Capco

Intimidation with violence is not a Second Amendment right, or any kind of right whatsoever. There is also no prescribed right to overthrow the government, either. You have some serious blinders on your head there bud.

You can smell the fear from the right in this thread. The excuses are already rolling in. Y'all are a bunch of jokes lol. Biden/Harris 2020!

At this point, I'm all for packing the Court if they even sniff Roe v. Wade. Add 6 Justices along party line votes if you have to. As long as they don't start undoing decades of precedent I'm okay with a 6-3 Court for now. But if they do, it's game on. That's why the Senate is going to be so critical in this election. I have a feeling the Republicans will back off on any over-the-top agenda via the SCOTUS if they lose the Senate.

When you make comments like you did, I take everything you say about brains with a massive grain of salt.

Lol. Is everyone in Rochester at batshit crazy as you?

Come on dude. I know it's Friday night and we all like to get a little bit drunk, but surely one who is this confident in their work would know the difference between sited and cited, right? I literally wrote a 1750 word Torts midterm not 4 days ago in 2 hours and 15 minutes. 3500 words is nothing.

3500 words? That's it? Hahahahaha. The fact that you think that makes you a credible source in any sense is laughable at best.

🤦‍♂️

Riveting commentary. Highly persuasive. You've sold me on your point, even if I have no idea what it is. /s

Obvious holding.

Special teams is playing well for us.

Maybe now he'll get the appreciation he deserves? Hmmm... naaaaahhhhh.

I don't think enough people fully understand how much this one factor alone impacts just about everything else you listed. If you have 5 minutes, please watch this. It's a snippet from the documentary "Inequality for All" and articulates my points better than I can. "The wider the prosperity => the more people were included in that prosperity => the more that prosperity generated even more prosperity." And compare that with the following 35 second clip from the same documentary that illustrates the opposite approach. When inequality grows, wages stagnate. Stagnant wages means workers buy less than they would have with rising wages. When workers buy less, companies downsize or cease growing. When companies downsize and wages stagnate, tax revenues decrease. Lower tax revenues means government must cut programs. Many of these programs help lift people out of poverty, like funding of public education. A lower educated workforce in a 21st century industrialized economy means there are fewer employable persons, and unemployment rises. With even fewer people paying taxes and more people drawing on government programs because of higher poverty rates, deficits grow. Higher deficits means the government can do even less to combat inequality and increase wages.

There's just no hope with you.

Hi, RealKayAdams. This is the original piece from June 26, 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html I agree that the main weakness of many left leaning candidates is personality weakness and strategy blunders rather than policies. It amazes me sometimes how they can't articulate what are genuinely good ideas. I think I'm very close to where you reside on the spectrum. I like many Marxist principles but I'm not so far to the left (or so far authoritarian) that I would call myself a Marxist-Leninist. I think in the (very) long run communism of some form will prevail, if only out of necessity. Capitalism is fascinating in that it has sown the seeds of its very own destruction; it's only a matter of time. I'd like to write more but I have a Contracts midterm exam tomorrow that I need to study for. I look forward to reading more of your posts! EDIT: I'm Polish too!

Nice job by Dodson shedding that block.

Lol Knox looked nasty on that run after catch.

Edmunds looked totally out of position on that TD run.

I just don’t have a good feeling about this game. Bills are playing sloppier than they have so far. Especially the defense

I actually laughed out loud at this.

1. Let me put it this way: government should be as small, lean, and efficient as possible as long as the government is still able to perform its necessary functions. I think the line to be drawn is not the size of the government per se, but how much one expects the government to do as a "necessary function." 2. Christianity is a faith of violence, corruption, superstition, bigotry, and sectarianism. None of the values you mentioned are exclusive to or derived solely from Christianity. 3. Being against pro-business approaches to government does not equal being anti-business. Talk about black-and-white. The best way to help the individual worker is to advocate for the individual worker, not for the employers. History has repeatedly shown that employers and businesses will get away with whatever they can in search of profit. 4. See 3. Hence the genesis and continued necessity of labor unions. Constant vigilance is required to combat the bulwark of the profit motive. 5. Trade should be fair more than free. A perfectly free trade system is where anything goes and there are no laws and regulations governing any type of commerce. Again history has shown that this approach is actually bad for economies as a whole. 6. The idea that Americans are exceptional is entirely in line with the quote from my last post. If you think Americans are exceptional compared to non-Americans, then that means you think there is inherent inequality present between Americans and non-Americans, which is an ideology of the right. I despise inequality and this is a form of it.

I'm actually pretty busy right now but there's also no need to reinvent the wheel, either. I don't think several of those values are good, namely limited government, support for Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business, opposition to trade unions, free trade, and the advocacy of American exceptionalism. In the words of someone much more well-equipped for this kind of discussion, I agree that in some ways the overall question of left or right is as follows: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be." -Roderick Stackelburg, Hitler's Germany

There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew. https://archive.org/stream/TheSpeechesOfAdolfHitler19211941/hitler-speeches-collection_djvu.txt

It's a direct quote from Mussolini, not an academic.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7rh5iq/preoccupation-with-community-decline-humiliation-or-victimhood-and-by/ Another good quote: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."