Are the current US mass demonstrations violent or not? I say no. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15121585
annatar1914 wrote:Is that a serious question? I guess you're not that ''conservative''. Fact is, President Trump has quite a few Homosexual friends and supporters. They know he favors gay marriage. Do you?

There was a time in recent living memory when there were laws on the books that outlawed Homosexual acts in the United States and around the world, including the Soviet Union.

It was the Obama administration that made gay marriage legal. I am sure Obama and the Democrats must have had many homosexual friends and supporters to do that. I don't think there is anything wrong with having homosexual friends and I don't think it is right to hate people just for being homosexual.

My personal and religious belief is that a marriage should be between a man and woman as God intended, according to the Holy Bible. I personally don't agree with certain homosexual acts. But I am also for law and order and homosexual marriage is the law of the land now and I must accept that law. However, I would not mind criminalizing George Soros and his thugs.
#15121606
Hindsite wrote:It was the Obama administration that made gay marriage legal. I am sure Obama and the Democrats must have had many homosexual friends and supporters to do that. I don't think there is anything wrong with having homosexual friends and I don't think it is right to hate people just for being homosexual.

My personal and religious belief is that a marriage should be between a man and woman as God intended, according to the Holy Bible. I personally don't agree with certain homosexual acts. But I am also for law and order and homosexual marriage is the law of the land now and I must accept that law. However, I would not mind criminalizing George Soros and his thugs.


Welcome to the world of being a Liberal. What is it exactly that you are trying to ''conserve''? Most of the rhetoric on the ''Liberal'' and ''Conservative'' side is just hot air, and there really is a broad consensus among most politicians and many of the public too.

Case in point; Second Amendment rights. Most people are in favor of people defending themselves. Most people are not really in favor of armed men prowling about in public with weapons or easy access to guns. But we do have a gun culture. Why? If we took the Second Amendment for what it is, it calls for a armed and ready body of men... Ready for what? To maintain the ''Security of a Free State'' by means of a ''well regulated Militia''. So the rights of people to bear arms is not infringed for that primary reason, because the founders assumed that most men would be armed and well trained in a Militia to supplement the miniscule regular military forces of the Federal government, but also that people could rise up in revolution if need be against their own government if they believed it to be tyrannical. Everybody forgets that part about a well-regulated Militia...

Liberals tend to be ''gun-control'' but vaguely draw some line somewhere, whereas Conservatives tend to be ''non- gun control'' but acknowledge some restrictions. Not a real difference practically. But the ''Well-regulated Militia'' is clearly the military and security and law enforcement officers of the nation, and in our hearts we surely sense that this anarchic freewheeling trafficking in guns is wrong. And it's not any less a wrong because the very violence it enables to escalate forces good people to be equally armed for their own and their loved ones safety. In fact that makes it even more wrong overall. I say all this because I hear the gunfire every week from not too far away-they are not the ''well-regulated Militia'', far from it.

So that's American ''Conservatism'' for you, little more than almost anarchy, along with American ''Liberalism''. We don't have too little government, but not enough, and we're saddled with a US Constitution and State Constitutions that were literally designed to keep political powers weak and divided by our founders, because they distrusted government and trusted people when ''unfettered'' by government's restraining hand. Look at these riots and demonstrations, the violence and hatred; do you think the founders were right, still?
#15121623
annatar1914 wrote:Welcome to the world of being a Liberal. What is it exactly that you are trying to ''conserve''? Most of the rhetoric on the ''Liberal'' and ''Conservative'' side is just hot air, and there really is a broad consensus among most politicians and many of the public too.

Case in point; Second Amendment rights. Most people are in favor of people defending themselves. Most people are not really in favor of armed men prowling about in public with weapons or easy access to guns. But we do have a gun culture. Why? If we took the Second Amendment for what it is, it calls for a armed and ready body of men... Ready for what? To maintain the ''Security of a Free State'' by means of a ''well regulated Militia''. So the rights of people to bear arms is not infringed for that primary reason, because the founders assumed that most men would be armed and well trained in a Militia to supplement the miniscule regular military forces of the Federal government, but also that people could rise up in revolution if need be against their own government if they believed it to be tyrannical. Everybody forgets that part about a well-regulated Militia...

Liberals tend to be ''gun-control'' but vaguely draw some line somewhere, whereas Conservatives tend to be ''non- gun control'' but acknowledge some restrictions. Not a real difference practically. But the ''Well-regulated Militia'' is clearly the military and security and law enforcement officers of the nation, and in our hearts we surely sense that this anarchic freewheeling trafficking in guns is wrong. And it's not any less a wrong because the very violence it enables to escalate forces good people to be equally armed for their own and their loved ones safety. In fact that makes it even more wrong overall. I say all this because I hear the gunfire every week from not too far away-they are not the ''well-regulated Militia'', far from it.

So that's American ''Conservatism'' for you, little more than almost anarchy, along with American ''Liberalism''. We don't have too little government, but not enough, and we're saddled with a US Constitution and State Constitutions that were literally designed to keep political powers weak and divided by our founders, because they distrusted government and trusted people when ''unfettered'' by government's restraining hand. Look at these riots and demonstrations, the violence and hatred; do you think the founders were right, still?

