Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 6:23 pm
Real candidates for important government positions of trust. Oh, and Republicans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5FfPy24N-w
LaxPower Back-Up Stick
Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie
Page 408 of 551
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 7:03 pm
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:06 pm
Satire is delicious.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... st-satire/
““Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.” — Statement from Morton’s, after protesters gathered outside the D.C. steakhouse while Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh ate there.
Oh, this is embarrassing! The right to congregate and eat dinner is actually not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. I have been studying the Constitution very carefully, including the emanations of the penumbras, and I can see why people might think there was some inherent right to dinner. Eating seems so fundamental: Whether or not you want to have steak inside yourself seems like something you ought to be able to determine on your own behalf. Eating and chewing, alone or in the company of others, feels as though it ought to be up to the person most affected, and protected from abridgment of any kind, even by the states.
But actually, there is a higher authority to whom we must answer on this question. The Bible (technically not the Constitution, but there are people working to fix that!) relates that Adam and Eve ate dinner, once, in public, and this was such a grave offense that they were kicked out of their home immediately and hassled with flaming swords. Mankind was then forced to develop farming and wear pants.
God was very clear on the subject: Dinner is a sin. How could there possibly be a right to it? Jesus ate a nice dinner with 12 friends upstairs in a restaurant one time and he was sent to die in a horrible manner. He who eats dinner will get his deserts, afterwards.
Some argue that even if this made any theological sense, theology should not hold sway in the governance of our country, where there is (or at any rate, used to be) something called the establishment clause that separates church and state. To this, the Supreme Court responds, “You have hit adulthood, and you still believe in Establishment Clause?”
Besides, it is not merely the Bible that suggests you have no right to dinner and are naive and wrong to think that you do. Why, didn’t the philosopher Pythagoras believe that fava beans contained souls, and therefore avoid eating them at all costs? And where are fava beans served but at dinner? (Lunches and dinners, I suppose, if you are creative — but that is not very originalist.)
Can we update our thinking on this point at all, given that Pythagoras was operating in the 6th century BCE and the bean thing sounds made up? No. Tradition is the bedrock of all jurisprudence. To those who would suggest that we evolve, or that we not impose our religious or leguminous beliefs on others, I say, “HERETIC! HERETIC! TORCHES, QUICKLY!”
I understand that all this may seem counterintuitive to Justice Kavanaugh, as a person who lives in the present time and is accustomed to thinking of himself as an entity entitled to respect and endowed with the power to make choices for himself and his family.
He might want his old freedom back, or ask for someone to escort him through the gantlet of protesters who want him to feel bad about his choices, which after all don’t affect anyone other than millions of people whose lives are going to be fundamentally changed and whom he is consigning to a status lower than that of full person with the bodily autonomy and right to direct their lives that this entails.
He might say, “This is a horrible constraint to put on me! I am just trying to live my life, with my family, according to my own lights! I just want to have dinner, like a person!” And I sympathize! I would love to find that this was a right. But there is no right, however seemingly basic, that cannot vanish away like a ghostly mist the second someone remembers that there might be a medieval text, somewhere, out there that disagrees. And the Bible. And the beans. I’m sorry! My hands are tied.“
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... st-satire/
““Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.” — Statement from Morton’s, after protesters gathered outside the D.C. steakhouse while Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh ate there.
Oh, this is embarrassing! The right to congregate and eat dinner is actually not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. I have been studying the Constitution very carefully, including the emanations of the penumbras, and I can see why people might think there was some inherent right to dinner. Eating seems so fundamental: Whether or not you want to have steak inside yourself seems like something you ought to be able to determine on your own behalf. Eating and chewing, alone or in the company of others, feels as though it ought to be up to the person most affected, and protected from abridgment of any kind, even by the states.
But actually, there is a higher authority to whom we must answer on this question. The Bible (technically not the Constitution, but there are people working to fix that!) relates that Adam and Eve ate dinner, once, in public, and this was such a grave offense that they were kicked out of their home immediately and hassled with flaming swords. Mankind was then forced to develop farming and wear pants.
God was very clear on the subject: Dinner is a sin. How could there possibly be a right to it? Jesus ate a nice dinner with 12 friends upstairs in a restaurant one time and he was sent to die in a horrible manner. He who eats dinner will get his deserts, afterwards.
Some argue that even if this made any theological sense, theology should not hold sway in the governance of our country, where there is (or at any rate, used to be) something called the establishment clause that separates church and state. To this, the Supreme Court responds, “You have hit adulthood, and you still believe in Establishment Clause?”
Besides, it is not merely the Bible that suggests you have no right to dinner and are naive and wrong to think that you do. Why, didn’t the philosopher Pythagoras believe that fava beans contained souls, and therefore avoid eating them at all costs? And where are fava beans served but at dinner? (Lunches and dinners, I suppose, if you are creative — but that is not very originalist.)
