|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42789 Posts
On November 11 2017 08:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On November 11 2017 05:49 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:44 Artisreal wrote:On November 11 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:09 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:44 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:27 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:19 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
Nobody is quoting the first part of the post because nobody thinks he will ever do that (spoiler alert, he won't)
Voting for a pedophile because you're scared of the liberals is the dumbest thing I have ever seen as a real defense. Fucking write in strange, just do a big write in campaign. If it takes a little more work to note vote for a pedophile then do the damn work.
Sorry, dead victims and fined/jailed business owners does heighten the stakes of the election. It's more of a "has done/continue to do" rather than present scared. I mean the Obama administration actually sued Catholic nuns to force compliance and took it to the supreme court. Things would be different if you were in the cross hairs and not people that think and act differently than you. Empathy is in short supply. Empathy is in short supply? Did you forget the part where I said just write in the other R? Who will easily win because its Alabama "because you're scared of the liberals" is reductive and nonsense. I stated the reasons. That's before moving on.
Write-ins would fight against Moore's name (high name recognition due to his long history in Alabama) on the ballot and time is short. It's next month. You would spend half that period simply staffing before canvassing for the write in campaign. Replacing someone under accusation of child molestation with someone rejected in the primary for corruption is not a high gain. I still have sympathy for voters that still choose Moore. Too hard, better vote pedo Your rights aren't under threat, better look the other way. Great logic, friend. Ohh the irony, this coming from you. If you disagree on extreme race rhetoric, you're against black rights. If you see Christians fined under threat of jailing for religious free expression and support for Christian church tax exemption fade, you shrug your shoulders. It's pretty much expected by now. I mean it's fucking ridiculous to say the church needs the tax exemption in the first place much less it deserves it. I absolutely encourage and support churches running hospitals where state institutions fail, though that doesn't necessitate the whole institution not paying estate tax. But I prefer to give for different charities with less of a overhead. If they'd put the money to good use or would've had to report on what they use the tax dollars they don't pay for, it I'd be much less critical of their privileged status. If their services were available to all (not the religion specific services, those directed at community level, like hospitals) and would they not hinder individual freedom of non conformists and were they identical in their exemption status to those granted to any one charity, we'd be talking. But we aren't talking because none of the above appears to be the case. Hence the revision of the tax exemption is the minimum that the should be open to. Because if they provide oh so much that those tax exemptions are worth it for society they shouldn't have anything to fear. To be clear, what any one parish or local church group does may be immaculate work that enriches the community and helps the poor. A core value of christianity is sharing wealth and helping the poor. A core sin is hoarding wealth. Make your mind whether the churches of America hold up to their own agenda. e:put in quote for context cause im slower than a snail And yet some people here think that they’re never going away, don’t worry. When you bring up it as a civil rights issue, immediately we’re on to defending why it matters in the first place. When the government taxes a religious establishment based on the ceremonies it elects to hold, its telling that church how to practice religion. Like other 501(c)(3)s, they are required to report what they spend their money on when under IRS audit. But please, tell me more about how your approval or disapproval of its activities—prove you deserve a tax exemption to me—doesn’t burden the pastor and congregation’s practice of religion. The arguments are already there and freely discussed. I think it’s only partisanship that prevents widespread understanding. You have to vote in people that understand citizens don’t judge the church’s activities to justify its continued removal from tax burden. It’s their right to practice religion free of government bureaucrats not liking their services and proselytization.
I can see why you would fear that the government may selectively force churches that it disagrees with to pay taxes, thereby policing religious practice. That could easily be avoided if it simply forced all churches to pay tax. The nature of the religious practice would be irrelevant to the tax obligation, they would simply have to "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's".
The IRS doesn't actually audit churches though so your claims about their requirements under IRS audits are a little bit of a reach. They suspended all audits of churches back in 2009 and, as far as I know, have not resumed it. They're underfunded and it's a political minefield they're simply dodging for now.
|
On November 11 2017 07:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a great piece on Moore from the National Review. Contrary to what many may believe, I read their stuff regularly! I don't come up with my notions that Conservative Principles are really just anti-left agitprop and kulturkampf from nowhere. Here is Jonah Goldberg's well reasoned piece. (bonus for conservatives, he complains about some twitter lefties doing some virtuesignaling for a few paragraphs too) Show nested quote +But serious thinking is a thing in short supply these days. When I called for conservatives to disassociate themselves from Judge Roy Moore, the response from so many Bannonistas was depressing in its vacuity. But he’s a True Conservative®! No, he’s not. But he loves the Constitution! No, he doesn’t. He’s a real Christian! Really? He’ll fight for the Trump agenda! He will? Trump supported his more conservative opponent, and Moore didn’t even know what DACA was and he opposed Obamacare repeal. And, of course, Shut up, you anti-Christian bigot! All of this was hogwash then, and it’s hogwash now. What mattered is that people invested in Moore a meaning and symbolism he doesn’t deserve: He is one of us and he is against them. He’s not a person, he’s a talisman, a dashboard saint to a cause. I’m pretty sure Luther Strange is a conservative, a Christian, and a Constitutionalist. What he’s not is a thumb in the eye. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it’s true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn’t matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it. Bless my heart, I assumed that people who are so much more sanctimonious and preachy than I am would be able to draw a line at plying 14-year-old girls with booze and molesting them, particularly when the guy they’re defending won’t even defend the behavior himself. You’d think this would be the Colonel Nicholson moment where, like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai, they would mutter to themselves, “My God, what have I done?” and collapse to the ground. But no. They’d rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself. This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that is in the process of replacing conservative principles and arguments with the new lodestars of “fighting” and “winning.” Fighting and winning are amoral concepts, embraced equally by freedom fighters and totalitarians alike. Serious thinking begins with asking, “What are we fighting for?” “What are we trying to win?” But the distinctions don’t end there. “What are we willing to do for the sake of winning?” “What means will we tolerate to achieve our ends?” But even raising such questions is the stuff of cucks and swamp-dwellers. We are becoming the Party of Wales, and the “butthurt” of those we hate is its own reward.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principles http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principlesEDIT: williamson is an asshole, but every 2 months or so he writes something amazing. His 'white minstrel show' article is hot fire http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism
I'm not sure you are going to find a conservative here who likes that principles are being thrown out the window (something I have talked about before). This is more directed at the Trump corrupted. In the case of the Alabama voter it very much is "what are we fighting for." In fact, those things might be the reason people vote for him. This is lesser of two evils in action. I do not agree that most people who chose Moore did so to stab a stick in the eye of the left.
Also why people still make positive arguments for Strange not sure. But he lost. I won't harp on that too much.
|
Two of the shootings were down by white supremacist...
|
On November 11 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 11 2017 04:34 Nevuk wrote:On November 11 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:22 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2017 04:19 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
Nobody is quoting the first part of the post because nobody thinks he will ever do that (spoiler alert, he won't)
Voting for a pedophile because you're scared of the liberals is the dumbest thing I have ever seen as a real defense. Fucking write in strange, just do a big write in campaign. If it takes a little more work to note vote for a pedophile then do the damn work.
I think it's more about not voting for an abuser of children than not voting for someone because of their sexual orientation or preferences. Sure, whatever you need to not vote for the guy who put a 14 year olds hand on his penis (over his pants) He wasn't wearing pants (just underwear). Anyways, we all knew that Roy Moore was a lunatic who thought the law didn't apply to him. This isn't a huge surprise. The reaction of much of the GOP is fucking disgusting, though (specifically conservative media and the AL GOP. The establishment reaction was fine). The attitude is basically "better a conservative pedophile than a liberal saint". On one side, a pedophile. On the other side, a flesh and blood Atticus Finch.
“As I gave my undivided attention to Baxley’s powerful closing argument,” Jones told a House crime subcommittee two decades later, “I never in my wildest imagination dreamed that one day this case and my legal career would come full circle, giving me the opportunity, some 24 years later to prosecute the two remaining suspects for a crime that many say changed the course of history.”
