The U.S. is more dangerously divided than any other wealthy democracy. Is there a way back from the brink? (Yascha Mounk)

[TraderPatTX]

Yes, now you've circled back to agreeing with me. All I said was "religion does not have to be a part of marriage, but many people choose to include it anyway."


Because not all of them will relent instantly, and it takes a lot more resources to go after a million poor people than it does to go after one billionaire. And again, it's written into the bill that the IRS must start pursuing more wealthy tax dodgers. Failure to do so would provide solid grounds for a lawsuit, class action or otherwise.


Sure, that'd be great. We already have tax brackets for that reason, and so it would help a lot more if we mandated a much higher minimum wage and better working conditions, but nevertheless.

There are stories dating from 2000 all the way to the present about how rich people get audited less than poor people. The uniparty is going to make sure their rich friends will never get audited. It's like when the Dems raise taxes, but then put in loop holes for their buddies.

I support a $100 an hour minimum wage. You leftists half-ass everything. Imagine asking for a paltry $15 an hour.

 

[TraderPatTX]

The Patriot Act only gives power to republicans. I did not know that!

I remember the Patriot Act being a bipartisan screwing over of the people. And they didn't even whisper sweet nothings into our ears while doing it.

 

[TraderPatTX]

I think you're projecting there bud.

the practical left only cares about their rights not being infringed upon because of some old fucks who can't let go of the past and adapt to the ever changing world around them.

Federal rights protect shit that would otherwise, be removed at the state's discretion. and giving access to gay couples to legally get married is one of those rights. otherwise, they wouldn't be able to legally get married and get all of the benefits of being a married couple in many states.

also inb4 move away; moving is expensive, neigh impossible for many people, especially the people that would be affected by the repeal of federal amendments.

Show me in the Constitution where it says marriage of any kind is a right?

The poorest people were moving all around this country before there were cars.

Illegal aliens walk thousands of miles to our southern border to sneak in.

Pretty much what you are saying is "Poor and minority Americans are too lazy to move to a different state that shares their beliefs".

 

[mituzora]

Show me in the Constitution where it says marriage of any kind is a right?

show me where I said marriage is a constitutional right. I did not state that it was. that's you filling in the blanks in your head.

The poorest people were moving all around this country before there were cars.

yes, the poorest people were moving before cars, did I say you need a car to move? I did not. again, you're filling in blanks here. being expensive doesn't mean you need a car.

Illegal aliens walk thousands of miles to our southern border to sneak in.

yeah, and they also get assistance by convoys and everything else. it also costs an arm and a leg to get across the border as well, which while many cross the border, many can't because they can't afford the time or money to do so.

Pretty much what you are saying is "Poor and minority Americans are too lazy to move to a different state that shares their beliefs".

No, but again, here we go filling in assumptions with red herrings once more. so typical Pat, so typical.

 

[LainaGabranth]

show me where I said marriage is a constitutional right. I did not state that it was. that's you filling in the blanks in your head.

I think he got confused and misread me talking about a *theoretical*, proposed for the sake of argument amendment that would ratify it, mainly to bait Trader into going mask off and just admitting he doesn't want equal rights.

 

[TraderPatTX]

show me where I said marriage is a constitutional right. I did not state that it was. that's you filling in the blanks in your head.


yes, the poorest people were moving before cars, did I say you need a car to move? I did not. again, you're filling in blanks here. being expensive doesn't mean you need a car.

yeah, and they also get assistance by convoys and everything else. it also costs an arm and a leg to get across the border as well, which while many cross the border, many can't because they can't afford the time or money to do so.

No, but again, here we go filling in assumptions with red herrings once more. so typical Pat, so typical.

You said federal rights. But who knows what you really meant. The left is always changing the meaning of words from one day to the next.

You said moving was expensive. I countered with the poorest people have been moving around this country since it's founding.

The media never mentions illegal aliens ever get assistance. Would be interesting if our "smart" media would investigate who is helping people break the laws in our country. They could be considered accessories.

Your entire argument was based on what would people do if states passed laws restricting freedoms because it was so expensive to move and now you are saying I'm filling in with assumptions.

Quit making arguments that you can't defend when challenged.

 

[mituzora]

You said federal rights. But who knows what you really meant. The left is always changing the meaning of words from one day to the next.

You said moving was expensive. I countered with the poorest people have been moving around this country since it's founding.

The media never mentions illegal aliens ever get assistance. Would be interesting if our "smart" media would investigate who is helping people break the laws in our country. They could be considered accessories.

Your entire argument was based on what would people do if states passed laws restricting freedoms because it was so expensive to move and now you are saying I'm filling in with assumptions.

Quit making arguments that you can't defend when challenged.

Yes, I said federal rights. I didn't say a damn thing about marriage being a constitutional right. Just because something is federally protected doesn't mean it has to be a constitutional amendment. they are not exclusively the same thing (but I know you think so because you're always on and on about how the constitution is the only law of the land which is horse shit and you know it)

please define media, because I've seen many things in the media who speak about aliens getting assistance, rather it be to cross the border or to get assistance while living here. You wanna start investigating crimes, then start investigating the bullshit of corporations paying off congress to pass laws and shit.

inb4 and arguing are two different things, but in the event you don't understand the acronym, I was beating you to your typical "move to another state argument" which your argument states that people do this all the time, and blah-de-blah not even considering the nuances of an argument in any capacity. Just because people can doesn't make it any more difficult to do, (which I never said impossible, I said "neigh" impossible, which means nearly impossible, for the record.)