Can we update our thinking on this point at all, given that Pythagoras was operating in the 6th century BCE and the bean thing sounds made up? No. Tradition is the bedrock of all jurisprudence. To those who would suggest that we evolve, or that we not impose our religious or leguminous beliefs on others, I say, “HERETIC! HERETIC! TORCHES, QUICKLY!”
I understand that all this may seem counterintuitive to Justice Kavanaugh, as a person who lives in the present time and is accustomed to thinking of himself as an entity entitled to respect and endowed with the power to make choices for himself and his family.
He might want his old freedom back, or ask for someone to escort him through the gantlet of protesters who want him to feel bad about his choices, which after all don’t affect anyone other than millions of people whose lives are going to be fundamentally changed and whom he is consigning to a status lower than that of full person with the bodily autonomy and right to direct their lives that this entails.
He might say, “This is a horrible constraint to put on me! I am just trying to live my life, with my family, according to my own lights! I just want to have dinner, like a person!” And I sympathize! I would love to find that this was a right. But there is no right, however seemingly basic, that cannot vanish away like a ghostly mist the second someone remembers that there might be a medieval text, somewhere, out there that disagrees. And the Bible. And the beans. I’m sorry! My hands are tied.“
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:27 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:06 pm Satire is delicious.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... st-satire/
““Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.” — Statement from Morton’s, after protesters gathered outside the D.C. steakhouse while Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh ate there.
Oh, this is embarrassing! The right to congregate and eat dinner is actually not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. I have been studying the Constitution very carefully, including the emanations of the penumbras, and I can see why people might think there was some inherent right to dinner. Eating seems so fundamental: Whether or not you want to have steak inside yourself seems like something you ought to be able to determine on your own behalf. Eating and chewing, alone or in the company of others, feels as though it ought to be up to the person most affected, and protected from abridgment of any kind, even by the states.
But actually, there is a higher authority to whom we must answer on this question. The Bible (technically not the Constitution, but there are people working to fix that!) relates that Adam and Eve ate dinner, once, in public, and this was such a grave offense that they were kicked out of their home immediately and hassled with flaming swords. Mankind was then forced to develop farming and wear pants.
God was very clear on the subject: Dinner is a sin. How could there possibly be a right to it? Jesus ate a nice dinner with 12 friends upstairs in a restaurant one time and he was sent to die in a horrible manner. He who eats dinner will get his deserts, afterwards.
Some argue that even if this made any theological sense, theology should not hold sway in the governance of our country, where there is (or at any rate, used to be) something called the establishment clause that separates church and state. To this, the Supreme Court responds, “You have hit adulthood, and you still believe in Establishment Clause?”
Besides, it is not merely the Bible that suggests you have no right to dinner and are naive and wrong to think that you do. Why, didn’t the philosopher Pythagoras believe that fava beans contained souls, and therefore avoid eating them at all costs? And where are fava beans served but at dinner? (Lunches and dinners, I suppose, if you are creative — but that is not very originalist.)
Can we update our thinking on this point at all, given that Pythagoras was operating in the 6th century BCE and the bean thing sounds made up? No. Tradition is the bedrock of all jurisprudence. To those who would suggest that we evolve, or that we not impose our religious or leguminous beliefs on others, I say, “HERETIC! HERETIC! TORCHES, QUICKLY!”
I understand that all this may seem counterintuitive to Justice Kavanaugh, as a person who lives in the present time and is accustomed to thinking of himself as an entity entitled to respect and endowed with the power to make choices for himself and his family.
He might want his old freedom back, or ask for someone to escort him through the gantlet of protesters who want him to feel bad about his choices, which after all don’t affect anyone other than millions of people whose lives are going to be fundamentally changed and whom he is consigning to a status lower than that of full person with the bodily autonomy and right to direct their lives that this entails.
He might say, “This is a horrible constraint to put on me! I am just trying to live my life, with my family, according to my own lights! I just want to have dinner, like a person!” And I sympathize! I would love to find that this was a right. But there is no right, however seemingly basic, that cannot vanish away like a ghostly mist the second someone remembers that there might be a medieval text, somewhere, out there that disagrees. And the Bible. And the beans. I’m sorry! My hands are tied.“
The left is trying to push this dangerous harassment, hoping something happens to Brett Kavanaugh; that’s how bad they want that seat.
This is the country the left want to live in. One where we just harass, pester, and intimidate those that we don’t agree with into submission because we don’t agree with them. If someone dies, so be it.
Sounds like a great place to live.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:41 pm
Whooooooosshhhhhhh!!!!!
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:20 pm
A person familiar with the situation said that Kavanaugh did not encounter the protesters at all and was able to finish his meal before leaving without dessert.
Hell hath no fury like a barely inconvenienced old white conservative dude and his supporters.