More than 20 years after Chambliss was convicted, Jones would become U.S. attorney in Alabama and set out to finish what Baxley started. He brought charges against two more Klan members, Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr., and Bobby Frank Cherry. The prosecutions have helped make him a contender in his Senate race against Republican Roy Moore, a controversial former judge. On Thursday, Moore was accused by a woman of initiating a sexual encounter with her when she was 14 and he was 32 — allegations he called “completely false” and his campaign dismissed as “the very definition of fake news.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/09/an-alabama-senate-race-conjures-the-awful-1963-church-bombing-that-killed-4-black-girls/?utm_term=.83969942f519But hey, did you hear that liberals are hypocrites cause of Bill Clinton? Or what about those cake baker's whose way of life will be destroyed by culture war liberals? That is enough for the principled conservatives out there to vote for Moore. Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance. Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember. Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment? Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society. Only GH can tie a church shooting to whites losing their control of society. White people sneeze in public or spit on sidewalks in gestures of white supremacy as well. This might be the first time I’ve seen a response on gun control as another aspect of white supremacy.
lol. I mean he was a fan of Dylan Roof who was an open white supremacist, but you know, it's easier to act deluded and pretend white supremacy isn't a thing.
|
On November 11 2017 04:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote:On November 11 2017 03:22 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2017 02:06 mozoku wrote:On November 11 2017 00:41 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 15:25 mozoku wrote:On November 10 2017 13:52 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 13:50 mozoku wrote:On November 10 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
I don't know how you're defining "intrinsic" value, but if an employer is willing to pay me $100,000, the market value of my labor is $100,000 (assuming efficient/competitive markets). If the market values my labor more than someone else's, it follows that (again, assuming efficient/competitive markets) society's best estimate of my labor's value is more than that other person's. Should not the fruits of society's labor be distributed, in principle, proportionally to those who created it? Especially given that, for most people, the market value of the labor is--to a pretty large degree--under their control during their lifetime?
You can argue that heirs to large fortunes didn't really create the value that their fortune's create (their parents did) and I think that's fair (though there are counterarguments in favor of the estate tax as well), or that economic mobility isn't possible (I disagree), but to act like the only basis for how society's wealth should be distributed is the tyranny of the masses (who are writing the "book of rules" you're referencing--at least in a democracy) doesn't have any moral or ethical basis in favor of it. The share of the wealth you get and the share of the wealth you created aren't well correlated. That's pretty much the point of capitalism, the underlying mechanism that makes capitalism work is people attempting to do arbitrage to take advantage of that discrepancy. If you break it down to its very simplest village level bartering, the objective is to find something that you can produce in an hour that you can trade for firewood that took two hours to chop. You perform one hour of labour, and yet you get two hours of stuff. The mechanism relies upon disproportionate rewards to redistribute labour and direct economic activity. Clearly whatever the guy in the village was doing with his hour was the right thing to do, and other villagers may follow him until an equilibrium where 1 hour = 1 hour is restored. Arbitrage to exploit disproportionate rewards between what you contribute and what you get is the engine that drives capitalism. By the time we apply it on a modern global perspective the difference is staggering, a ratio of thousands of manhours to one in many cases. These differences are reinforced by artificial impositions upon the ability of many people to engage in arbitrage, such as denying Mexicans the ability to sell their labour in America, and by exploitation grandfathered in by the capital class. However, the basic engine remains the same, the economic systems offers participants in the economy disproportionate rewards for directing their labour in certain ways. The disproportionate outcome needs to exist for our society to work. We need doctors to get more than grocers to keep kids in school. But it doesn't follow that what the system outputs is what you deserve, or what you earned. It's certainly not what you created, any American can tell that the manhours of labour they consume on any given day greatly exceed the manhours of labour they performed. Deserve and earned are subjective moral concepts that aren't relevant to the mechanism, what you get is what you get. This is literally nonsense. I barely know where to begin. Suppose an hour's worth of labor chopping firewood produces $1 of firewood. The new guy creates $2/hr with whatever he's doing. He's twice as productive. If chooses to work the same amount of time, he gets twice as much stuff. That's literally the definition of proportional. How that's supposed to be disproportionate, I have no idea. The share of the wealth you get and the share of the wealth you created aren't well correlated. ??? I'm pretty sure fast-food workers are creating much less wealth than software engineers, successful investors, etc. I literally can't even imagine how society would exist if this statement were true. Why would capitalism even be efficient if this statement were true? What is your definition of "well correlated"? 0.99999999999999999?? It's certainly not what you created, any American can tell that the manhours of labour they consume on any given day greatly exceed the manhours of labour they performed. I'm not sure this is true at all. In fact, I'd lean towards not true if anything. Ever heard of an economy of scale? I work at a mega-scale tech company. I work 40-50 hrs/week, but my work influences thousands of people directly, and affects millions indirectly. Hell, the marginal cost of someone consuming my work is practically zero. Likewise, the marginal cost (in terms of other's time) of most of the stuff I consume is practically zero. That's how automation works, and is why we're fabulously wealthy compared to several hundred years ago. Why is the bartering village using dollars? Remove the dollars, try again. What objective system of valuation are you using to show that you're producing more value than the fast food worker from your day? Remembering of course that you're already justifying the getting more money than them by the fact that you create more value so you cannot complete the circle and use the more money to prove the greater value. Does it matter if they're bartering in gold, wood, virgins, or dollars? It's a trade they both agree to and the principles are the same. But I see the point that you're trying to make is that the efficient man's hour should, in principle, be worth no more than the inefficient man's hour if you don't care about productivity, and that productivity is independent of morality. However, the former statement is inherently incorrect because productivity and time are, by definition, linked, and a person's time has value in excess of that which can be determined monetarily. To simplify, let's assume they're both chopping lumber. The efficient man can simply choose to work 1/2 hour, have the same productivity, and keep the other 1/2 hour to himself. By nature of being more efficient (and his own efficiency is surely not intrinsically amoral), he's advantaged no matter what. Suppose, regardless of compensation, he only wanted to work 1/2 hour, and wanted to spend the other 1/2 hour with his kids. Are you going to argue that society is justified in forcing him to work the full hour? Or that they should discriminate against his good fortune by paying less for his lumber in the name of "equality"? That's certainly not a society I'd want to be a part of. I'm not saying anything of the sort regarding forcing people to work. No part of what I'm doing is advocating for societal change or the gulag. I'm saying that capitalism works as an effective tool for incentivising productive economic activity but that drawing moral conclusions regarding what you earned/own/deserve/created from the outcomes of a capitalist system is erroneous. It's very tempting to say "I'm paid twice as much money, therefore I earned twice as much" but what you earned is a moral judgement that capitalism makes no attempt to answer for you. I understand what you were trying to say. The problem is that productivity and time are directly dependent on each other, so the more efficient man literally owns the extra time his productivity has created (assuming you agree he should be free to use his time as he pleases). Whether or not you redistribute his present time or his past time is irrelevant from a moral perspective. Forcefully redistributing his wealth under any circumstances is equivalent to forced labor (perhaps a very small amount of forced labor, but a nonzero amount). Of course, everyone pretty much (including me) agrees that that if a second of forced labor at the end of a software engineer's workday can save millions of starving children (not realistic but making an extreme example to illustrate my point), it's morally justifiable to make the guy work the extra second. But the fact is it that's it's still a moral tradeoff that's being made. The software engineer has a true moral grievance (in some sense) in claiming that the arrangement is unfair to him--which stands in contrast to what you're asserting. You are really going down the wrong tracks here with "forced labor" and "moral grievance." Capitalism operates on "forced labor." It uses that "free labor" that is forced by necessity to take the market wage. You should really just abandon this whole line of thought. This is independent of my point. Life doesn't exist without "forced labor." We'd starve to death. You can complain to Mother Nature it it makes you feel better. Pure capitalism is a system that, at the very least, doesn't result in forced labor beyond what Mother Nature requires of us. You can choose simply choose not to trade (i.e. be a self-reliant hermit). Granted, that's not a very convincing argument when any sort of reasonable utility/freedom conversion rate of introduced, but nobody really argues for pure capitalism either. As I've argued since the beginning, the morality of taxation is about tradeoffs. You and KwarK are the ones arguing raising taxes is essentially infinitely justifiable if efficiency isn't a concern. You're still not understanding my argument. My argument is that the amount of money you get is output by what is essentially a black box. It's not just "put work in, get money out", lots of people work very hard and don't get shit, others don't work and get more money than they could spend. Taxes are a component of the internal mechanism of that black box.