I'm not making arguments that I can't defend, but you sure as hell are tying to use argumentative fallacies to make it look that way.

but I'm just wasting bandwidth typing this up, because you're not here to listen, you're here to bash on all of the people who have differing opinions than you, just like you do on every single political post.

also, your "left is always changing the meaning of words" is just another logical fallacy to make leftists look bad. bodily autonomy has always meant the same thing, rights have always meant the same thing, but you're too far stuck up your own ass to listen to anyone who tells you the clearly defined phrases that us "leftists" use.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Daily reminder the constitution is just a piece of paper and the only reason it's obeyed is because we the people said so. Which means it can be changed. It, and the founding fathers (who were slave owners btw, thus making them hypocritical) should not be deified or held in any high regard.

 

[sombrerosonic]

Yall keep aguing.. dont mind me, im just watching, till i want to join in

 

[TraderPatTX]

Yes, I said federal rights. I didn't say a damn thing about marriage being a constitutional right. Just because something is federally protected doesn't mean it has to be a constitutional amendment. they are not exclusively the same thing (but I know you think so because you're always on and on about how the constitution is the only law of the land which is horse shit and you know it)

please define media, because I've seen many things in the media who speak about aliens getting assistance, rather it be to cross the border or to get assistance while living here. You wanna start investigating crimes, then start investigating the bullshit of corporations paying off congress to pass laws and shit.

inb4 and arguing are two different things, but in the event you don't understand the acronym, I was beating you to your typical "move to another state argument" which your argument states that people do this all the time, and blah-de-blah not even considering the nuances of an argument in any capacity. Just because people can doesn't make it any more difficult to do, (which I never said impossible, I said "neigh" impossible, which means nearly impossible, for the record.)

I'm not making arguments that I can't defend, but you sure as hell are tying to use argumentative fallacies to make it look that way.

but I'm just wasting bandwidth typing this up, because you're not here to listen, you're here to bash on all of the people who have differing opinions than you, just like you do on every single political post.

also, your "left is always changing the meaning of words" is just another logical fallacy to make leftists look bad. bodily autonomy has always meant the same thing, rights have always meant the same thing, but you're too far stuck up your own ass to listen to anyone who tells you the clearly defined phrases that us "leftists" use.

I never said the Constitution is the only law in the land, but the Constitution is the highest law of the land. You can't even argue against that. Talk about an argumentative fallacy. Look in the mirror, sport.

Corporations are the ones giving tax deductible donations to international NGO's to help illegal aliens come break our laws.

I've moved state to state many times in my life. It's inconvenient, but not neigh impossible.

If the left does not change the meaning of words, then please define the following words.

1. Woman
2. Vaccine
3. Recession

I don't have to say anything to make leftists look bad. You all do a fine job doing it yourselves.

 

[LainaGabranth]

If the left does not change the meaning of words, then please define the following words.

Here's a question for you.

What is the objective definition of "Chair?"

 

[TraderPatTX]

Here's a question for you.

What is the objective definition of "Chair?"

Chair: a device designed by the patriarchy for sitting. Often used to control and enslave women and BIPOC who desire to stand

see also Stool: a chair-like device with no back forcing women and BIPOC to sit upright with no back support

 

[mituzora]

I never said the Constitution is the only law in the land, but the Constitution is the highest law of the land. You can't even argue against that. Talk about an argumentative fallacy. Look in the mirror, sport.

Corporations are the ones giving tax deductible donations to international NGO's to help illegal aliens come break our laws.

I've moved state to state many times in my life. It's inconvenient, but not neigh impossible.

If the left does not change the meaning of words, then please define the following words.

1. Woman
2. Vaccine
3. Recession

I don't have to say anything to make leftists look bad. You all do a fine job doing it yourselves.

Woman - an adult female. Not specifically biological, but traditionally defined by your sex at birth, but not exclusively defined by your sex at birth
Vaccine - a specific type of medicine that uses methods to train your body to attack viruses so you become "immune" to something. usually injected, and traditionally had the proteins of a virus to train your body to attack those proteins.
Recession - a period of time where purchasing power of a citizen drops significantly due to many various reasons.

There you go.

Kudos to you for being able to move from states, but you're not everyone else now are you? let you in on some of my specifics. I am able to move, but I have to pull my kids out of their clinics, their school systems, find a new job, and leave an entire life behind me. It's doable, but there's so many things that need to change for me to be able to move. I can't just move at the drop of a hat. I know plenty of people who have it worse too. again, "neigh impossible" still fits here. you can't judge everyone else by your personal position, which is what you're doing, and it's a small sample at best.

