User

The SCOTUS is part of the American justice system. A huge part of it. They set precedent all other courts must follow. Your position is nonsensical and contradictory. You cant claim we have the fairest system in the world to avoid having to deal with how the DOJ can be politicized and then also claim the SCOTUS is corrupted when they are ruling on the law…. you are trying to have it both ways.

Largely peaceful != peaceful

Make up your mind: "The US justice system is the fairest in the world" or "The SCOTUS has been corrupted by McConnell and Trump." Let me know when you figure yourself out.

No, it was not peaceful. This was before the unrest with counter-protestors. And they were breaking the law. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/pro-palestinian-encampment-blocks-ucla-students-from-entering-library-during-midterms/ You invite counter-protestors to take matters into their own hands when YOU condone and encourage this lawlessness.

No, they were not "peaceful," and when they break the law, and you encourage it and encourage law enforcement to ignore them, you invite people to take matters into their own hands. This is not "peaceful" as they are using force to stop others from moving freely by them.

You are the one complaining about the Justice system right now... What is your purpose with this thread if you find it the fairest in the world?

Due process is a real inconvenience for your guys trying to railroad Trump. Boo Hoo.

This is #1 something you have zero ability to prove and #2 completely and obviously wrong just by any casual observation of any of the footage we see on TV based on the chants they say, their signs, their advertisements, their clothing, etc...

1. "what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible from the banking business to the mortgage industry to the automobile business to the healthcare I do not want the government in charge of these things I don't want this to work" 2. No, it is your logic. 3. You are the one saying it means failed programs. He did not say that. 4. If you listened, he clearly pointed out that the left didn't do this with Bush, so why should he: "why they didn't give Bush a chance in 2000 before he was inaugurated the search and destroy mission had begun..." 5. No, the point was that if you do express any opinions against things you don't agree with, it is an indication that you are doing so because you might be wrong... again, applying your bad argument to yourself that you tried to apply to me. You could have fooled me that you were on here to discuss and learn. Here I am giving you an alternative to what you are claiming Limbugh was saying and at every turn it appears you just want to argue to argue as you extrapolate more than he said to prove your point and you refuse to acknowledge anything I propose here regarding what he meant. (he has given interviews on this after he said it explaining it more too) No, I think most leftist policies driven by liberalism are in fact bad and have caused outcomes I do not like or agree with in the past and I do not want folks on the left to succeed in implementing more of it. I could do this for entertainment, maybe to see what kind of arguments others post to hone in my own skill in debate and argument, maybe I do it for some friendship and camaraderie with like-minded folks on here... could be any number of reasons besides having to think I can learn something from you. Not that I would be opposed to that either.

1. Yes, he was saying he didn't want Obama to succeed in making government bigger... 2. Yeah, it might improve some lives if Obama crashed a train killing thousands. Are we wrong to want him to fail? 3. Rush did not say he wanted the country to fail... you are extrapolating more than was said 4. No, failure means fail to implement. You are once again extrapolating more than was said in trying to say he opposed the good goals being achieved... 5. So, moving forward, you will no longer express any opinions on this forum against any particular policies, because doing so means you are opposed to *GASP* my god, your being wrong? Well, seeing as you have already been fabricating more things than were ever said to argue against, I imagine you can take this conversation a lot of places.

This is a degree of difference in the point. You are pushing an extreme doomsday position which isn’t supported by any real objective evidence.

Again, there is A LOT of space between climate change is fake and the doomsday we will all die nonsense you are pushing. it isn’t one or the other.

1. Thank you for proving my point. 2. No, success means implementing the left-wing policies we oppose and do not think improve our lives. 3. So, you are now trying to redefine patriotism to mean wanting the policies your political opponents support to succeed? I don't think so. You don't get to redefine words like this. No, I was quite clear. Why you feel the need to play this dishonest game of twisting what I said regarding policies I do not support failing = "Things go downhill" No, I oppose those policies and want them to fail because I don't think they make things better and are what will cause us to go downhill.

Yes, of course. He wanted him to fail at implementing his left-wing policies. Context matters. Why would we want our political opponents to succeed? Also, the left-wing howled about that for a long time; not sure what you mean by barely being called out for it. Here you are over a decade later, bringing it up.

There is A LOT of space between acknowledging climate change, how bad it is, what is causing it, and what we can even do about it... and then getting to the doomsday nonsense you are pushing.

Um. No. There is literally no objective evidence to seriously support the catastrophic climate change position. This is just pure unmitigated doom porn.

What do you mean by this?

Or, hear me out, we can stop spending so much, reform entitlement programs. If we are going to brag about how great Europe is doing, lets cut our military spending and they can up theirs to protect themselves more and meet their NATO obligations.