That's not an argument, that's just an attempt at obfuscation.
You very clearly said "capitalism is merely efficient; those who profit from it have no moral claim to their rewards." To which I refuted because time and productivity are, by definition, related. Either you acknowledge that someone's time has non-monetary value (as you've reasonably implied this entire discussion) and thus you cannot raise taxes on wealth without infringing on one's personal freedom to their own time, or you maintain the not only obviously silly but contradictory position that time's value is purely monetary, but efficient capitalism is not the best way to value one's time, while acknowledging it's the most efficient way to run an economy (that runs by efficiently allocating people's time).
I don't know what this new point you're trying to make is. "Your income function is complicated, and taxes are part of it. That makes raising taxes on the wealthy morally justified."
???
And you're even assuming the already refuted point "1 hour = 1 hour" to make this new, confusing argument.
|
United States42789 Posts
On November 11 2017 08:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:07 sc-darkness wrote:
it's about white men losing their control of society.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? White men have been in control of US society for the entire existence of this country. As laws have changed and allowed non-white people to participate in controlling society there has been a powerful effort to impede that transition at every turn. People like Danglars falsely suggest it's an appeal to freedom and rights that drives them to say/do things that support the white supremacy establishment when it's clear it's not people's rights, but the right of white men to control society that is the supreme right they are protecting. Otherwise they would never support someone who is vocally against the first amendment when it comes to freedom of Religion. You see, rights and freedoms are all a conspiracy to support the white supremacy establishment. One-way ticket to ignoring what somebody says based on what you think they think about skin colors. I love politics in 2017.
You're never there to support rights and freedoms that might damage white supremacy, such restoring voting rights that were stripped from minorities due to openly racist policies.
It's not that rights and freedoms are racist. It's that you're picking which ones you care about on clear racial lines. Trying to twist this into whether it is the idea of rights that he opposes is nonsense, clearly he's not opposed to rights. He's just opposed to white people exclusively having the rights.
|
United States42789 Posts
On November 11 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 04:30 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote:On November 11 2017 03:22 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2017 02:06 mozoku wrote:On November 11 2017 00:41 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 15:25 mozoku wrote:On November 10 2017 13:52 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 13:50 mozoku wrote:On November 10 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The share of the wealth you get and the share of the wealth you created aren't well correlated. That's pretty much the point of capitalism, the underlying mechanism that makes capitalism work is people attempting to do arbitrage to take advantage of that discrepancy. If you break it down to its very simplest village level bartering, the objective is to find something that you can produce in an hour that you can trade for firewood that took two hours to chop. You perform one hour of labour, and yet you get two hours of stuff.
The mechanism relies upon disproportionate rewards to redistribute labour and direct economic activity. Clearly whatever the guy in the village was doing with his hour was the right thing to do, and other villagers may follow him until an equilibrium where 1 hour = 1 hour is restored. Arbitrage to exploit disproportionate rewards between what you contribute and what you get is the engine that drives capitalism.
By the time we apply it on a modern global perspective the difference is staggering, a ratio of thousands of manhours to one in many cases. These differences are reinforced by artificial impositions upon the ability of many people to engage in arbitrage, such as denying Mexicans the ability to sell their labour in America, and by exploitation grandfathered in by the capital class. However, the basic engine remains the same, the economic systems offers participants in the economy disproportionate rewards for directing their labour in certain ways.
The disproportionate outcome needs to exist for our society to work. We need doctors to get more than grocers to keep kids in school. But it doesn't follow that what the system outputs is what you deserve, or what you earned. It's certainly not what you created, any American can tell that the manhours of labour they consume on any given day greatly exceed the manhours of labour they performed. Deserve and earned are subjective moral concepts that aren't relevant to the mechanism, what you get is what you get. This is literally nonsense. I barely know where to begin. Suppose an hour's worth of labor chopping firewood produces $1 of firewood. The new guy creates $2/hr with whatever he's doing. He's twice as productive. If chooses to work the same amount of time, he gets twice as much stuff. That's literally the definition of proportional. How that's supposed to be disproportionate, I have no idea. The share of the wealth you get and the share of the wealth you created aren't well correlated. ??? I'm pretty sure fast-food workers are creating much less wealth than software engineers, successful investors, etc. I literally can't even imagine how society would exist if this statement were true. Why would capitalism even be efficient if this statement were true? What is your definition of "well correlated"? 0.99999999999999999?? It's certainly not what you created, any American can tell that the manhours of labour they consume on any given day greatly exceed the manhours of labour they performed. I'm not sure this is true at all. In fact, I'd lean towards not true if anything. Ever heard of an economy of scale? I work at a mega-scale tech company. I work 40-50 hrs/week, but my work influences thousands of people directly, and affects millions indirectly. Hell, the marginal cost of someone consuming my work is practically zero. Likewise, the marginal cost (in terms of other's time) of most of the stuff I consume is practically zero. That's how automation works, and is why we're fabulously wealthy compared to several hundred years ago. Why is the bartering village using dollars? Remove the dollars, try again. What objective system of valuation are you using to show that you're producing more value than the fast food worker from your day? Remembering of course that you're already justifying the getting more money than them by the fact that you create more value so you cannot complete the circle and use the more money to prove the greater value. Does it matter if they're bartering in gold, wood, virgins, or dollars? It's a trade they both agree to and the principles are the same. But I see the point that you're trying to make is that the efficient man's hour should, in principle, be worth no more than the inefficient man's hour if you don't care about productivity, and that productivity is independent of morality. However, the former statement is inherently incorrect because productivity and time are, by definition, linked, and a person's time has value in excess of that which can be determined monetarily. To simplify, let's assume they're both chopping lumber. The efficient man can simply choose to work 1/2 hour, have the same productivity, and keep the other 1/2 hour to himself. By nature of being more efficient (and his own efficiency is surely not intrinsically amoral), he's advantaged no matter what. Suppose, regardless of compensation, he only wanted to work 1/2 hour, and wanted to spend the other 1/2 hour with his kids. Are you going to argue that society is justified in forcing him to work the full hour? Or that they should discriminate against his good fortune by paying less for his lumber in the name of "equality"? That's certainly not a society I'd want to be a part of. I'm not saying anything of the sort regarding forcing people to work. No part of what I'm doing is advocating for societal change or the gulag. I'm saying that capitalism works as an effective tool for incentivising productive economic activity but that drawing moral conclusions regarding what you earned/own/deserve/created from the outcomes of a capitalist system is erroneous. It's very tempting to say "I'm paid twice as much money, therefore I earned twice as much" but what you earned is a moral judgement that capitalism makes no attempt to answer for you. I understand what you were trying to say. The problem is that productivity and time are directly dependent on each other, so the more efficient man literally owns the extra time his productivity has created (assuming you agree he should be free to use his time as he pleases). Whether or not you redistribute his present time or his past time is irrelevant from a moral perspective. Forcefully redistributing his wealth under any circumstances is equivalent to forced labor (perhaps a very small amount of forced labor, but a nonzero amount). Of course, everyone pretty much (including me) agrees that that if a second of forced labor at the end of a software engineer's workday can save millions of starving children (not realistic but making an extreme example to illustrate my point), it's morally justifiable to make the guy work the extra second. But the fact is it that's it's still a moral tradeoff that's being made. The software engineer has a true moral grievance (in some sense) in claiming that the arrangement is unfair to him--which stands in contrast to what you're asserting. You are really going down the wrong tracks here with "forced labor" and "moral grievance." Capitalism operates on "forced labor." It uses that "free labor" that is forced by necessity to take the market wage. You should really just abandon this whole line of thought. This is independent of my point. Life doesn't exist without "forced labor." We'd starve to death. You can complain to Mother Nature it it makes you feel better. Pure capitalism is a system that, at the very least, doesn't result in forced labor beyond what Mother Nature requires of us. You can choose simply choose not to trade (i.e. be a self-reliant hermit). Granted, that's not a very convincing argument when any sort of reasonable utility/freedom conversion rate of introduced, but nobody really argues for pure capitalism either. As I've argued since the beginning, the morality of taxation is about tradeoffs. You and KwarK are the ones arguing raising taxes is essentially infinitely justifiable if efficiency isn't a concern. You're still not understanding my argument. My argument is that the amount of money you get is output by what is essentially a black box. It's not just "put work in, get money out", lots of people work very hard and don't get shit, others don't work and get more money than they could spend. Taxes are a component of the internal mechanism of that black box. That's not an argument, that's just an attempt at obfuscation. You very clearly said "capitalism is merely efficient; those who profit from it have no moral claim to their rewards." To which I refuted because time and productivity are, by definition, related. Either you acknowledge that someone's time has non-monetary value (as you've reasonably implied this entire discussion) and thus you cannot raise taxes on wealth without infringing on one's personal freedom to their own time, or you maintain the not only obviously silly but contradictory position that time's value is purely monetary, but efficient capitalism is not the best way to value one's time, while acknowledging it's the most efficient way to run an economy (that runs by efficiently allocating people's time). I don't know what this new point you're trying to make is. "Your income function is complicated, and taxes are part of it. That makes raising taxes on the wealthy morally justified." ??? And you're even assuming the already refuted point "1 hour = 1 hour" to make this new, confusing argument.