Hell hath no fury like a barely inconvenienced old white conservative dude and his supporters.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:22 pm
How did the protesters get inside Morton’s? Didn’t they need a reservation?NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:20 pm A person familiar with the situation said that Kavanaugh did not encounter the protesters at all and was able to finish his meal before leaving without dessert.
Hell hath no fury like a barely inconvenienced old white conservative dude and his supporters.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:29 am
Mortons requires a heartrate under 40bpm and sufficiently pruned hands to get in. So no protestors were actually allowed inside.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:22 pmHow did the protesters get inside Morton’s? Didn’t they need a reservation?NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:20 pm A person familiar with the situation said that Kavanaugh did not encounter the protesters at all and was able to finish his meal before leaving without dessert.
Hell hath no fury like a barely inconvenienced old white conservative dude and his supporters.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:42 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:29 amMortons requires a heartrate under 40bpm and sufficiently pruned hands to get in. So no protestors were actually allowed inside.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:22 pmHow did the protesters get inside Morton’s? Didn’t they need a reservation?NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:20 pm A person familiar with the situation said that Kavanaugh did not encounter the protesters at all and was able to finish his meal before leaving without dessert.
Hell hath no fury like a barely inconvenienced old white conservative dude and his supporters.
I’m fairly positive Democrats won’t like the new rules where we get to intimidate restaurant patrons.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:32 am
No one was ever inside intimidating him. But everyone already knows conservatives are really experienced at actual harassment. You're really bad at your little schtick though. Like, incredibly embarrassingly bad. It's painful to watch you struggle and fail to "own the libs" on a daily basis.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:42 amI’m fairly positive Democrats won’t like the new rules where we get to intimidate restaurant patrons.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:38 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:32 amNo one was ever inside intimidating him. But everyone already knows conservatives are really experienced at actual harassment. You're really bad at your little schtick though. Like, incredibly embarrassingly bad. It's painful to watch you struggle and fail to "own the libs" on a daily basis.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:42 amI’m fairly positive Democrats won’t like the new rules where we get to intimidate restaurant patrons.
Are you suggesting that modern-day Democrats should behave identically to 1960’s racists?
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:29 am
LMAO you really don't get it? No surprise there I guessPeter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:38 amNattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:32 amNo one was ever inside intimidating him. But everyone already knows conservatives are really experienced at actual harassment. You're really bad at your little schtick though. Like, incredibly embarrassingly bad. It's painful to watch you struggle and fail to "own the libs" on a daily basis.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:42 amI’m fairly positive Democrats won’t like the new rules where we get to intimidate restaurant patrons.
Are you suggesting that modern-day Democrats should behave identically to 1960’s racists?
I'll explain it in simple terms. I said "conservatives are really experienced at actual harassment." Simple statement. And I showed you a photo of what actual harassment looks like. A photo of conservatives harassing and assaulting people in a restaurant. They also frequently punched and kicked and beat restaurant patrons. Very different from a peaceful protest outside of a restaurant.
So no, I'm not suggesting modern-day democrats should behave like 1960's boomer conservatives who make up a big chunk of congress. I'm showing you conservative intimidation and violence in restaurants is very different from the peaceful protests against Kavanaugh outside the restaurant.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:59 pm
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:29 amLMAO you really don't get it? No surprise there I guessPeter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:38 amNattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:32 amNo one was ever inside intimidating him. But everyone already knows conservatives are really experienced at actual harassment. You're really bad at your little schtick though. Like, incredibly embarrassingly bad. It's painful to watch you struggle and fail to "own the libs" on a daily basis.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:42 amI’m fairly positive Democrats won’t like the new rules where we get to intimidate restaurant patrons.
Are you suggesting that modern-day Democrats should behave identically to 1960’s racists?
I'll explain it in simple terms. I said "conservatives are really experienced at actual harassment." Simple statement. And I showed you a photo of what actual harassment looks like. A photo of conservatives harassing and assaulting people in a restaurant. They also frequently punched and kicked and beat restaurant patrons. Very different from a peaceful protest outside of a restaurant.
So no, I'm not suggesting modern-day democrats should behave like 1960's boomer conservatives who make up a big chunk of congress. I'm showing you conservative intimidation and violence in restaurants is very different from the peaceful protests against Kavanaugh outside the restaurant.
Uh huh
- A81C936E-351D-4D17-935C-812FC1D35379.jpeg (179.9 KiB) Viewed 711 times
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:38 pm
Is that Kavanaugh?
Seems to me that what that picture displays is exactly, and obviously, what the White House has condemned, "intimidation". Way out of bounds.
But that wasn't what Kavanaugh faced. The protestors never entered the restaurant, were never close to him.
Protesting outside someone's home or outside a restaurant they've chosen to go to is a very different act of freedom of speech being exercised.