Again, they have various areas like B and C, and whatnot; it is only one of those areas, I believe, more closely around Jereusluem, that has more blanket prohibition... it is not the entirety of the West Bank. Systemic to what? The point is that where there are close living conditions between Israelis and Palestinians, there is some violence that happens. Its like any other statistic... In America something like 10,000 people die a year falling down stairs. Is that "systemic?" To the larger point here, the fact that there is some small amount of violence that occurs for some small % of the population, that is hardly evidence of ethnic cleansing. Its simply a matter of the human condition that when people who have generations of hate and angst and religious animosity towards one another are in close proximity that incidents will happen. https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-demolish-illegal-settler-structures-prompting-outrage-from-coalition-members/

I guess, thanks for making my response easy. No, this discussion here was about the meaning of Pro-Life terminology. You completely ignored anything I said and what we were discussing and now want to argue about abortion legislation in general. Care to respond to the point this time? Once again, you completely ignored what we were discussing. The discussion here was about your absurd notion that one second before the baby is out of the birth canal is somehow not a person and then one second later, just like magic, it is! We were not discussing the impact on anyone here, and I was not doing or saying anything about this. Care to respond to the point this time instead of feigning this fake outrage over things I have neither said or done here? I can't help you if you are going to continue to refuse to engage honestly here about what the basic premise of the Pro-Life position is. You don't have to agree to understand. I didn't fail to understand anything. If you had something extra to share like this, go for it. Doing so after the fact is not a failure on my part. You were trying to make a point about how many identify as Pro-Life by claiming a statistic of people polled saying "illegal in all circumstances" was = Pro-Life. The Pro-Life position is not defined by having to believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. In fact, a vast majority of folks in the Pro-Life movement believe there is at a minimum an exception for the life of the mother, because two rights to life are conflicting, only one can succeed. So, once again, you did not even bother to stay on the subject. Says the guy who wants to teach everyone's kids how to have anal sex and give good blow jobs... My "morals" regarding abortion being wrong are no different than thinking it is wrong to push Grandma off the cliff being wrong. Do you think it should be legal to push Grandma off the cliff now? The point of my comment was to explain to you that the position for not supporting killing unborn children is no more based on religious dogma than the position to not support pushing Grandma off the cliff. It is your premise that the unborn child should have no considerations, not mine or those in the Pro-Life movement. Once again, this is simply a failure on your part to have the capacity to understand how others think so you can get another little bigoted jab in. Lets just set the record straight, I get it, you don't like religion. You don't have to keep trying to prove it to me.

Odd, I can see a whole lot more typing out than "nuh uh" going on from me here. Nice strawman. I never said anything about every single house being destroyed and every single person expelled. It is you who seems to think that any amount of people harmed = ethnic cleansing, which is absurd. Not exactly. The issue is limited to a particular area of the West Bank where Israel doesn't allow for any new land to be built on in that particular area without permission. I am not aware of any blanket prohibition in all of the West Bank... that is absurd on its face. If that were the case, there would literally be nothing new built anywhere for the last almost 50 years. The settlements destroyed are those built illegally in this particular area without permission. Guess what? Israel also demolishes Israeli structures that are built illegally in this area as well, and a whole lot of Palestinian structures are not torn down that were built illegally. I think there are some 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and the settler violence we are talking about around 1,000 various incidents of violence a year, stuff like an Isreali settler killed a cow included in that number. So no, there is no systemic large scale violence against all of the Palestinian people in the West Bank. We are talking about the isolated incidents between where Isrealis and Palestinians live near each other and that violence is not all one sided either. Yes, just as the numbers of Palestinians increase as well. That is usually what happens when people have families and populations naturally grow... That is not ethnic cleansing.

Amazing you typed this out, and you don't see the irony. The Nazis were literally rounding them up to try to kill them all or as many as they could. Every Jew was systematically hunted down and shipped off somewhere to die or be killed outright. Israel has not killed millions of Palestinians nor are they trying to. Israel is not rounding up Palesitnians for death. Which is why I continually point out the absurdity of your claim here, since the Palestinian population is increasing, they were given Gaza to do as they please with, they have some authority over themselves in the West Bank and ability to expand and grow there as well. No one is systematically taking their land and cleansing them from it. This is and has been my point, that you would sit here comparing it to what happened with Jews under Hitler shows how outrageously absurd your position is. More insults doesn't make your argument any better. Of course the violence is isolated... otherwise it would be impacting vastly more people. You are taking settler disputes between Israelis and Palestinians and blowing them up to more than it is. Nothing you have provided shows that Palestinians would be "ethnically cleansed" in the next 10,000 years at whatever pace Israel expands Settlements.

Maybe if there are Pro-Hamas terrorist supporters chanting genocidal death slogans about Israel on one side.... its a bad thing too.

To be fair here, I don't have much faith in your honesty here either, as you continually insist that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing as you are... so, instead of just calling you a troll or dumb, I keep picking apart your responses. What goalposts did I move? You are the one claiming this is ethnic cleansing, but keep pointing to such issues as settlement disputes, temporary displacements during wartime, and other such longstanding isolated violence that goes on between both Palestinians and Israelis. Pointing out that these incidents are not ethnic cleansing is not me moving the goalpost; it is me pointing out you are nowhere near the goalpost you set. Not wanting a Palestinian state is still just political squabbling, as most of the Palestinians don't want an Israel or the Jews there to exist at all... hence why they are where they are today, all their failed wars and violence.