I can’t square conservatism with freedom.

The right/Republicans are every bit as guilty of the hive mind mentality aka tribalism. Bias, prejudice, ego and self-delusion lock both sides into such blindness. Human nature is systemic. To assume one’s preferred group is a special exception reveals one’s ignorance of themselves, their tribe and human nature.

I see both sides attacking our freedoms. If you don’t then you are probably a partisan. Loyalty blinds my friend.

 

Our founding document are open to interpretation. To believe one has an inerrant understanding of the DOI is to deny human nature. We interpret our founding document is self serving ways. Those that claim to be the arbiter of the correct way to read them is a baseless authoritarian claim.

 

Aren’t most things that go against our most fundamental views bs? The right thinks the left is full of it while the left think the right is full of it while I think we are all full of it to degrees that would shatter our fragile egos if understood.

 

There are different types of freedom. And it seems to be a trade-off.

Which freedoms do you think are important?

Then maybe you are a Libertarian, or at least a Fabian-style Socialist?

 

And the other way around is also true. Freedom limited to "progressive" values is seen as authoritarian to those with different values, when those values inevitably conflict.

Maybe each side should pay more attention to how they infringe on the rights valued by the other side which are not important to them?

 

LMAOROG, The DOI is towards King George and England, has nothing to do with the Constitution


It's not legally binding, at the most it's inspirational but it also said all people are created equal, but should've said WHITES because neither it or the Constitution addressed slavery

 

ALREADY IS

 

Jan 6 was inspired by US president. The BLM riots were triggered by cops murdering unarmed blacks.

The fact that Jan 6 rioters were Republican is a relevant fact.

The fact that most BLMers who peacefully demonstrated were democrats is an inadvertant fact.

Those who rioted and committed crimes were probably were criminals, and criminals are not welcome in the DNC. If any were registered dems, that is an inadvertent fact.

Not only are the criminals of jan 6 welcome in the Trump administration, if he is elected, he has vowed to pardon most of them, oblivious to the fact that they were convicted by a jury.

what makes the 'fact' relevant or inadvertent has to do with how the event occurred.

No president or democrat inspired the BLM riots. THe riots were triggered by perceived police brutality.

A president inspired the Jan 6 riots.

This is the distinction many republicans and some independents are unwilling to make, but, if they were honest, they would.

 

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

 

You may be right.

 

Democracy is a give and take, and by design, not everyone gets their way. That doesn't equal 'authoritarianism', per se.

At the executive branch level, what corruption are you attributing to the 'left'?

On the right, we have

Nixon/Watergate/Spiro's corruption."bagman" scandal.
Reagan/Iran Contra
And Trump's corruption and crimes which are abundant.

So, on the left, you might have a complaint against Bill Clinton regarding Whitewater and his peccadilloes, but I would never vote for him, he's a neoliberal, anyway, like most on the right are..

count him (and her) on the **** list, so..... Who else?

 

The SCOTUS has referred to the declaration on occasion.

 

I was not implying both sides destroy things in equal measure. I am saying I know of no objective way to tell which is the worse offender generally speaking nor do I care as wrong for one is wrong for all. Both sides claim the other side is worse then offer up cherry-picked evidence while ignoring evidence injurious to their own. Your side is as blind to their own failings as the other side is blind to their own. Justifying siding with the lesser evil is to support evil.

The right boycott and the left cancels? Sounds like hypocrisy to me. Changing the words does not mean there is a difference. Rationalizing hypocrisy is not honesty. Human nature is systemic, that includes the right.

As for limiting speech on social media platforms, I watch conservatives rightly lambaste the left for doing it. I agree that social media companies can set the terms of service, but many on the right during Trump’s time in office believed differently thus either a schism in the party or a double standard.

As for my view of social media bans. I am all for bans for personal attacks, threats or incitement of criminal behavior.

 

The difference between a boycott and getting canceled is that a boycott involves a product and getting canceled involves an individual.

I can understand why some want to blur the distinctions. So remember kids- if you throw a person in an oven you are responsible for your actions no matter who ordered you to throw that person into an oven. You will probably want to save that for future reference.

 

I was crystal clear on the difference between the right's boycotts and the lefts cancel culture. There's a distinct difference in choosing to buy a different product and wanting a business closed and not allowed to operate thus destroying the livelihood of the owners. The left wants lives destroyed, that's far beyond a boycott. If you're going to throw around the word hypocrisy, make sure it's actually justified.

 

And did so by lying to Americans. Very Machiavellian in that the means were justified by the ends. Unfortunately for the Christian right they violated one of the Ten Commandments by doing so. Most Americans support abortion in one form or another. So congratulations, the right used lies and tricks and subverted the will of the majority. Very authoritarian of the right. I am pro life by the way but above that I am pro democracy and against authoritarianism on the left and right.

 

When the conservatives speak of rights they are talking about individual rights, rights everyone possess because sometimes doing the right thing is always the right thing no matter what. Things like the rights to life, the right to Liberty, and the right to property. Each individual has equal share in these rights.

When the leftists talk about rights, they talk about women's rights or Blacks rights, or gay rights, or queer rights, or white Christian male oppression.

See the difference?

 

Cases?

I FOUND THIS

''The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has not cited the Declaration of Independence as authority for a decision in any case. While the Declaration of Independence is considered a foundational document of the United States, it is not considered a legal document and thus is not used as a basis for court decisions. However, the principles and ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence, such as the protection of individual rights and the limitations on government power, have been referenced and relied upon in court decisions throughout American history.''

 

Well here is a list of "some" and I said referenced, not cited.

https://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

The court agrees with my opinion that the DOI holds the context of Our Constitution.- Cotting v. Goddard, 1901

 

You assume too much. I have not come to a conclusion as to whether the lockdown was justified or not. Matters not as even if I do come to conclude it was justified it would still be an authoritarian policy. Do you assume that I do not see the left as authoritarian also? I do by the way. Freedom is not our nature. Oppression and domination of the out-group so the in-group may enjoy freedoms.. that is our nature.

Your 2nd paragraph is spot on in terms of how I see it. We each come to our own conclusion as to what the founding documents say. Then many form political alliances based upon said conclusions. It is like a belief in god, billions believe but there is much debate as to what the founding religious texts say. In religion and politics many like to claim to have an unbiased take on founding documents and texts, but the claims tend to be opinion rather than fact.

 

Harm is often a subjective assessment. Who is harmed by a LGBTQ personality being part of a beer advertisement? If no one then why all the grief about it? I find that partisans like to spout ideals that the tribe fails miserably to live up to. Those that say don’t tread on me tend to be oblivious to how they tried on others.

 

Sure, sure, you can read the words "...shall not be infringed" to mean absolutely can be infringed upon. You can also figure that it's okay to take the fruit of another person's labor, so let's call that some thing other than slavery. Right?

And two plus two equals five, sometimes. It's all in how you read the numbers.

 

Conservatives like some freedoms and liberties and stand against others. Often one’s freedoms and liberties come at the expense of suppressing another’s.

 

Both sides cancel individuals. If you can’t see that then you ain’t looking very hard.