No argumentative fallacies here; just stating that federal law doesn't mean the constitution, which from your response, you assumed that I meant constitution, which I in fact, did not.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Chair: a device designed by the patriarchy for sitting. Often used to control and enslave women and BIPOC who desire to stand

see also Stool: a chair-like device with no back forcing women and BIPOC to sit upright with no back support

No, no coping. We all know right wing comedy isn't funny anyways. Let's hear the objective definition of chair.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Woman - an adult female. Not specifically biological, but traditionally defined by your sex at birth, but not exclusively defined by your sex at birth
Vaccine - a specific type of medicine that uses methods to train your body to attack viruses so you become "immune" to something. usually injected, and traditionally had the proteins of a virus to train your body to attack those proteins.
Recession - a period of time where purchasing power of a citizen drops significantly due to many various reasons.

There you go.

How do you know a woman is female? Are you assuming gender?

If that's the definition of vaccine, then people have a lot 'splaing to do.

What is the prime indicator used to define the start of a recession for the past 10 recessions, but is not used for this current one?

 

[TraderPatTX]

No, no coping. We all know right wing comedy isn't funny anyways. Let's hear the objective definition of chair.

I'm pretty sure I nailed that one.

 

[mituzora]

How do you know a woman is female? Are you assuming gender?

If that's the definition of vaccine, then people have a lot 'splaing to do.

What is the prime indicator used to define the start of a recession for the past 10 recessions, but is not used for this current one?

Not necessarily, but it's safe to assume that an AFAB person is a woman until stated otherwise. To be defined as a Woman typically carries some traditionally understood behaviors(see feministic), but doesn't always fit into that role. It's certainly not defined by your genitalia as you seem to be alluding to.

Not really, that's been a well-understood definition for a long time. Just because you have to get boosters with certain viruses, or yearly vaccinations doesn't change that definition.

I have no clue what prime indicator that you're talking about, not gonna lie. recessions can happen for a myriad of things. My guess is inflation?

 

[LainaGabranth]

I'm pretty sure I nailed that one.

Well you got the whole squad laughing. Just not with you :^)

No, the reason you're having to defer to weak sarcasm is because there is no objectively definition for a chair. Is the ground a chair? It's "stationary", usually flat enough to support you, and so on. Tables? Desks? Bar stools? An upside down bucket?

The reason these are important questions to ask is that NO, and I mean *NONE AT ALL*, definition is objective in nature. We agree upon them. That's verbatim why the word "literally" has become a synonym for figuratively, why "irony" has become a synonym for insincere or in jest, and so on.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot define anything more objectively than I can. You do not have an objective definition for woman, recession, or vaccine. And you never will, because no one can. Words are made up. They only exist because we made them. We designed the squiggles that represent them in alphabets, and we designed the mouth sounds that represent them in languages, with agreement deciding their meaning.

The difference between you and I however is that you propose definitions that exclude themselves, because they do not actually properly exclude or isolate the unintended from the intended definition.

In conclusion, you are holding ontologically impossible positions and then using a forced smugness to hide the fact you do not believe anything.

 

[mituzora]

Well you got the whole squad laughing. Just not with you :^)

No, the reason you're having to defer to weak sarcasm is because there is no objectively definition for a chair. Is the ground a chair? It's "stationary", usually flat enough to support you, and so on. Tables? Desks? Bar stools? An upside down bucket?

The reason these are important questions to ask is that NO, and I mean *NONE AT ALL*, definition is objective in nature. We agree upon them. That's verbatim why the word "literally" has become a synonym for figuratively, why "irony" has become a synonym for insincere or in jest, and so on.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot define anything more objectively than I can. You do not have an objective definition for woman, recession, or vaccine. And you never will, because no one can. Words are made up. They only exist because we made them. We designed the squiggles that represent them in alphabets, and we designed the mouth sounds that represent them in languages, with agreement deciding their meaning.

The difference between you and I however is that you propose definitions that exclude themselves, because they do not actually properly exclude or isolate the unintended from the intended definition.

In conclusion, you are holding ontologically impossible positions and then using a forced smugness to hide the fact you do not believe anything.

ha! perfect. couldn't have said it better myself.

also, if you look up any of those words, I guarantee you they have a few different definitions, based off of the dictionary, source, locale, etc.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Not necessarily, but it's safe to assume that an AFAB person is a woman until stated otherwise. To be defined as a Woman typically carries some traditionally understood behaviors(see feministic), but doesn't always fit into that role. It's certainly not defined by your genitalia as you seem to be alluding to.

Not really, that's been a well-understood definition for a long time. Just because you have to get boosters with certain viruses, or yearly vaccinations doesn't change that definition.

I have no clue what prime indicator that you're talking about, not gonna lie. recessions can happen for a myriad of things. My guess is inflation?

So in other words, you look at a person and determine, without even asking what gender they are. Guess the rules don't apply to everyone.

The CDC literally changed the definition because these shots did not adhere to the classic definition.

This is why the left is often wrong. There are many times and many subject matters that you all have no clue, but you all pretend that you do. The last 10 recessions over the past few decades have always started when quarterly GDP contracted for two straight quarters. Literally everybody knows this. Now all of a sudden, when a Democrat is president, it's nuanced. And the leftist seals on here all clap in unison and pretend that all is well in the land.