Negatory

Not surprised Brabus. During some of this discourse through the years I actually, at one point, mistakenly thought you were smart.

No one else wants to engage? We doing the echo chamber thing again where we get really mad at a fallacious argument? Gotta love the analysis capabilities of retired military officers. Let’s look at this. The specific issue with your argument is that you say a couple of facts, but you entirely discount very important tenets to why Americans a a whole did what they did, and then you say something wildly out there that does not logically follow: “the shot should NEVER have been MANDATED.” Very Tucker Carlson approach. The purpose of the shot was to stop transmission so that old people, who had a MORTALITY rate above the single percentages (and a similarly high severe disease rate requiring hospitalization) wouldn’t die in droves and entirely inundate the healthcare system. Everyone understood it wouldn’t kill young people, yes, even early on. The purpose was to maintain the healthcare system. https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327 Republicans may not have liked doing something to try and protect the population, but the country as a whole was supportive of efforts to not have every one of their grandparents have a real chance of death. Here are the facts: Side effects of the vaccine were NOT well understood until it was made and distributed to a significant portion of the population, and the negative heart effects are not typical of other vaccine efforts. Those are real, and they are unfortunate. If you say otherwise, provide proof. The fact that it does not significantly limit spread was NOT understood - it initially was believed to significantly cut spread, up to 90%. It didn’t, and that is unfortunate. If you argue otherwise, provide proof. As a side note, many of you strongly pushed for ivermectin just because conservative propaganda wanted you to go against the grain, which has still been shown to have almost no efficacy and multiple bad side effects. Don’t see that addressed very often on here. The vaccine has a very high efficacy rate of reducing mortality and severe illness in those over a certain age. It reduces death rates in populations over 60 by up to 90% in many excess death analyses. Also, republican areas that refused the vaccine had significantly more excess deaths than areas that did not. You entirely discount this point. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna50883 You’ll note that many on this forum - me included - advocated for the vaccine when these things were believed: that it would limit spread, have no significant side effects (like most other vaccines), and limit mortality in vulnerable populations. It only accomplished limiting mortality (which you entirely scoff), and that’s when liberals as a population began not pushing for vaccination as the solution anymore. Especially not for young people, as they were a transmission vector whether or not they got the shots. You’ll also note that, as facts came out that showed the vaccine was not going to be effective from a transmission perspective, they were acknowledged and the push for vaccines decreased. Reminder: Trump recommended vaccination for the first year. Your anger is unjustified. Your argument is fallacious. You have taken rational thought to protect a portion of society - which, fine, you may have disagreed with, but it’s still rooted in logic and rational - and vilified it to the point of insulting your countrymen and implying we are part of what is wrong with America. That hostility and open contempt of others who looked at a problem differently than you did is what is wrong with America. And yes, I recognize there were others on the liberal side that were contemptuous. But let’s not reframe the argument, as a few folks on here including you have done, to you were always right and everyone else was always wrong and what a FUCKIN TRAVESTY. What an absolutely asinine, non intellectual take. Oh, and, as always, I am able to provide actual sources for every single thing I said. But I am going to elect to wait for you to start. Good luck.

Oh would it read better if it said “the right” instead of “you guys?” Because it reads exactly the same.

Sure, let’s do those things. You don’t realize WE DON’T CARE about protecting people like this, that’s you guys with your false equivalencies.

It’s funny how in one breath you guys say “we aren’t advocating civil war” and then you advocate what is effectively civil war. Remember, there are more democrats in Texas than there are Republicans in most states. Vice versa for Republicans in California. Anyone who calls for state secession or a national divorce is either blindingly ignorant or willfully malicious, and you are the opposite of a patriot. Also, it’s rich coming from ”the party of Lincoln.”

Projection is a hell of a drug. Maybe some self reflection is in order.

