Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There are more radical democrats who have more moderate democrats as targets. That makes the more radical democrats into republicans.

No, he really did have a small footprint compared to others. His state doesn't even have people register their party when they register.

Where do you get your kool-aid?

You.

 

[laughing dog]

There are more radical democrats who have more moderate democrats as targets. That makes the more radical democrats into republicans.

No, he really did have a small footprint compared to others. His state doesn't even have people register their party when they register.

Where do you get your kool-aid?

You.

No. I don’t have or distribute kool aid.

Are yoy trying to play 4-D checkers?

 

[Swammerdami]

When you ask some people how they feel about Kirk’s murder.
[blah blah "restrained jubilation"]

That’s just the subtle folks, others don’t even try to disguise it.

Doubt this very much. Trumplickers just like to fantasize that rational good-spirited Americans behave like Trumplickers and MAGGOTs.
Evil is what they know, and they assume that all humanity is as despicable as they are.

Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

Don't believe it? Do I need to link to the YouTubes of several prominent Fox News "personalities", and even GOP Congresspeople etc. cackling in glee about the near-fatal injuries that one of them delivered to Paul Pelosi?

 

[TSwizzle]

Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

 

[Elixir]

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

Own goals are always funny. Even when they die; that’s why there are “Darwin Awards”.
People wreaking violence on others, not so funny.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There are more radical democrats who have more moderate democrats as targets. That makes the more radical democrats into republicans.

No, he really did have a small footprint compared to others. His state doesn't even have people register their party when they register.

Where do you get your kool-aid?

You.

No. I don’t have or distribute kool aid.

Are yoy trying to play 4-D checkers?

That's your game.

 

[Politesse]

Glee? What he fuck are you talking about?

 

[TomC]

Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

It is a big Internet and I am sure could find nasty people cheering for Kirk's murder. But they are the exceptions.
What usually happens is people talking about how appalling Kirk's opinions were get misinterpreted in a way that resembles teapartiers.
Tom

 

[Swammerdami]

Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

So. When asked to substantiate your claim that A did B, you respond with non sequitur, making the (unsubstantiated!) claim that C did D.

No, don't bother blurting out that E did F. Save the neuronal effort for contemplation about your own cognitive inadequacies.

 

[Elixir]

No, don't bother blurting out that E did F. Save the neuronal effort for contemplation about your own cognitive inadequacies.

But wait! Don’t you want to spend a couple of pages exploring the qualitative differences between laughing at Colbert getting injured or killed by violent fascists, and MAGAt morons offing themselves by injecting bleach?

 

[TSwizzle]

Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

So. When asked to substantiate your claim that A did B, you respond with non sequitur, making the (unsubstantiated!) claim that C did D.

No, don't bother blurting out that E did F. Save the neuronal effort for contemplation about your own cognitive inadequacies.

Gibberish.

 

[Emily Lake]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.

You're kind of torturing the extension of an idea.

I'm frequently baffled by some of the things that people latch onto here and want to argue into the ground with a tenacity that approaches honey badger levels.

My position is that the balance achieved by RvW was good - it was a reasonable overall position, that allowed freedom of choice for the overwhelming number of cases, but still recognized that at some point it's a baby and maybe we shouldn't kill it. My position is that if congress had actually taken the interpretation that allowed RvW, and made an actual real on-the-books law, there's a pretty good chance that it would still be in place today. It's not some crazy outlandish stretch of the imagination to recognize that actual legislation is harder to overturn than non-legislative interpretations.

Why I'm being argued with on this, I really don't understand.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is, if the Supreme Court says there is.

This is your assertion, so defend it. Exactly what in the constitution would even remotely arguably be violated by a federal law defining abortion as legal?

 

[Emily Lake]

It is interesting to note that conservatives only bring up racism if they can somehow twist it into a counter argument, and not because they actually care about racism.

I think it's dumb to continue this crusade of casting Jason Harvestdancer as a racist. It's always been dumb, and it's never been supportably or defensible. None of his posts can reasonably be viewed as racist. I can only conclude that some people here, including you, lack the ability to actually debate a position like an adult, and instead think that name calling and insinuation somehow wins over hearts and minds.

 

[Emily Lake]

There have been some pretty bad things but not at the genocide level. Nobody set out to annihilate a population for religious reasons. Yes, there has been genocidal intent towards armed groups, not against groups that aren't attacking.

You will forgive me for not taking your word for any of this.

You don't need to take Loren's word for it. All you need to do is look around.

Which countries are christian theocracies enforcing fundamentalist regimes? Which christian groups have a stated intention of exterminating all non-christians from the planet? Which have actively funded recent terrorist acts targeting civilians? Which christian sects are currently engaged in religious wars? Which christian theocracies outlaw the practice of any other religion?

 

[bilby]

This is your assertion, so defend it.

The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Nobody is allowed to argue with a Supreme Court ruling on what the constitution allows or prohibits, except the Supreme Court.

And it is always possible to find an argument for or against any interpretation of a sufficiently complex document (such as the US Constitution). It may be a very bad argument, but if the Supreme Court accepts it as a majority opinion, it is the way the constitution must be interpreted, until the Supreme Court overturns it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This is your assertion, so defend it.

The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Nobody is allowed to argue with a Supreme Court ruling on what the constitution allows or prohibits, except the Supreme Court.

And it is always possible to find an argument for or against any interpretation of a sufficiently complex document (such as the US Constitution). It may be a very bad argument, but if the Supreme Court accepts it as a majority opinion, it is the way the constitution must be interpreted, until the Supreme Court overturns it.

In fact, many, if not most, Supreme Court opinions gave dissents, which means that there are Justices who can find arguments for and against a specific interpretation in a single case!

 

[Emily Lake]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.

With women like Emily Lake defending women's rights, who needs Charlie Kirk?!

Sure sure. I'm so horrible, what with my support of abortion rights up to viability with no questions asked, and wanting that to be an actual real law written as legislation so it has greater protection from legal challenge. I'm just awful, what with defending the right of women to have bodily autonomy, and the right to give or deny consent. Silly me, wanting women to have access to intimate spaces where we're naked or vulnerable that are free from males, the right of women to be housed in prison without being forced to share cells with males, and the right of women to compete in athletics against only other females. Such a horrible traitor to women everywhere, yep, that's me.

 

[Emily Lake]

And everybody who is not a leftist is automatically a "conservative" to you, right?

Nope. There's no objective measure of who is on any part of the political spectrum, but as far as I can tell conservatives tend to believe highly in nationalism "'Murica is greatest country in the world!" (and whatnot), a traditionalist belief system (blue hair is bad and scary!), "strong borders" (gubmit can do whatever they want to them illegals! And whatnot), being "tough on crime" (i.e. basically allowing cops to do whatever the fuck they want), to name a few things that can make a "conservative" a conservative.

Given the way you're framing this, I would say that you've greenlit conservatives framing liberals as believing that nations are stupid and that patriotism is evil, that social norms are oppressive no matter how reasonable, that borders are dumb and everybody should be able to go wherever they want with no consideration to citizenship or contribution to the communal good, and that catch-and-release of murderers and pedophiles is a great idea that should be adopted without any hesitation whatsoever because the happiness of criminals is really important and all prisons are bad.

Basically, your caricature demonstrates a deep and profound lack of understanding of those you have decided are your opponents (or perhaps even your enemies).

If you don't actually understand your opponent's motivations, you are guaranteed to lose.

 

[Elixir]

Such a horrible traitor to women everywhere,

Be that as it may, you’re still a really crappy Constitutional lawyer.