I don't think you've understood what my argument was.
|
On November 11 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 04:30 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote:On November 11 2017 03:22 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2017 02:06 mozoku wrote:On November 11 2017 00:41 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 15:25 mozoku wrote:On November 10 2017 13:52 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 13:50 mozoku wrote:On November 10 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The share of the wealth you get and the share of the wealth you created aren't well correlated. That's pretty much the point of capitalism, the underlying mechanism that makes capitalism work is people attempting to do arbitrage to take advantage of that discrepancy. If you break it down to its very simplest village level bartering, the objective is to find something that you can produce in an hour that you can trade for firewood that took two hours to chop. You perform one hour of labour, and yet you get two hours of stuff.
The mechanism relies upon disproportionate rewards to redistribute labour and direct economic activity. Clearly whatever the guy in the village was doing with his hour was the right thing to do, and other villagers may follow him until an equilibrium where 1 hour = 1 hour is restored. Arbitrage to exploit disproportionate rewards between what you contribute and what you get is the engine that drives capitalism.
By the time we apply it on a modern global perspective the difference is staggering, a ratio of thousands of manhours to one in many cases. These differences are reinforced by artificial impositions upon the ability of many people to engage in arbitrage, such as denying Mexicans the ability to sell their labour in America, and by exploitation grandfathered in by the capital class. However, the basic engine remains the same, the economic systems offers participants in the economy disproportionate rewards for directing their labour in certain ways.
The disproportionate outcome needs to exist for our society to work. We need doctors to get more than grocers to keep kids in school. But it doesn't follow that what the system outputs is what you deserve, or what you earned. It's certainly not what you created, any American can tell that the manhours of labour they consume on any given day greatly exceed the manhours of labour they performed. Deserve and earned are subjective moral concepts that aren't relevant to the mechanism, what you get is what you get. This is literally nonsense. I barely know where to begin. Suppose an hour's worth of labor chopping firewood produces $1 of firewood. The new guy creates $2/hr with whatever he's doing. He's twice as productive. If chooses to work the same amount of time, he gets twice as much stuff. That's literally the definition of proportional. How that's supposed to be disproportionate, I have no idea. The share of the wealth you get and the share of the wealth you created aren't well correlated. ??? I'm pretty sure fast-food workers are creating much less wealth than software engineers, successful investors, etc. I literally can't even imagine how society would exist if this statement were true. Why would capitalism even be efficient if this statement were true? What is your definition of "well correlated"? 0.99999999999999999?? It's certainly not what you created, any American can tell that the manhours of labour they consume on any given day greatly exceed the manhours of labour they performed. I'm not sure this is true at all. In fact, I'd lean towards not true if anything. Ever heard of an economy of scale? I work at a mega-scale tech company. I work 40-50 hrs/week, but my work influences thousands of people directly, and affects millions indirectly. Hell, the marginal cost of someone consuming my work is practically zero. Likewise, the marginal cost (in terms of other's time) of most of the stuff I consume is practically zero. That's how automation works, and is why we're fabulously wealthy compared to several hundred years ago. Why is the bartering village using dollars? Remove the dollars, try again. What objective system of valuation are you using to show that you're producing more value than the fast food worker from your day? Remembering of course that you're already justifying the getting more money than them by the fact that you create more value so you cannot complete the circle and use the more money to prove the greater value. Does it matter if they're bartering in gold, wood, virgins, or dollars? It's a trade they both agree to and the principles are the same. But I see the point that you're trying to make is that the efficient man's hour should, in principle, be worth no more than the inefficient man's hour if you don't care about productivity, and that productivity is independent of morality. However, the former statement is inherently incorrect because productivity and time are, by definition, linked, and a person's time has value in excess of that which can be determined monetarily. To simplify, let's assume they're both chopping lumber. The efficient man can simply choose to work 1/2 hour, have the same productivity, and keep the other 1/2 hour to himself. By nature of being more efficient (and his own efficiency is surely not intrinsically amoral), he's advantaged no matter what. Suppose, regardless of compensation, he only wanted to work 1/2 hour, and wanted to spend the other 1/2 hour with his kids. Are you going to argue that society is justified in forcing him to work the full hour? Or that they should discriminate against his good fortune by paying less for his lumber in the name of "equality"? That's certainly not a society I'd want to be a part of. I'm not saying anything of the sort regarding forcing people to work. No part of what I'm doing is advocating for societal change or the gulag. I'm saying that capitalism works as an effective tool for incentivising productive economic activity but that drawing moral conclusions regarding what you earned/own/deserve/created from the outcomes of a capitalist system is erroneous. It's very tempting to say "I'm paid twice as much money, therefore I earned twice as much" but what you earned is a moral judgement that capitalism makes no attempt to answer for you. I understand what you were trying to say. The problem is that productivity and time are directly dependent on each other, so the more efficient man literally owns the extra time his productivity has created (assuming you agree he should be free to use his time as he pleases). Whether or not you redistribute his present time or his past time is irrelevant from a moral perspective. Forcefully redistributing his wealth under any circumstances is equivalent to forced labor (perhaps a very small amount of forced labor, but a nonzero amount). Of course, everyone pretty much (including me) agrees that that if a second of forced labor at the end of a software engineer's workday can save millions of starving children (not realistic but making an extreme example to illustrate my point), it's morally justifiable to make the guy work the extra second. But the fact is it that's it's still a moral tradeoff that's being made. The software engineer has a true moral grievance (in some sense) in claiming that the arrangement is unfair to him--which stands in contrast to what you're asserting. You are really going down the wrong tracks here with "forced labor" and "moral grievance." Capitalism operates on "forced labor." It uses that "free labor" that is forced by necessity to take the market wage. You should really just abandon this whole line of thought. This is independent of my point. Life doesn't exist without "forced labor." We'd starve to death. You can complain to Mother Nature it it makes you feel better. Pure capitalism is a system that, at the very least, doesn't result in forced labor beyond what Mother Nature requires of us. You can choose simply choose not to trade (i.e. be a self-reliant hermit). Granted, that's not a very convincing argument when any sort of reasonable utility/freedom conversion rate of introduced, but nobody really argues for pure capitalism either. As I've argued since the beginning, the morality of taxation is about tradeoffs. You and KwarK are the ones arguing raising taxes is essentially infinitely justifiable if efficiency isn't a concern. You're still not understanding my argument. My argument is that the amount of money you get is output by what is essentially a black box. It's not just "put work in, get money out", lots of people work very hard and don't get shit, others don't work and get more money than they could spend. Taxes are a component of the internal mechanism of that black box. That's not an argument, that's just an attempt at obfuscation. You very clearly said "capitalism is merely efficient; those who profit from it have no moral claim to their rewards." To which I refuted because time and productivity are, by definition, related. Either you acknowledge that someone's time has non-monetary value (as you've reasonably implied this entire discussion) and thus you cannot raise taxes on wealth without infringing on one's personal freedom to their own time, or you maintain the not only obviously silly but contradictory position that time's value is purely monetary, but efficient capitalism is not the best way to value one's time, while acknowledging it's the most efficient way to run an economy (that runs by efficiently allocating people's time). I don't know what this new point you're trying to make is. "Your income function is complicated, and taxes are part of it. That makes raising taxes on the wealthy morally justified." ??? And you're even assuming the already refuted point "1 hour = 1 hour" to make this new, confusing argument.