I believe that you misunderstand American conservatism. It does not mean that there will never be any changes made to our government and the U.S. Constitution. That is why we have three branches of the government and a procedure for making new laws and amendments to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment in 1865 abolished slavery in the United States. The 18th Amendment in 1919 imposed the federal prohibition of alcohol. It was repealed in 1933, following the ratification of the 21st Amendment. The 19th Amendment in 1920 granted American women the right to vote.
#15121704
I believe that you misunderstand American conservatism.


I think you misunderstand American conservatism. I asked you a simple question; ''what do you conserve''?


It does not mean that there will never be any changes made to our government and the U.S. Constitution. That is why we have three branches of the government and a procedure for making new laws and amendments to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment in 1865 abolished slavery in the United States. The 18th Amendment in 1919 imposed the federal prohibition of alcohol. It was repealed in 1933, following the ratification of the 21st Amendment. The 19th Amendment in 1920 granted American women the right to vote.


I'm not talking about the forms by which you ''conservatives'' make changes to become ever more liberal over time, that is obvious to anyone outside of American ''conservatism''. I'm asking you what do you actually ''conserve'', what do you ever hold on to that is non-negotiable, unchangeable?

I'll answer for you; absolutely nothing is conserved by American ''Conservatives'', nothing is non-negotiable or unchangeable. You're just slower Liberals, is all.
#15121784
annatar1914 wrote:I think you misunderstand American conservatism. I asked you a simple question; ''what do you conserve''?

American conservatism attempt to conserve the rights of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as declared in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by law and order. That is why we will vote for the law and order President, Donald J. Trump.
#15121786
Hindsite wrote:American conservatism attempt to conserve the rights of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as declared in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by law and order. That is why we will vote for the law and order President, Donald J. Trump.


Problem is, you don't seem to realize how ambiguous those words are, you can make them say whatever you wish, and everyone's idea of what they are clashes with everyone else. This is disorder and lawlessness.
#15121817
annatar1914 wrote:Problem is, you don't seem to realize how ambiguous those words are, you can make them say whatever you wish, and everyone's idea of what they are clashes with everyone else. This is disorder and lawlessness.

That is only on when radical left-wing Democrats that will not enforce law and order are in charge. That is also why we conservatives must put judges that are constitutional originalists in the courts. An originalist is a person who believes that the meaning of the constitution does not change or evolve over time, but rather that the meaning of the text is both fixed and knowable. An originalist believes that the fixed meaning of the text should be the sole guide for a judge when applying or interpreting a constitutional provision.
#15121820
Hindsite wrote:That is only on when radical left-wing Democrats that will not enforce law and order are in charge. That is also why we conservatives must put judges that are constitutional originalists in the courts. An originalist is a person who believes that the meaning of the constitution does not change or evolve over time, but rather that the meaning of the text is both fixed and knowable. An originalist believes that the fixed meaning of the text should be the sole guide for a judge when applying or interpreting a constitutional provision.


You have spent a great deal of time on this and other threads expounding on how times and attitudes change, talking like a Liberal as all ''conservatives'' do, and then come at me with some BS about Constitutional ''Originalism'' somehow keeping things in check. Fact is, the US Constitution is so ambiguous on almost anything that anything is possible to make legal. And most people consider what is legal to also be morally right.

You and the Liberal Democrats are the same.
#15121834
annatar1914 wrote:You have spent a great deal of time on this and other threads expounding on how times and attitudes change, talking like a Liberal as all ''conservatives'' do, and then come at me with some BS about Constitutional ''Originalism'' somehow keeping things in check. Fact is, the US Constitution is so ambiguous on almost anything that anything is possible to make legal. And most people consider what is legal to also be morally right.

You and the Liberal Democrats are the same.

I am certainly not the same as those radical left-wing liberal Democrats. Most of them believe abortion should be permitted and are Marxist, Socialist, or Communist and despise the Capitalist, who they wish to heavily tax to distribute their wealth or even burn their property to the ground.
Praise the Lord.
#15121837
Hindsite wrote:I am certainly not the same as those radical left-wing liberal Democrats. Most of them believe abortion should be permitted and are Marxist, Socialist, or Communist and despise the Capitalist, who they wish to heavily tax to distribute their wealth or even burn their property to the ground.
Praise the Lord.


@Hindsite ,

Most Liberal Democrats are, well, Liberal Democrats. Most of the people you're talking about are far out in anyone's conception of politics, despite what they claim. The Liberals may be too soft on them, but they aren't them.

And don't lump every Socialist together, it's not a fair or reasonable thing to do.
#15121839
annatar1914 wrote:@Hindsite ,

Most Liberal Democrats are, well, Liberal Democrats. Most of the people you're talking about are far out in anyone's conception of politics, despite what they claim. The Liberals may be too soft on them, but they aren't them.

And don't lump every Socialist together, it's not a fair or reasonable thing to do.

That is the way it is done in politics. :lol:

And finally get some better COVID-19 policies in […]

The ckaing has continued unabated so I'm posting h[…]

I doubt those emails influenced any one in a anywa[…]

Election 2020

As of the morning of the 29th, Democrat's lead in […]