Lord Ratner

That's factually incorrect. What you put on social media is *absolutely* protected by the first amendment if the government is the one trying to block it. Which is literally what we're arguing over, government issuing the threat of legislation to compel censorship by social media companies. Further, the government is free to put out a message. That's very different than suppressing someone else's message. That's such a basic concept I'm shocked I have to type it. Again, how did the government do with the Coronavirus messaging? You really want these clowns going through the internet and highlighting "misinformation" for deletion? Can't wait to hear your support for such action from the next republican administration.

Again, theory, not practice. In practice, the Progressives are arguing for a reality that cannot be accepted by many, many people. The systemic racism argument. Trans women/men *are* women/men. Gender confused children should be given hormones against their parents wishes. Your business should be compelled to violate your mainstream religious beliefs. Reparations. Gun control (literally a constitutional issue). Hate speech should be illegal. Defund the police. And the common response to these issues from the left is something akin to "well you're just taking that cause too literally... It means something different." Defund the police. Systemic racism. Patriarchy. Rape culture. Either name your movements in a way that reflects their true purpose, or so whining when you get called out on being insane based on your own words. But really we all know it's just a defense. When a movement like Defund the Police becomes obviously and incredibly unpopular with the normal voters out there, the extremists/activists scramble to repackage and redefine the movement using double speak and jargon. Slightly modifying the great Groucho Marx... What're ya going to believe, me or your own ears? It's not "misinformation" to accurately describe a toxic movement to the American people. Or the origins of a novel virus. Remember how well the bipartisan experts did on the lab leak story? Besides, don't you have some responses to reply to? You must have been a dodgeball superstar in your youth, the way you selectively respond here.

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting. The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming. That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.

From Sullivan v Rhode Island: "It is true that appellants' books have not *67 been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions—the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation—the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable" and succeeded in its aim.[7] We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief.[8]" Additionally: "It is true, as noted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, that Silverstein was "free" to ignore the Commission's notices, in the sense that his refusal to "cooperate" would have violated no law. But it was found as a fact—and the finding, being amply supported by the record, binds us— that Silverstein's compliance with the Commission's directives was not voluntary. People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around, and Silverstein's reaction, according to uncontroverted testimony, was no exception to this general rule." But you just get off on being the contrarian here it seems, so I don't expect you to see the parallels.

How crazy a senator might be (and she's hardly near the top of that list) is irrelevant. If you can't see how that statement, from one of the highest levels of government possible, is demonstrative of the government threatening a private entity to do their bidding, then you're even drunker than I thought. The case law is clear, the influence does not need to be direct control. But that's really secondary to the point. We shouldn't be paying taxes for partisan political officials to scour the internet flagging speech they disagree with for removal, regardless of who has the final authority to decide.

From Diane Feinstein: “There are going to have to be some controls,” she said. “I’ve said, 'If you don’t control your platform, we’re going to have to do something about it.' I am hopeful that they will." You're not this stupid

That's all well and good, but I don't see any of it as a flaw. It's a necessary ingredient to change, and change is the basis for our continued growth and development. A lot of countries in Europe spend huge sums "protecting" people from the challenges you list, and they barely make a difference, other than to saddle the country with a ton of additional debt. There's a whole lot of people moving to non-coastal cities like Nashville and DFW, all which have their small-town suburbs surrounding them. You can read the currents and profit or fight them and drown, but we aren't an agrarian society so having 5 generations live in the same town isn't a viable option anymore. The monopoly stuff is all true, and it's why we have laws for it. But as you noted, the bigger problem is corporatism. As an example, Amazon gets tax cuts for opening new warehouses. Insanity. We need a constitutional ban on selective taxation that extends all the way to the local level. The greatest threat to a capitalist system is unfairness (of opportunity, not outcome). And no, it shouldn't be a luxury, and it's not. Buying the literal maximum amount of "stuff" with a given income is not a human right. Americans are some of the richest people in the world, and even the lower two quintiles can make choices. In most cases it's not a matter of "can they" but a matter of "do they care?" Just like littering, air pollution, organic produce, bike lanes, and fair-trade coffee, buying from mom and pop stores is a concern of the wealthy.