So if I'm gifted a pile of money, let's say $10,000,000 And I invest it in a moderate investment that yields 1.5% ($150,000/yr)
I'm working harder/more efficiently than any fire fighter, police officer, teacher, Marine, etc... Right?
Or maybe capitalism allows people to get rich without doing any work whatsoever?
|
On November 11 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 11 2017 04:34 Nevuk wrote:On November 11 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:22 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I think it's more about not voting for an abuser of children than not voting for someone because of their sexual orientation or preferences. Sure, whatever you need to not vote for the guy who put a 14 year olds hand on his penis (over his pants) He wasn't wearing pants (just underwear). Anyways, we all knew that Roy Moore was a lunatic who thought the law didn't apply to him. This isn't a huge surprise. The reaction of much of the GOP is fucking disgusting, though (specifically conservative media and the AL GOP. The establishment reaction was fine). The attitude is basically "better a conservative pedophile than a liberal saint". On one side, a pedophile. On the other side, a flesh and blood Atticus Finch.
“As I gave my undivided attention to Baxley’s powerful closing argument,” Jones told a House crime subcommittee two decades later, “I never in my wildest imagination dreamed that one day this case and my legal career would come full circle, giving me the opportunity, some 24 years later to prosecute the two remaining suspects for a crime that many say changed the course of history.”
More than 20 years after Chambliss was convicted, Jones would become U.S. attorney in Alabama and set out to finish what Baxley started. He brought charges against two more Klan members, Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr., and Bobby Frank Cherry. The prosecutions have helped make him a contender in his Senate race against Republican Roy Moore, a controversial former judge. On Thursday, Moore was accused by a woman of initiating a sexual encounter with her when she was 14 and he was 32 — allegations he called “completely false” and his campaign dismissed as “the very definition of fake news.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/09/an-alabama-senate-race-conjures-the-awful-1963-church-bombing-that-killed-4-black-girls/?utm_term=.83969942f519But hey, did you hear that liberals are hypocrites cause of Bill Clinton? Or what about those cake baker's whose way of life will be destroyed by culture war liberals? That is enough for the principled conservatives out there to vote for Moore. Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance. Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember. Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment? Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society. Only GH can tie a church shooting to whites losing their control of society. White people sneeze in public or spit on sidewalks in gestures of white supremacy as well. This might be the first time I’ve seen a response on gun control as another aspect of white supremacy. lol. I mean he was a fan of Dylan Roof who was an open white supremacist, but you know, it's easier to act deluded and pretend white supremacy isn't a thing.
He just got lost on the way to a predominantly African American Church and thought white supremacy means shooting up white church-goers and let loose. Because white supremacy means shooting white people. Yeah, that’s the trick!
Or it had nothing to do with white supremacy.
|
United States42789 Posts
On November 11 2017 08:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 07:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a great piece on Moore from the National Review. Contrary to what many may believe, I read their stuff regularly! I don't come up with my notions that Conservative Principles are really just anti-left agitprop and kulturkampf from nowhere. Here is Jonah Goldberg's well reasoned piece. (bonus for conservatives, he complains about some twitter lefties doing some virtuesignaling for a few paragraphs too) But serious thinking is a thing in short supply these days. When I called for conservatives to disassociate themselves from Judge Roy Moore, the response from so many Bannonistas was depressing in its vacuity. But he’s a True Conservative®! No, he’s not. But he loves the Constitution! No, he doesn’t. He’s a real Christian! Really? He’ll fight for the Trump agenda! He will? Trump supported his more conservative opponent, and Moore didn’t even know what DACA was and he opposed Obamacare repeal. And, of course, Shut up, you anti-Christian bigot! All of this was hogwash then, and it’s hogwash now. What mattered is that people invested in Moore a meaning and symbolism he doesn’t deserve: He is one of us and he is against them. He’s not a person, he’s a talisman, a dashboard saint to a cause. I’m pretty sure Luther Strange is a conservative, a Christian, and a Constitutionalist. What he’s not is a thumb in the eye. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it’s true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn’t matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it. Bless my heart, I assumed that people who are so much more sanctimonious and preachy than I am would be able to draw a line at plying 14-year-old girls with booze and molesting them, particularly when the guy they’re defending won’t even defend the behavior himself. You’d think this would be the Colonel Nicholson moment where, like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai, they would mutter to themselves, “My God, what have I done?” and collapse to the ground. But no. They’d rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself. This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that is in the process of replacing conservative principles and arguments with the new lodestars of “fighting” and “winning.” Fighting and winning are amoral concepts, embraced equally by freedom fighters and totalitarians alike. Serious thinking begins with asking, “What are we fighting for?” “What are we trying to win?” But the distinctions don’t end there. “What are we willing to do for the sake of winning?” “What means will we tolerate to achieve our ends?” But even raising such questions is the stuff of cucks and swamp-dwellers. We are becoming the Party of Wales, and the “butthurt” of those we hate is its own reward.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principlesEDIT: williamson is an asshole, but every 2 months or so he writes something amazing. His 'white minstrel show' article is hot fire http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism I'm not sure you are going to find a conservative here who likes that principles are being thrown out the window (something I have talked about before). This is more directed at the Trump corrupted. In the case of the Alabama voter it very much is "what are we fighting for." In fact, those things might be the reason people vote for him. This is lesser of two evils in action. I do not agree that most people who chose Moore did so to stab a stick in the eye of the left. Also why people still make positive arguments for Strange not sure. But he lost. I won't harp on that too much.
It's not too late for a write in though (assuming it's valid under state law). The Minnesota example is extremely relevant to this case as it also involved allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor.
I'm fine with "there's nothing worse than the baby killing abortionist Democrats" as an argument but that doesn't lead us to "so let's go with the child molester".
|
On November 11 2017 08:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 11 2017 04:34 Nevuk wrote:On November 11 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
Sure, whatever you need to not vote for the guy who put a 14 year olds hand on his penis (over his pants) He wasn't wearing pants (just underwear). Anyways, we all knew that Roy Moore was a lunatic who thought the law didn't apply to him. This isn't a huge surprise. The reaction of much of the GOP is fucking disgusting, though (specifically conservative media and the AL GOP. The establishment reaction was fine). The attitude is basically "better a conservative pedophile than a liberal saint". On one side, a pedophile. On the other side, a flesh and blood Atticus Finch.
“As I gave my undivided attention to Baxley’s powerful closing argument,” Jones told a House crime subcommittee two decades later, “I never in my wildest imagination dreamed that one day this case and my legal career would come full circle, giving me the opportunity, some 24 years later to prosecute the two remaining suspects for a crime that many say changed the course of history.”
More than 20 years after Chambliss was convicted, Jones would become U.S. attorney in Alabama and set out to finish what Baxley started. He brought charges against two more Klan members, Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr., and Bobby Frank Cherry. The prosecutions have helped make him a contender in his Senate race against Republican Roy Moore, a controversial former judge. On Thursday, Moore was accused by a woman of initiating a sexual encounter with her when she was 14 and he was 32 — allegations he called “completely false” and his campaign dismissed as “the very definition of fake news.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/09/an-alabama-senate-race-conjures-the-awful-1963-church-bombing-that-killed-4-black-girls/?utm_term=.83969942f519But hey, did you hear that liberals are hypocrites cause of Bill Clinton? Or what about those cake baker's whose way of life will be destroyed by culture war liberals? That is enough for the principled conservatives out there to vote for Moore. Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance. Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember. Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment? Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society. Only GH can tie a church shooting to whites losing their control of society. White people sneeze in public or spit on sidewalks in gestures of white supremacy as well. This might be the first time I’ve seen a response on gun control as another aspect of white supremacy. lol. I mean he was a fan of Dylan Roof who was an open white supremacist, but you know, it's easier to act deluded and pretend white supremacy isn't a thing. He just got lost on the way to a predominantly African American Church and thought white supremacy means shooting up white church-goers and let loose. Because white supremacy means shooting white people. Yeah, that’s the trick! Or it had nothing to do with white supremacy.