Personally, I'd like to think that we could figure out some reasonable amount of distance that people should be able to expect between themselves and protestors and whether at work or not and I'd prefer to err to more distance and some expectation of 'private' time...however, it's a hard Constitutional question. And "privacy" certainly seems to not hold up in far more "private" matters.
Perhaps one or more of our legal folks can educate us on what has been previously decided in this area by SCOTUS; Not that precedent apparently matters any more, but it'd be interesting.
Likewise, the kinds of very direct threats made on people's lives that we're seeing, whether in a phone call or tweet or whatever, certainly seems like that should be considered a criminal act.
Seems to me that what that picture displays is exactly, and obviously, what the White House has condemned, "intimidation". Way out of bounds.
But that wasn't what Kavanaugh faced. The protestors never entered the restaurant, were never close to him.
Protesting outside someone's home or outside a restaurant they've chosen to go to is a very different act of freedom of speech being exercised.
Personally, I'd like to think that we could figure out some reasonable amount of distance that people should be able to expect between themselves and protestors and whether at work or not and I'd prefer to err to more distance and some expectation of 'private' time...however, it's a hard Constitutional question. And "privacy" certainly seems to not hold up in far more "private" matters.
Perhaps one or more of our legal folks can educate us on what has been previously decided in this area by SCOTUS; Not that precedent apparently matters any more, but it'd be interesting.
Likewise, the kinds of very direct threats made on people's lives that we're seeing, whether in a phone call or tweet or whatever, certainly seems like that should be considered a criminal act.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:46 pm
How many beers did he have?NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:20 pm A person familiar with the situation said that Kavanaugh did not encounter the protesters at all and was able to finish his meal before leaving without dessert.
Hell hath no fury like a barely inconvenienced old white conservative dude and his supporters.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:23 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:38 pm Is that Kavanaugh?
Seems to me that what that picture displays is exactly, and obviously, what the White House has condemned, "intimidation". Way out of bounds.
But that wasn't what Kavanaugh faced. The protestors never entered the restaurant, were never close to him.
Protesting outside someone's home or outside a restaurant they've chosen to go to is a very different act of freedom of speech being exercised.
Personally, I'd like to think that we could figure out some reasonable amount of distance that people should be able to expect between themselves and protestors and whether at work or not and I'd prefer to err to more distance and some expectation of 'private' time...however, it's a hard Constitutional question. And "privacy" certainly seems to not hold up in far more "private" matters.
Perhaps one or more of our legal folks can educate us on what has been previously decided in this area by SCOTUS; Not that precedent apparently matters any more, but it'd be interesting.
Likewise, the kinds of very direct threats made on people's lives that we're seeing, whether in a phone call or tweet or whatever, certainly seems like that should be considered a criminal act.
Yeah, so? I believe NattyBo said: “conservatives are really experienced at actual harassment”.
I’m simply showing him modern day Democrats hassling normal taxpayers trying to enjoy their one night out at dinner, even BEFORE the newest court decision.
Democrats won’t like where they want to take the country. They never consider that they won’t be in power. See: Harry Reid and the filibuster.
If Democrats believe that the intimidation game is to their advantage, I’d remind them that the game is always won by those with more muscle and more guns; they’ll be begging to go back into civil times.
It’ll be too late.
James Hodgkinson. Nicholas Roske. Antifa. And the likes of AOC cheering them on.
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:47 pm
“ I’d remind them that the game is always won by those with more muscle and more guns”
Yah think?
Yah think?
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:54 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:23 pm If Democrats believe that the intimidation game is to their advantage, I’d remind them that the game is always won by those with more muscle and more guns; they’ll be begging to go back into civil times.
Skipped over our labor history, too, Petey?Did you study ANYTHING at college? Anything at all?
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:39 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:54 pmPeter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:23 pm If Democrats believe that the intimidation game is to their advantage, I’d remind them that the game is always won by those with more muscle and more guns; they’ll be begging to go back into civil times.
Did you study ANYTHING at college? Anything at all?
Labor won? News to me.
Who skipped history, again?
Re: Conservative Ideology
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:46 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:39 pmLabor won? News to me.a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:54 pmPeter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:23 pm If Democrats believe that the intimidation game is to their advantage, I’d remind them that the game is always won by those with more muscle and more guns; they’ll be begging to go back into civil times.
Did you study ANYTHING at college? Anything at all?
Who skipped history, again?
Pete....who the F do you think labor is in 2022? The average TrumpNut in rural America that MAY have a GED? Or the coastal liberal elites you hate so much that have multiple degrees from top Universities?
Or I'll make it even easier for you to understand: do you think idiotic libs who show up to someone's home, or dinner table has worked with their hands at any point during their life?
These are the rich liberal wankers who HIRED the Pinkerton's Pete. Wake up.