A lot of people want a lot of things. They get the rewards of their decisions. But their lives are still leagues ahead of the rest of the world, so while they aren't getting the very specific American Dream they desire, they are benefiting none the less. I have many relatives who refuse to move away from CA. They spend a lot of time complaining about how expensive it is, and the limited job opportunities. But when I tell them to leave... No way. Tough shit. They will flounder while millions of others move.

Crenshaw is the only one listed who is able to, and regularly does articulate the underlying principals behind his ideology. His podcast is excellent, and he has a terrific personality/sense of humor. He's a war hero, and he has a "gimmick" that will grab the attention of the reality-TV voters (eye patch). I'd like to see him run with Tim Scott, or someone similarly aggressive in their conservatism while bringing some not-just-another-white-guy diversity into it. It would be pretty badass of we elected a SEAL as president.

Well you have a habit of skipping the comments that do, so your contributions aren't particularly compelling either.

You are making a hypothetical without a basis in reality. Or to be more specific, you're leaving out some pretty big parts. In that scenario, Steel Mill A would end up with renewed competition if they raised the prices too much. For labor, lowering the wages simply pushes employees to work at other jobs (doesn't have to be another steel mill), which would crush Steel Mill A. "There are no other jobs" is a made-up condition. Where is there a single-company town? And if there is, why not move? You can see plenty of industries where exactly that happened. No one said capitalism is without suffering or pain. It's turbulent, but it's simply the best option out there. The gains are overwhelming, and for those who aren't the direct beneficiaries of the spoils of capitalism, the capitalist countries they live in provide *drastically* better living conditions for their poor/impoverished citizens. I prefer to shop at mom and pop stores now that I have the income to do so without hurting my financial goals. I'm not alone. Amazon has been around for less than a single generation, and it will take time for the changes to stabilize. But the arguments made are not new, and our system persists despite the many predictions of dystopian collapse.

The basis for those actions is literally the first sentence in the bill of rights. I'm not for the bleaching of religion from public spaces, but the concept of "separation of church and state" is quite clearly in the Bill of Rights, making it a part of the constitution.

This is one of the most mind-boggling arguments that I see all the time from the left. Wealth is created. It is not static. Yes, the basis for wealth and the monetary systems we use to support it are fundamentally systems of exchanging labor. But that labor value is not fixed. When you look at the billionaire class, overwhelmingly they are represented by people who created fundamental changes in how labor functions, freeing up incredible amounts of labor to be dedicated into other pursuits. That is the creation of additional labor/wealth. They did not take it from anybody, and to say so is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Now, if you want to get into a conversation specifically about wealth transfer in the banking and finance system, I think there is a very strong argument there for criticizing the manipulation of financial instruments to move wealth from one person to another. But that's not where most of the billionaires come from, and it's not the argument being made by the most visible politicians/activists on the left. Jeff Bezos is worth billions because millions of people wanted to exchange their wealth for his services. He didn't trap 100,000 people in a warehouse and collect their labor. You want to know why so many conservatives view the Democratic party as an existential threat? Because anyone who thinks about the economy the way you described clearly would destroy it through sheer incompetence alone.

That's not addressing the point. The founders had slaves and decried slavery, so contractions abound. You'll notice there's nothing in the Constitution about forfeiting all property "to the society" after you die. You asked how it squared with the idea of "created equal," implying a connection, but there is none. I gave examples of other advantages you can be born with. Created equal means created with the same rights and freedoms, from the government, as anyone else. Whether you inherit $10 billion dollars or nothing at all, you have a right to due process, a right to association, free speech, etc. Our system is immensely successful precisely because the founders didn't incorporate personal opinions of fairness into the government's control. Limited government. You have a right to give your children whatever is yours. You have the same rights and freedoms as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos had to make fortunes. Inherited wealth is not particularly enduring, and most of the billionaires/millionaires in America are self-made. So your argument is an emotional one, not a practical one.

