread.

That is no dumber than what the author of that article did. Are we better than that, or do we just go with it and fuck it?
 
Last edited:

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,565
4,063
113
#96
I added that article after I posted my response after reading that as an accompaniment to the one Sihr posted in the Trolling reporter thread. As I read it I thought of you and the leather chair bound sherry sipping "self important elite" and how wrong they have been over the last 50 years or more.

Your clubmates:

Obama (Transform America)
GW Bush (Just go Shopping)
Clinton ( Whats the meaning of :is" is?)
GHW Bush ( Now that the soviet union has failed we move on to a "New World Order")

The author of that article lumping all in is the same your club mates do to Americans. The citizenry is waking up, Evidence of this fact is we have a president named Trump, and if they get rid of him, they will have Pence, the the dismantling will begin.

As far as foisting with cannon balls attached, and wiggle room, your club has boxed itself in, not me or that author, the arrogance just hasn't allowed you all to realize the fact that the clubs days are numbered and the people are on to you all. There are some German words that describe this phenomenon. Speaking of German, the club should start foisting themselves back to their ideological homeland, Germany and the UK, the land of Hegel and Marx.
 
Jan 28, 2011
2,691
525
113
GA
#97
I added that article after I posted my response after reading that as an accompaniment to the one Sihr posted in the Trolling reporter thread. As I read it I thought of you and the leather chair bound sherry sipping "self important elite" and how wrong they have been over the last 50 years or more.

Your clubmates:

Obama (Transform America)
GW Bush (Just go Shopping)
Clinton ( Whats the meaning of :is" is?)
GHW Bush ( Now that the soviet union has failed we move on to a "New World Order")

The author of that article lumping all in is the same your club mates do to Americans. The citizenry is waking up, Evidence of this fact is we have a president named Trump, and if they get rid of him, they will have Pence, the the dismantling will begin.

As far as foisting with cannon balls attached, and wiggle room, your club has boxed itself in, not me or that author, the arrogance just hasn't allowed you all to realize the fact that the clubs days are numbered and the people are on to you all. There are some German words that describe this phenomenon. Speaking of German, the club should start foisting themselves back to their ideological homeland, Germany and the UK, the land of Hegel and Marx.
If you are going to stick with that then you have also Donald J Trump. I voted for him and he was at the University of Pennsylvania.

No need for Mueller (Princeton) or Rosenstein (Penn, just like Trump). ArmyJerry has done it right here with hardly even trying.

You cannot have it both ways. You have committed the same sin as the anal seeking software. While you are leaving behind many more examples, this is the one that should stop you in your tracks and realize you are sinking your own ship. What camp does that put you in?
 

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,201
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#98
B

There is no escape from identity politics. Off the train or on campus, any grouping of human race, creed, color, nationality, bloodline, net worth, zip code, alma mater or hat size serves to distinguish a We from a They. Identity politics, it seems, comes not from just the self's need of adherence to a group (there's a Maslow joke in there somewhere) but from qualities ascribed by others.

?
Not all, Moses.

WHile I do, to some extent, identify with 'groups' in an absolute sense I hold my self apart from all that. I reached that point by Aristotolian logic.

Ask yourself:

Who/What am I? Where do you begin? For me it goes like this:

-I Am
-I am living.............(as opposed to non living)
-I am living/corporeal.....................(as opposed to non corporeal)
-I am living/corporeal/self conscious/biped
-I am living/corporeal/self conscious/biped/human
-I am living/corporeal/self conscious/biped/human/male
-I am living/corporeal/self conscious/biped/human/male/white

and so on.

So it depends on where you enter.

If you enter at I AM then we are all the same.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,565
4,063
113
#99
I am in the camp of freedom and The Constitution. Saying you voted for Trump is like Mueller, Rod Rosenstien an Jim Comey saying they are republicans. In fact you ar all camillions and a threat to the republic and the club I am in.
 
Jan 28, 2011
2,691
525
113
GA
I am in the camp of freedom and The Constitution. Saying you voted for Trump is like Mueller, Rod Rosenstien an Jim Comey saying they are republicans. In fact you ar all camillions and a threat to the republic and the club I am in.
Dude, you might want to go back and read what you wrote over and over again. You constructed the noose and shoved Trump's head right into it. I asked you over and over again if your convictions were absolute and you affirmed every single time.

Now that you have hung him and God knows how many erstwhile allies in the cause of conservatism and anti-swamp you have only one club left to chew on things with. Not just throwing LITERALLY everyone who seems unlike you into a death camp, but a democratically elected president puts you right at the tippy tip of Michael Moore's spear.

You did this Jerry, not me or anyone else in this thread.
 
Top Bottom