Nah bro, says that you oversimplify things significantly into right or wrong, black or white. You have become what you criticize, and you all wonder why folks stopped commenting back. The forum turned significantly more into an echo chamber the last year, which has been nice for you guys, but doesn’t necessarily represent reality. We all, right now, have the benefit of knowledge we did not have when decisions were being made. Your debrief choice (i can’t really call it a loop) is that we all made and then executed the wrong decisions in the beginning of the pandemic, and that “we” have doubled and tripled down and screeched the entire time. But in reality we as a society had very limited SA or perception of what the actual truth of the situation was until science uncovered some of those answers. It took months to years for that. And, you seem to forget, we had to operate and make decisions in that limited SA environment. You can’t put the big arrow on a decision when your SA is super low. The ends don’t justify the means. I believed, and will continue to believe, you 100% did not have the SA in the Summer of 2020. For example, we now know mRNA vaccines are entirely ineffective at stopping transmission - we were hopeful they would be very effective. Didn’t know that. We now know that we’re looking at a significantly lower mortality variant with significantly higher spread - the first variant spread slower but had a mortality rate about 10 times higher pre-vaccine. Didn’t know when that was coming. We know that COVID is airborne. Didn’t know that, remember folks sanitizing everything? We know how to test for it, and we know generally how long folks are contagious. We understand mortality risks much more completely now (fat and old). We did not know any of these things with significant certainty for a long time. You’ll also note that many folks on here changed our minds on many policies as more data emerged. As folks got vaccinated and mortality decreased and transmission reduction efforts clearly failed, many folks like me changed our opinions. We built SA and made decisions with said SA. You can demonize that, if you want, but it’s a pretty rough take. If your point is that in the absence of proof, we should be optimistic, fine, that’s your philosophy. But it doesn’t mean those that wanted to be conservative in the face of unknowns are inherently wrong and/or evil. In fact, you literally can’t prove that those efforts didn’t save significant lives (bang your head against the wall on that one, if you want). For the record, I think that masks and vaccine requirements now should be entirely removed in society with the exception of elderly care or hospitals. We should have gotten rid of it over a year ago for the military. There is more nuance to how decisions have to be made and opinions should be formed than you give credit.

I agree, gotta treat Biden exactly the same way. Time for the political elite class, regardless of affiliation, to understand that there are rules. Prosecute and investigate them all.

The whataboutism is amazing. I, for one, find the thing most ironic in these discussions to be the title of this thread. Today, in hypocrisy, you defend someone’s actions just because they are a Republican. Also, the President can not unilaterally declassify anything. Notable exceptions include nuclear data, waived data, and intelligence agent locations, among others. Oh, and there’s a process for it, you don’t just get to say “I DECLARE UNCLASSIFIED” like Michael Scott.

Sure, I’m fine with both. But you have to look at events in vacuums. If he did what they’re saying, it will require a lot of mental gymnastics for the right to not call for harsh consequences regardless. With that being said, I entirely expect it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-recovered-eleven-sets-of-classified-documents-in-trump-search-inventory-shows-11660324501 So, we all agree #TrumpForPrison, right?

Yes, allow the class politics to only see the world through the most distorted of lenses. Tucker Carlson would be proud of you guys 🥹I would also discount the whole of science based on a funny article about a super minority of one political side! I guess if we’re doing sweeping generalizations that have no basis, it’s those damn religious Republicans who are destroying the world and lying about it with false, untenable pretenses. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kenneth-copeland-jet-inside-edition_n_5cf822fee4b0e63eda94de4f/amp In reality, it’s rich vs poor, plain and simple. I was gonna ask why you all don’t believe climate change is a real threat to humanity, but then I realized that this forum gets their opinions straight from Rush Limbaugh reruns (RIP). By the way, it’s possible for there to be more than one ill in the world.

Any argument against the total combined will of the American people isn’t anti democratic? It is clearly anti democratic. It’s not implicitly anti republic. What does arguing honestly mean, by the way? Did my opinion based on philosophy and reasonable arguments hurt your feelings?

Cool, we’ve figured out the root cause. Now do we punish the children, when we agree they aren’t the root cause?

Yeah, actually, beyond all your other fallacies, let’s address whether government has an obligation to the American people to maintain a court that accurately represents the will of the people. Seems like there may be a moral imperative to bring the court back in line with American values in whatever way necessary, up to and including adding more moderate members to the court. Remember, any argument against this is implicitly anti democratic. Good luck.

First, it’s rich to say that the left should reconsider the meaning of democracy when a very unpopular, anti-democratic, opinion was passed. Almost all polls show 60-65% of Americans support Roe - nearly 2:1. Now if you wanna make some bullshit argument about how the Supreme Court represents our republic or something, go for it, but I’d recommend you look up what a democracy is supposed to be. Also, it’s rich to say that I don’t understand something that is clearly extraordinarily contentious and not understandable. Its an opinion. It’s also rich to say that Thomas determines what is correct in the constitution. Also, Thomas’s written opinion was a majority concurrence, not a non-majority. My point, which is 100% valid, is that a real Supreme Court justice in the majority of this case is calling for some really ridiculous things in a real Supreme Court ruling. He called for re-examining whether I as a married person can use contraceptives with my wife behind closed doors. Also, you’re lying about the dissenting opinion having no constitutional basis. They clearly used the 14th amendment, but I don’t expect you to read, as you’ve demonstrated a curious aptitude for avoiding facts over many years now. Just to be clear, Roe was upheld precedent for the last 50 years and was reaffirmed in Casey. Just because this court changed their mind doesn’t mean that this court is correct or that the previous 7-2 ruling was incorrect. This doesn’t “prove” anything other than packing the court with conservative judges gives a different result. Congratulations. At this point, it’s easy to see the court as a politicized, less neutral, branch of government. Time to pack it up! How about, say, 21 justices? We can probably get 12 more before congress turns over to the republicans, no more rules! Why not? Oh, there’s precedent for there to be just 9 Supreme Court justices? Precedent doesn’t matter anymore.

