Viral Vituperation in the Great Debate



  1. About the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

    Amy Coney Barrett and what the Hearings have clarified:

    The Democrats want a Supreme Court that will create laws that Congress, because it represents the will of the people, would not. Democrats need a government to have sufficient power to lawfully social engineer those changes needed to force our Country to conform to its ideals of group equity. This they call “social justice”. Democrats need this Court to be another tool to serve their politics. Republicans want the Supreme Court to be as originally intended. That is, a stable base to keep our laws honest to the peoples’ intent. Amy Coney Barrett’s philosophy is exactly what the founders intended. Her philosophy is a major obstacle in the path that advances the core agenda of today’s Democrat.

    This explains why we have so much political contention about a fundamental duty of a branch of power, a branch that is supposed to be apolitical. This also explains why it is the Democrats who are so upset by the likes of Amy Coney Barrett.

    Freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are among the most important of our rights. There was a time when every “American” would “fight to the death for your right to disagree” – for your right to hate or love for your own reasons. This included a right to join, for both stupid and brilliant reasons, any group. As Regards their ideas about what they would allow you to like and hate, the Democrats are righteously dangerous. Deviate, and they will “cancel” you. So righteous are they that they will ignore due process, indeed, they violate it (Kavanaugh) in order to protect their fastest route to making new law. They need five of nine Supreme Court Justices willing to reinterpret existing law.

    Biden and Harris will not tell you if, when given power, they will or will not “pack the Court”. After Barrett takes her seat on the Court, seven “Living Constitution Judges” out of 13, will be enough to give them what they want. Their goal is to fundamentally transform our United States into a system of values that you must serve instead of the original system that served you.

    This is serious business, but the revealing of a Hunter Biden laptop and its contents moves us into a special level of serious. Yes, its contents reveal a Joe Biden that is not the image projected by him and his supporters, the willingness of major media, Facebook, and Twitter, to openly deny coverage to such an important find explodes into myriad directions of meaning! We will be talking about this for some time!

    1. To Don,

      I have never interacted with you directly, and looking at a few of your comments, I am glad I am not missing out on anything significant.

      I’d like to reply a bit to this most recent comment.

      First off, I do agree with the idea that Republicans would like to keep the Supreme Court a stable base. However, I must disagree with the idea that they would like it to remain a stable base to keep the laws honest to the people’s intent. Republicans (the occasional smart ones, at least) are able to recognize the shift in American politics to the left. This is not simply an opinion, it’s a fact. Throughout most of the existing 21st century, the average democrat has supported the Capitalist economic model, however has also supported restrictions on companies through mild regulations such as environmental laws, EEOC regulations, etc. This can best be modeled in the Obama Administration and the thousands of laws passed by party democrats since the turn of the century. This, due to the American two-party model, is seen as left-wing by many Americans. However, in international standards (you can yell and scream about the rest of the world being communists all you want, won’t change the fact that few nations across the world support the ownership of the means of production by the laborers themselves or the decommodification of labor), this is considered center to center-right.

      Since 2016, America has begun a progressive shift. We can see this in public polls as well as the new progressive camp within the democratic party. Of course said people cannot be considered far-left, they do represent a shift of policy and opinion amongst the public. Conservatives who are able to recognize this are attempting to now pack the court. A good example of this is Lindsey Graham, who in 2015 stated he would not allow a new Obama administration Supreme Court Justice to be sworn in. He is directly quoted as promising he would do the same for a Trump nominee if he were in the same situation, and proceeds to tell the American public as a whole to quote him and hold him accountable if such a case were to arise again. Well, here we are. Funny how history repeats himself. The Republicans have no wish to uphold the integrity of the US court systems, which were intended to be a-political. They simply wish to uphold their conservative and traditionalist ideas in a left-shifting nation because they know that their ideas are truly at stake.

      Secondly, it seems that you do not have a grasp as to what “cancelling” or “cancel culture” is. Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to. I just ask that next time you do a quick google search before commenting on it. To “cancel” someone is to temporarily boycott them to hold them responsible for current or previous actions that are unacceptable. For example, a popular social media star had performed blackface on camera several times, sexually harassed minors (which I know many conservatives like to focus on, which they have no right to comment on considering your president has 19 rape allegations and refuses to submit DNA evidence for one in New York City [before you say they’re all false since most were deemed inconclusive – they are deemed inconclusive when someone is forced to pull out of a case due to financial reasons or any other reason for that matter]). That social media star was subsequently “cancelled”, meaning their main streams of income were boycotted by many members of the public. Cancelling is reserved for those with a heavy celebrity presence – specifically those of that group who have the financial means to continue supporting themselves. So, to calm your fears, you should have no worries that the “antifascist fascist gen-z communist liberal cancelling militia” is coming for you.

      Third, your idea about the Biden-Harris administration changing the American systems into a system that you serve – that is the whole point. “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” That’s also a large part of patriotism, and the phrase almost all systems within the US utilize. Your beloved piggy police – “Protect and Serve”. The military – “Serve your nation”.

      Finally, your last message – an attempt to deflect away from the original point of the post. Social Media sites don’t publish news… I find it shocking that you previously believed they did. The NY Times has recently published an article in which they cover Hunter Biden (it was published today) in which they state no evidence of Russian disinformation. However, I find it interesting how you have ignored the release of Trump’s tax returns and the subsequent findings of offshore bank accounts, specifically in China.

      I’d also like to bring to light the alleged hacking by Iran of the Proud Boys, and the subsequent emails sent out from that domain.

      In conclusion, do your research, man. With all seriousness, it is incredibly embarrassing to see a person who refers to themselves as an intellectual in any capacity speak so eagerly of points, other than the opinions, that simply required a google search.

      1. In the first paragraph, I see little disagreement. It seems to accurately represent attitudes about governance around the world. I am basically a pragmatist and, instead of letting what others embrace I prefer to just ask, what works best.

        People say many things. Selective quotes are often used to bias what one wants the self and others to believe. Sometimes, what is quoted is correct, but does not address the essence of the issue being contested. No matter what Lindsey Graham once said, when the President and the Senate are of the same Party, the criteria for deciding a judgment is different that that situation where the two are different.

        Your definition of “cancel” fits exactly what I thought it meant. I do not “fear” personally being a victim of it. But I do understand how others are justified in fearing this kind of bullying.

        Asking what your country can do for you and asking what you can do for your Country is a fascinating example of two generalities that can serve many conflicting interests. For instance, I ask my country to protect an environment where my, and other talents will be most inspired to move quickly to meet the needs of self and others. Democrats tend to be too quick in taxing those who have successfully produced what others need. Thus, those talents diminish or stop producing. The overtaxing Country is destructive of the resources that allow our fellow humans to survive and thrive. Why would any decent person want to serve that form of government?

        In conclusion, your criticism of what I have written is based on more than a few warped views of reality. Apply some logic to accurate premises and your conclusions may become more helpful than otherwise.

  2. Tony Soprano would applaud the magnitude of MOM’s thuggery,but would be appalled by the planning and execution.Maybe America is figuring it out by using the covid management yardstick.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.