Every one of your arguments is founded on reinterpreting concepts and quotes from the literal authors of the source material. A link to an article explaining CRT is not compelling when compared to the authors of CRT. Remember way back when I posted the article from the second largest teachers union in the country supporting Critical Race Theory? Your retort to that was to post something else from secondary sources and surveys. Why on Earth would you take that over the literal stated position of the teachers' union? Because it doesn't fit your narrative. An organization run by Marxists with Marxist principals on their website (until they became headlines) is somehow not actually Marxist. Lol. That's mental gymnastics. I also love the idea that you have to go to communist Russia for some reason to learn about a German ideology... Seriously do you know anything at all about the topics on which you opine? Honestly, the most amusing part of arguing with someone like you is that you capitalize MARXISM as though anyone is treating it as a boogie man. It's not. It's a fairly old, fairly persistent, and fairly dangerous ideology that rears its head repeatedly over the years. It's not fuzzy, the concepts are very well understood by both sides. But because you can't fathom a situation where your political opponents aren't just a bunch of backwards hick redneck religious nuts, you have to caricature their argument into something it's not. You go ahead and Google a bunch of sources that try to make CRT something that it's not. Pretend like anti-racism isn't what it is. I'll just continue to cite the authors of these doctrines when speaking about their ideas, rather than relying on a completely fabricated alternative explanation that better fits my ideology. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if Republicans started espousing the merits of Nazism, but every time you referenced Hitler or the Holocaust, the republican explained how Nazism is more of a nebulous concept that covers lots of things, and did that "trained Nazi" actually go to Germany to learn about being a Nazi? Your posts have become almost as audacious as the press secretary getting on national TV and claiming that um, actually, it's the Republicans who are the party of defund the police! Why are you blaming democrats?! I could be wrong, but your posts read as a well-meaning but completely ignorant liberal who's just caught up in the mythos that is being told to you about the other side. Pretty much the same thing that's happened in the Republican party in a lot of ways. But it's a pretty solid strategy, because it stops you from thinking critically about anything that "your side" is doing. And right now, the democrats are doing some amazing stuff. Conversely, your almost deliberate refusal to use the source material when defining these concepts seems like a little bit more than casual ignorance. It's incredible that not a single Republican politician has met with white supremacists, read from their books publicly, or donated to their causes, yet we're still fed the bullshit line that the conservative movement is aligned with white nationalism. But even the most casual link is distorted and misrepresented as some sort of full-throated endorsement of a hateful and racist ideology. Democrats however jump fully in bed with people espousing the most fatal ideology in the history of humanity (yes, your favorite bogey man, Marxism), quote them publicly, join them in protests, and defend them fiercely from any sort of criticism, but don't you dare call the Democratic party Marxist. And don't you dare call them racist either, because only white people can be racist in America (another real claim by White Fragility author and leftist darling Robin DiAngelo).

Can you define CRT? I ask because I find that the people quickest to defend it are either A) the propagators or B) liberals who have no idea what it is. You are the latter. A Marxist plot... Yes. Yes that's correct, because the people who created it, as well as the biggest propagators (e.g., BLM) are open Marxists. Critical Race Theory is a race-based evolution of Critical Theory. Critical Theory is literally Marxist. From Wiki: "it argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors." Conversely, "CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” Sound familiar? So yeah. It's a real thing, with a real definition, with real proponents pushing it in real life. Your ignorance, which is evidently substantial, does not change that. Take a step back from your bubble, which *exactly* like the republican bubble has trained you to reflexively dismiss anything you hear from the other side, and realize that just like there are factions within the conservative side of America, there are factions within liberal America. One of those factions is very powerful in politics, media, and academia despite having nearly zero presence in middle America. Yet they are whispering in the President's ear, and he is dutifully repeating their garbage.