Sweet! Clarence Thomas owning the libs: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." Remember when you guys said it was alarmist to say that contraception was potentially on the chopping block next after abortion. Here it is! Better stock up on birth control, because we're going full Gilead. Nevermind the fact that literally none of these policies (including abortion) are even remotely popular in our society. #democracy Gotta hand it to ya'll, the theocracy is coming together! I, for one, am non-ironically donating to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They, along with TST, do some good work pointing out blatant hypocrisy and overstepping of religious bounds in government. May we all heal from this and ultimately come together as we are touched by his noodly appendage. R'amen.

Jesus. You think people choose to be gay. I guarantee you have literally 0 family members or close friends in the LGBT community.

Recent statistic: Millenials currently own 4% of real estate equity in America. Boomers at the same age owned 32% of the nations real estate equity.

I left off nothing that was important and immediately addressed his statement you referenced in that I agreed that very few people are actively hating or suppressing the LGBT. My whole argument was that it wasn’t just active actions that are bad, though, the issue is being passive in the face of fucked up opinions also causes harm. I know you read it. Also, your argument about marriage doesn’t stand up to other specific examples when you use basically any other immutable trait. The flaws abound, and you’ll see that “thought police” is just an alarmist buzzword. Some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should be not allowed: hence why there are anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ageism, anti-terrorism, anti-anarchist and multiple other laws in our society. Let’s apply your final argument to 1865: ”I, personally, don’t and would never own slaves. But I ask you, good sir, why should someone who does be forced to give up their slaves that they paid for and rightfully own? It’s not even a moral position in [this] case - it’s a legal/financial one.” Took over 100+ years for society to fully get on board, but sounds pretty fucked up to argue like this today, doesn’t it? It will be like this for LGBT rights after you all die out - just check Gen Z’s opinions. BL: Harmful effects of discrimination against those with immutable characteristics isn’t limited to just those who actively fight against them. That’s been my whole point. It’s also those that implicitly support those that fight against them. Enabling fucked up opinions is bad.

I mean, this statement here is actually more telling than you realize, and it’s indicative of the centrist “everyone is right” attitudes that are extremely troubling to some of the LGBT folks I know. THIS subtle implicit non-acceptance is what they’re still fighting against. You don’t personally actively hate or oppress LGBT folks, I’m sure. Most people and military officers I know don’t. But some don’t oppose those that do to the level that shows any moral courage. Implicitly, statements like these normalize and equalize f’d up beliefs. Try these hypotheticals on, imagine you heard one of your buddies say one of these statements: “I don’t morally agree that black people should be able to marry white people. In fact, they shouldn’t be allowed in the same place as white people, it’s just not right.” “I don’t morally agree that a woman should be allowed to have a job. That’s a man’s right. They just shouldn’t be doing this stuff, their place is at the home.” “I don’t morally agree that a person with a different sexuality than me should be able to get married or serve in the military. It’s just not right.” If you heard someone say one of the first 2 things, you’d tell that person to fuck off. You’d tell them they’re wrong. I doubt you’d say “I respect your opinion” - in fact, I would expect you not to. Why is the third one different? Just because someone has different morals doesn’t make their opinions “totally cool.” In fact, their morals can be pretty fucked up and oppressive. The first amendment makes it legal to say whatever dumb shit a person wants, I get that and am not going down that rabbit hole. But you don’t have to respect someone’s beliefs, and you surely don’t have to say that “it’s totally cool” for them to believe something that marginalizes a group of humans for an immutable characteristic.

Because you like to oversimplify my arguments into black and white, lib and conservative, whatever. I think my opinions are more nuanced than you would ever give me credit for, and often I don’t align with the bucket you try to put me in (sts). Also, I don’t believe that serving on active duty provides an iota more feeling of service to the nation than serving in the guard or in the civil service. I believe that if the military wants people on active duty, then they have to compete. As a young fighter pilot, i realized that TR guardsmen got to fly 6-9 times a month working 3 days and one weekend a month. I also realized that’s how much I was flying as a CMR wingman. On top of that I realized that flying was what I actually enjoyed in the Air Force, and it’s where I felt I was actually accomplishing something. The military/gov is type one spatial D’d (unrecognized) when it comes to retention. They know active duty is the most important for military health and they need folks on active duty to accomplish their mission. But every single incentive other than slightly increased chances to become an O-6 🤮 goes to the advantage of the guard or GS. You let me fly fighters, pay me twice as much, don’t force me to move, can’t deploy me if I don’t accept, and have to keep me to 40 hour weeks - thats better in literally every single way.

Why the f would anyone stay active duty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports. If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

@bfarginThat is a quote from the article the previous person posted. Looks like you don't read either.