Lol you realize the pastor was Hispanic right? It was a mixed church, which tends to upset white supremacists.
If you're going to pretend I'm wrong at least try to come up with less idiotic posts.
What ever could a white supremacist see wrong with this picture of some of the victims...?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 11 2017 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:30 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 11 2017 04:34 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
He wasn't wearing pants (just underwear). Anyways, we all knew that Roy Moore was a lunatic who thought the law didn't apply to him. This isn't a huge surprise. The reaction of much of the GOP is fucking disgusting, though (specifically conservative media and the AL GOP. The establishment reaction was fine). The attitude is basically "better a conservative pedophile than a liberal saint". On one side, a pedophile. On the other side, a flesh and blood Atticus Finch.
“As I gave my undivided attention to Baxley’s powerful closing argument,” Jones told a House crime subcommittee two decades later, “I never in my wildest imagination dreamed that one day this case and my legal career would come full circle, giving me the opportunity, some 24 years later to prosecute the two remaining suspects for a crime that many say changed the course of history.”
More than 20 years after Chambliss was convicted, Jones would become U.S. attorney in Alabama and set out to finish what Baxley started. He brought charges against two more Klan members, Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr., and Bobby Frank Cherry. The prosecutions have helped make him a contender in his Senate race against Republican Roy Moore, a controversial former judge. On Thursday, Moore was accused by a woman of initiating a sexual encounter with her when she was 14 and he was 32 — allegations he called “completely false” and his campaign dismissed as “the very definition of fake news.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/09/an-alabama-senate-race-conjures-the-awful-1963-church-bombing-that-killed-4-black-girls/?utm_term=.83969942f519But hey, did you hear that liberals are hypocrites cause of Bill Clinton? Or what about those cake baker's whose way of life will be destroyed by culture war liberals? That is enough for the principled conservatives out there to vote for Moore. Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance. Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember. Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment? Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society. Only GH can tie a church shooting to whites losing their control of society. White people sneeze in public or spit on sidewalks in gestures of white supremacy as well. This might be the first time I’ve seen a response on gun control as another aspect of white supremacy. lol. I mean he was a fan of Dylan Roof who was an open white supremacist, but you know, it's easier to act deluded and pretend white supremacy isn't a thing. He just got lost on the way to a predominantly African American Church and thought white supremacy means shooting up white church-goers and let loose. Because white supremacy means shooting white people. Yeah, that’s the trick! Or it had nothing to do with white supremacy. Lol you realize the pastor was Hispanic right? It was a mixed church, which tends to upset white supremacists. If you're going to pretend I'm wrong at least try to come up with less idiotic posts.
So wait ... how many white people are you allowed to kill if the pastor is hispanic? This sounds like any congregation with at least one nonwhite person is at risk of an attack by white supremacists because they aren’t racially pure.
Or it has nothing to do with white supremacy.
|
United States42789 Posts
On November 11 2017 08:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:30 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance. Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember. Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment? Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society. Only GH can tie a church shooting to whites losing their control of society. White people sneeze in public or spit on sidewalks in gestures of white supremacy as well. This might be the first time I’ve seen a response on gun control as another aspect of white supremacy. lol. I mean he was a fan of Dylan Roof who was an open white supremacist, but you know, it's easier to act deluded and pretend white supremacy isn't a thing. He just got lost on the way to a predominantly African American Church and thought white supremacy means shooting up white church-goers and let loose. Because white supremacy means shooting white people. Yeah, that’s the trick! Or it had nothing to do with white supremacy. Lol you realize the pastor was Hispanic right? It was a mixed church, which tends to upset white supremacists. If you're going to pretend I'm wrong at least try to come up with less idiotic posts. So wait ... how many white people are you allowed to kill if the pastor is hispanic? This sounds like any congregation with at least one nonwhite person is at risk of an attack by white supremacists because they aren’t racially pure. Or it has nothing to do with white supremacy.
If white people couldn't kill white people in the name of white supremacy then the Civil War would have been a much friendlier affair. If the starting premise for your argument is "a white supremacist wouldn't kill a white guy" then you're going to have to do a lot of explaining for various historical events.
|
On November 11 2017 08:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:30 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance. Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember. Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment? Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society. Only GH can tie a church shooting to whites losing their control of society. White people sneeze in public or spit on sidewalks in gestures of white supremacy as well. This might be the first time I’ve seen a response on gun control as another aspect of white supremacy. lol. I mean he was a fan of Dylan Roof who was an open white supremacist, but you know, it's easier to act deluded and pretend white supremacy isn't a thing. He just got lost on the way to a predominantly African American Church and thought white supremacy means shooting up white church-goers and let loose. Because white supremacy means shooting white people. Yeah, that’s the trick! Or it had nothing to do with white supremacy. Lol you realize the pastor was Hispanic right? It was a mixed church, which tends to upset white supremacists. If you're going to pretend I'm wrong at least try to come up with less idiotic posts. So wait ... how many white people are you allowed to kill if the pastor is hispanic? This sounds like any congregation with at least one nonwhite person is at risk of an attack by white supremacists because they aren’t racially pure. Or it has nothing to do with white supremacy.
Its the first one. They call the white people "race traitors."
Also, you continue to confirm the "wouldn't believe a man burning a cross on a black family's lawn was a racist" theory.
|
On November 11 2017 08:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:30 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance. Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember. Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment? Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society. Only GH can tie a church shooting to whites losing their control of society. White people sneeze in public or spit on sidewalks in gestures of white supremacy as well. This might be the first time I’ve seen a response on gun control as another aspect of white supremacy. lol. I mean he was a fan of Dylan Roof who was an open white supremacist, but you know, it's easier to act deluded and pretend white supremacy isn't a thing. He just got lost on the way to a predominantly African American Church and thought white supremacy means shooting up white church-goers and let loose. Because white supremacy means shooting white people. Yeah, that’s the trick! Or it had nothing to do with white supremacy. Lol you realize the pastor was Hispanic right? It was a mixed church, which tends to upset white supremacists. If you're going to pretend I'm wrong at least try to come up with less idiotic posts. So wait ... how many white people are you allowed to kill if the pastor is hispanic? This sounds like any congregation with at least one nonwhite person is at risk of an attack by white supremacists because they aren’t racially pure. Or it has nothing to do with white supremacy.
roflmao. As many as it takes. The idea that you can't kill white people if you're a white supremacist is remarkably stupid.
But it's probably the "intermixing" that really gets their goat.