I completely agree with what you said (creationism is inoffensive compared to CRT), but then again, I wasn't responding to you. However the claim that creationism has more scientific support than evolution is lunacy. And since the big bang was bought up as well, there's zero evidence for the seven day creation story, and a decent (though by no means conclusive) set of evidence for the big bang. I'm familiar with the mental gymnastics some do to reconcile the literal word of the bible with science. And I'm quite happy to discuss/debate it if you want, but let's move it to a new thread. Creationism is almost entirely harmless historical storytelling (IMO). CRT is a terrible threat if it blossoms. Both are religion, and not all religions are equal.

No, that argument has no logical continuity. What about being born with smarter parents? What about being born with genes that will make you taller? Should we force "equity" of height and parental intelligence too, since we have scientifically validated evidence that they provide advantages? It's created with equal rights, not equal surroundings. The founders weren't obtuse.

And yet, mountains of evidence more than their is for any story of creationism. Religious people do much better using a faith-based argument than a science-based one. And they really shouldn't push for teaching their religion in public school, because CRT is becoming the religion of the progressives. And it's got about the same level of scientific support.

Sort of. FedEx allows you to "deviate" from a planned deadhead. If you get a trip that starts with a deadhead (riding in the back), they will switch the starting airport from your hub/domicile to wherever you want, as long as the cost is equal to or less. But they also have a "bank" I believe where you can store up the cost difference of cheaper deviated deadheads for when the deviated leg is more expensive than the original deadhead. With AA, if your trip starts or ends with a deadhead, you can switch it to a deadhead from/to your home city. Cost doesn't matter, but unlike FDX, it has to be on AA metal. Very common tactic for commuters.

You were saying? https://www.manhattan-institute.org/embracing-critical-theory-teachers-union-says-they-control-what-kids-learn At what point do you guys realize that you have no idea what you're talking about? Further, will you recognize that your ignorance is part of the strategy employed by the very movement you seem to believe doesn't exist?

Why don't you describe it for us?

Most of the "Marxists" knew nothing about Marx, they just wanted to belong to the intellectual class, which has *always* been infatuated with Marx for the same reason Marx wrote what he did. If only people did what I think is best, we'd live in a Utopia. So no, the dear general is likely not a Marxist. He's either what is historically called a "useful idiot," or a habitual yes-man. As a general, the latter is most probable. But when you are espousing and promoting the theories of proud Marxists, you shouldn't be shocked if you get lumped in with them.

Bro... Given his entire adult life? Have you seen what the AF is like once you make colonel? Being busy is not a sacrifice, especially with the attendant rewards of being a general officer. I know plenty of corporate executives who work every bit as much as the O-6+ class, and more. They miss family events, work on vacation, and also very little sleep. Like the generals, they do it for the pay, power, and prestige. And they aren't bad people for it. They also aren't martyrs. There are good ones and bad ones. But an undying passion for the flag gets you through boot camp, not War College.

He's a tool, like all of them, and he makes bullshit arguments like the best politicians in the world. Why isn't Marx or Lenin on the reading list? First inconsistency. Second, if he's comparing the reading of Marx and Lenin to Kendi (for understanding alternate views), is he acknowledging that all three are morally bankrupt? I assure you he would not claim that about Kendi lest his career be put in jeopardy. Third, if you read Marx and Lenin to learn about communism, wouldn't you read Duke or Jared Taylor to learn about white supremacy? Where are those recommendations? Once again liberal voters are being taken for a ride. CRT, just like anti-racism, has existing literature. You can read it. It's crazy at best, *overtly* racist at worst. But the people who wrote the books and the hacks who promote them lie on TV about the very content they created. It's wild. If you haven't read "How to be an Antiracist" or "White Fragility," maybe don't be so quick to defend them.