|
On November 11 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:24 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2017 07:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a great piece on Moore from the National Review. Contrary to what many may believe, I read their stuff regularly! I don't come up with my notions that Conservative Principles are really just anti-left agitprop and kulturkampf from nowhere. Here is Jonah Goldberg's well reasoned piece. (bonus for conservatives, he complains about some twitter lefties doing some virtuesignaling for a few paragraphs too) But serious thinking is a thing in short supply these days. When I called for conservatives to disassociate themselves from Judge Roy Moore, the response from so many Bannonistas was depressing in its vacuity. But he’s a True Conservative®! No, he’s not. But he loves the Constitution! No, he doesn’t. He’s a real Christian! Really? He’ll fight for the Trump agenda! He will? Trump supported his more conservative opponent, and Moore didn’t even know what DACA was and he opposed Obamacare repeal. And, of course, Shut up, you anti-Christian bigot! All of this was hogwash then, and it’s hogwash now. What mattered is that people invested in Moore a meaning and symbolism he doesn’t deserve: He is one of us and he is against them. He’s not a person, he’s a talisman, a dashboard saint to a cause. I’m pretty sure Luther Strange is a conservative, a Christian, and a Constitutionalist. What he’s not is a thumb in the eye. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it’s true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn’t matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it. Bless my heart, I assumed that people who are so much more sanctimonious and preachy than I am would be able to draw a line at plying 14-year-old girls with booze and molesting them, particularly when the guy they’re defending won’t even defend the behavior himself. You’d think this would be the Colonel Nicholson moment where, like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai, they would mutter to themselves, “My God, what have I done?” and collapse to the ground. But no. They’d rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself. This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that is in the process of replacing conservative principles and arguments with the new lodestars of “fighting” and “winning.” Fighting and winning are amoral concepts, embraced equally by freedom fighters and totalitarians alike. Serious thinking begins with asking, “What are we fighting for?” “What are we trying to win?” But the distinctions don’t end there. “What are we willing to do for the sake of winning?” “What means will we tolerate to achieve our ends?” But even raising such questions is the stuff of cucks and swamp-dwellers. We are becoming the Party of Wales, and the “butthurt” of those we hate is its own reward.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principlesEDIT: williamson is an asshole, but every 2 months or so he writes something amazing. His 'white minstrel show' article is hot fire http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism I'm not sure you are going to find a conservative here who likes that principles are being thrown out the window (something I have talked about before). This is more directed at the Trump corrupted. In the case of the Alabama voter it very much is "what are we fighting for." In fact, those things might be the reason people vote for him. This is lesser of two evils in action. I do not agree that most people who chose Moore did so to stab a stick in the eye of the left. Also why people still make positive arguments for Strange not sure. But he lost. I won't harp on that too much. It's not too late for a write in though (assuming it's valid under state law). The Minnesota example is extremely relevant to this case as it also involved allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor. I'm fine with "there's nothing worse than the baby killing abortionist Democrats" as an argument but that doesn't lead us to "so let's go with the child molester".
I'm not disagreeing, the only question is who is put on the ballot? Perhaps my comment about the ballot earlier was misread. I don't think his primary challengers can be written in. someone else, perhaps. I'd be fine with that. If Moore dropped out it could dtill work.
|
On November 11 2017 08:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2017 08:24 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2017 07:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a great piece on Moore from the National Review. Contrary to what many may believe, I read their stuff regularly! I don't come up with my notions that Conservative Principles are really just anti-left agitprop and kulturkampf from nowhere. Here is Jonah Goldberg's well reasoned piece. (bonus for conservatives, he complains about some twitter lefties doing some virtuesignaling for a few paragraphs too) But serious thinking is a thing in short supply these days. When I called for conservatives to disassociate themselves from Judge Roy Moore, the response from so many Bannonistas was depressing in its vacuity. But he’s a True Conservative®! No, he’s not. But he loves the Constitution! No, he doesn’t. He’s a real Christian! Really? He’ll fight for the Trump agenda! He will? Trump supported his more conservative opponent, and Moore didn’t even know what DACA was and he opposed Obamacare repeal. And, of course, Shut up, you anti-Christian bigot! All of this was hogwash then, and it’s hogwash now. What mattered is that people invested in Moore a meaning and symbolism he doesn’t deserve: He is one of us and he is against them. He’s not a person, he’s a talisman, a dashboard saint to a cause. I’m pretty sure Luther Strange is a conservative, a Christian, and a Constitutionalist. What he’s not is a thumb in the eye. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it’s true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn’t matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it. Bless my heart, I assumed that people who are so much more sanctimonious and preachy than I am would be able to draw a line at plying 14-year-old girls with booze and molesting them, particularly when the guy they’re defending won’t even defend the behavior himself. You’d think this would be the Colonel Nicholson moment where, like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai, they would mutter to themselves, “My God, what have I done?” and collapse to the ground. But no. They’d rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself. This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that is in the process of replacing conservative principles and arguments with the new lodestars of “fighting” and “winning.” Fighting and winning are amoral concepts, embraced equally by freedom fighters and totalitarians alike. Serious thinking begins with asking, “What are we fighting for?” “What are we trying to win?” But the distinctions don’t end there. “What are we willing to do for the sake of winning?” “What means will we tolerate to achieve our ends?” But even raising such questions is the stuff of cucks and swamp-dwellers. We are becoming the Party of Wales, and the “butthurt” of those we hate is its own reward.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principlesEDIT: williamson is an asshole, but every 2 months or so he writes something amazing. His 'white minstrel show' article is hot fire http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism I'm not sure you are going to find a conservative here who likes that principles are being thrown out the window (something I have talked about before). This is more directed at the Trump corrupted. In the case of the Alabama voter it very much is "what are we fighting for." In fact, those things might be the reason people vote for him. This is lesser of two evils in action. I do not agree that most people who chose Moore did so to stab a stick in the eye of the left. Also why people still make positive arguments for Strange not sure. But he lost. I won't harp on that too much. It's not too late for a write in though (assuming it's valid under state law). The Minnesota example is extremely relevant to this case as it also involved allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor. I'm fine with "there's nothing worse than the baby killing abortionist Democrats" as an argument but that doesn't lead us to "so let's go with the child molester". I'm not disagreeing, the only question is who is put on the ballot? Perhaps my comment about the ballot earlier was misread. I don't think his primary challengers can be written in. someone else, perhaps. I'd be fine with that. If Moore dropped out it could dtill work.
I don't think sore loser laws apply to anything but pres election do they?
|
United States42789 Posts
On November 11 2017 08:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2017 08:24 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2017 07:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a great piece on Moore from the National Review. Contrary to what many may believe, I read their stuff regularly! I don't come up with my notions that Conservative Principles are really just anti-left agitprop and kulturkampf from nowhere. Here is Jonah Goldberg's well reasoned piece. (bonus for conservatives, he complains about some twitter lefties doing some virtuesignaling for a few paragraphs too) But serious thinking is a thing in short supply these days. When I called for conservatives to disassociate themselves from Judge Roy Moore, the response from so many Bannonistas was depressing in its vacuity. But he’s a True Conservative®! No, he’s not. But he loves the Constitution! No, he doesn’t. He’s a real Christian! Really? He’ll fight for the Trump agenda! He will? Trump supported his more conservative opponent, and Moore didn’t even know what DACA was and he opposed Obamacare repeal. And, of course, Shut up, you anti-Christian bigot! All of this was hogwash then, and it’s hogwash now. What mattered is that people invested in Moore a meaning and symbolism he doesn’t deserve: He is one of us and he is against them. He’s not a person, he’s a talisman, a dashboard saint to a cause. I’m pretty sure Luther Strange is a conservative, a Christian, and a Constitutionalist. What he’s not is a thumb in the eye. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it’s true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn’t matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it. Bless my heart, I assumed that people who are so much more sanctimonious and preachy than I am would be able to draw a line at plying 14-year-old girls with booze and molesting them, particularly when the guy they’re defending won’t even defend the behavior himself. You’d think this would be the Colonel Nicholson moment where, like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai, they would mutter to themselves, “My God, what have I done?” and collapse to the ground. But no. They’d rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself. This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that is in the process of replacing conservative principles and arguments with the new lodestars of “fighting” and “winning.” Fighting and winning are amoral concepts, embraced equally by freedom fighters and totalitarians alike. Serious thinking begins with asking, “What are we fighting for?” “What are we trying to win?” But the distinctions don’t end there. “What are we willing to do for the sake of winning?” “What means will we tolerate to achieve our ends?” But even raising such questions is the stuff of cucks and swamp-dwellers. We are becoming the Party of Wales, and the “butthurt” of those we hate is its own reward.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principlesEDIT: williamson is an asshole, but every 2 months or so he writes something amazing. His 'white minstrel show' article is hot fire http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism I'm not sure you are going to find a conservative here who likes that principles are being thrown out the window (something I have talked about before). This is more directed at the Trump corrupted. In the case of the Alabama voter it very much is "what are we fighting for." In fact, those things might be the reason people vote for him. This is lesser of two evils in action. I do not agree that most people who chose Moore did so to stab a stick in the eye of the left. Also why people still make positive arguments for Strange not sure. But he lost. I won't harp on that too much. It's not too late for a write in though (assuming it's valid under state law). The Minnesota example is extremely relevant to this case as it also involved allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor. I'm fine with "there's nothing worse than the baby killing abortionist Democrats" as an argument but that doesn't lead us to "so let's go with the child molester". I'm not disagreeing, the only question is who is put on the ballot? Perhaps my comment about the ballot earlier was misread. I don't think his primary challengers can be written in. someone else, perhaps. I'd be fine with that. If Moore dropped out it could dtill work.
Then I'm also not disagreeing. Enjoy your weekend.  
|
On November 11 2017 08:44 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:42 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2017 08:24 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2017 07:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a great piece on Moore from the National Review. Contrary to what many may believe, I read their stuff regularly! I don't come up with my notions that Conservative Principles are really just anti-left agitprop and kulturkampf from nowhere. Here is Jonah Goldberg's well reasoned piece. (bonus for conservatives, he complains about some twitter lefties doing some virtuesignaling for a few paragraphs too) But serious thinking is a thing in short supply these days. When I called for conservatives to disassociate themselves from Judge Roy Moore, the response from so many Bannonistas was depressing in its vacuity. But he’s a True Conservative®! No, he’s not. But he loves the Constitution! No, he doesn’t. He’s a real Christian! Really? He’ll fight for the Trump agenda! He will? Trump supported his more conservative opponent, and Moore didn’t even know what DACA was and he opposed Obamacare repeal. And, of course, Shut up, you anti-Christian bigot! All of this was hogwash then, and it’s hogwash now. What mattered is that people invested in Moore a meaning and symbolism he doesn’t deserve: He is one of us and he is against them. He’s not a person, he’s a talisman, a dashboard saint to a cause. I’m pretty sure Luther Strange is a conservative, a Christian, and a Constitutionalist. What he’s not is a thumb in the eye. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it’s true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn’t matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it. Bless my heart, I assumed that people who are so much more sanctimonious and preachy than I am would be able to draw a line at plying 14-year-old girls with booze and molesting them, particularly when the guy they’re defending won’t even defend the behavior himself. You’d think this would be the Colonel Nicholson moment where, like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai, they would mutter to themselves, “My God, what have I done?” and collapse to the ground. But no. They’d rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself. This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that is in the process of replacing conservative principles and arguments with the new lodestars of “fighting” and “winning.” Fighting and winning are amoral concepts, embraced equally by freedom fighters and totalitarians alike. Serious thinking begins with asking, “What are we fighting for?” “What are we trying to win?” But the distinctions don’t end there. “What are we willing to do for the sake of winning?” “What means will we tolerate to achieve our ends?” But even raising such questions is the stuff of cucks and swamp-dwellers. We are becoming the Party of Wales, and the “butthurt” of those we hate is its own reward.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principlesEDIT: williamson is an asshole, but every 2 months or so he writes something amazing. His 'white minstrel show' article is hot fire http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism I'm not sure you are going to find a conservative here who likes that principles are being thrown out the window (something I have talked about before). This is more directed at the Trump corrupted. In the case of the Alabama voter it very much is "what are we fighting for." In fact, those things might be the reason people vote for him. This is lesser of two evils in action. I do not agree that most people who chose Moore did so to stab a stick in the eye of the left. Also why people still make positive arguments for Strange not sure. But he lost. I won't harp on that too much. It's not too late for a write in though (assuming it's valid under state law). The Minnesota example is extremely relevant to this case as it also involved allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor. I'm fine with "there's nothing worse than the baby killing abortionist Democrats" as an argument but that doesn't lead us to "so let's go with the child molester". I'm not disagreeing, the only question is who is put on the ballot? Perhaps my comment about the ballot earlier was misread. I don't think his primary challengers can be written in. someone else, perhaps. I'd be fine with that. If Moore dropped out it could dtill work. I don't think sore loser laws apply to anything but pres election do they?
It prevents it under another party banner, not not write ins. They can't replace him at this point, absentee voting has already started. One month out is to close to the election, so he stays on.
|
On November 11 2017 08:44 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:42 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2017 08:24 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2017 07:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a great piece on Moore from the National Review. Contrary to what many may believe, I read their stuff regularly! I don't come up with my notions that Conservative Principles are really just anti-left agitprop and kulturkampf from nowhere. Here is Jonah Goldberg's well reasoned piece. (bonus for conservatives, he complains about some twitter lefties doing some virtuesignaling for a few paragraphs too) But serious thinking is a thing in short supply these days. When I called for conservatives to disassociate themselves from Judge Roy Moore, the response from so many Bannonistas was depressing in its vacuity. But he’s a True Conservative®! No, he’s not. But he loves the Constitution! No, he doesn’t. He’s a real Christian! Really? He’ll fight for the Trump agenda! He will? Trump supported his more conservative opponent, and Moore didn’t even know what DACA was and he opposed Obamacare repeal. And, of course, Shut up, you anti-Christian bigot! All of this was hogwash then, and it’s hogwash now. What mattered is that people invested in Moore a meaning and symbolism he doesn’t deserve: He is one of us and he is against them. He’s not a person, he’s a talisman, a dashboard saint to a cause. I’m pretty sure Luther Strange is a conservative, a Christian, and a Constitutionalist. What he’s not is a thumb in the eye. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it’s true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn’t matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it. Bless my heart, I assumed that people who are so much more sanctimonious and preachy than I am would be able to draw a line at plying 14-year-old girls with booze and molesting them, particularly when the guy they’re defending won’t even defend the behavior himself. You’d think this would be the Colonel Nicholson moment where, like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai, they would mutter to themselves, “My God, what have I done?” and collapse to the ground. But no. They’d rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself. This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that is in the process of replacing conservative principles and arguments with the new lodestars of “fighting” and “winning.” Fighting and winning are amoral concepts, embraced equally by freedom fighters and totalitarians alike. Serious thinking begins with asking, “What are we fighting for?” “What are we trying to win?” But the distinctions don’t end there. “What are we willing to do for the sake of winning?” “What means will we tolerate to achieve our ends?” But even raising such questions is the stuff of cucks and swamp-dwellers. We are becoming the Party of Wales, and the “butthurt” of those we hate is its own reward.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principlesEDIT: williamson is an asshole, but every 2 months or so he writes something amazing. His 'white minstrel show' article is hot fire http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism I'm not sure you are going to find a conservative here who likes that principles are being thrown out the window (something I have talked about before). This is more directed at the Trump corrupted. In the case of the Alabama voter it very much is "what are we fighting for." In fact, those things might be the reason people vote for him. This is lesser of two evils in action. I do not agree that most people who chose Moore did so to stab a stick in the eye of the left. Also why people still make positive arguments for Strange not sure. But he lost. I won't harp on that too much. It's not too late for a write in though (assuming it's valid under state law). The Minnesota example is extremely relevant to this case as it also involved allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor. I'm fine with "there's nothing worse than the baby killing abortionist Democrats" as an argument but that doesn't lead us to "so let's go with the child molester". I'm not disagreeing, the only question is who is put on the ballot? Perhaps my comment about the ballot earlier was misread. I don't think his primary challengers can be written in. someone else, perhaps. I'd be fine with that. If Moore dropped out it could dtill work. I don't think sore loser laws apply to anything but pres election do they?
quick Google search says he could run as a write in, but not as a Republican. I think what they mention about the party withdrawing its nomination is more interesting.
Per Alabama law, however, it is too late for Moore's name to be taken off the ballot. According to John Bennett, the spokesman for the Alabama secretary of state's office, even if the state Republican Party notifies the secretary of state that it has withdrawn its nomination of Moore, his name will remain on the ballot. And in that case, even if Moore receives the most votes, he will not be certified the winner. Legal counsel in the secretary of state's office interprets state law to require that a new special election be ordered. The same would happen if Moore withdrew from the race — a new special election would have to be ordered, according to Bennett.
Strange or another Republican candidate could run as a write-in candidate in the Dec. 12 election. While Alabama does have a so-called sore loser law, that only prohibits a losing candidate from running on another party line for the same office he lost, not as a write-in candidate, according to Bennett.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/09/563087945/woman-accuses-alabama-senate-candidate-of-sexual-contact-when-she-was-14
clearly best option is Moore finds some excuse and drops out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171107122846-texas-church-shooting-victims-theresa-and-richard-rodriguez-exlarge-169.jpg)
