Antifa A Terrorist Organization

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Maybe one day you'll change your mind on support of Hamas and democratic party candidates?

I'll never change my mind on Hamas. I'll never support them unless they disarm and commit to nonviolence.

I've voted for a Democrat once in my life and I regret it.

[jross]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

1) There is no formal definition of DEI. It's a principle that each entity who uses it interprets and applies differently. You really need to do a better job of knowing knowing about the things you criticize.

In general, DEI is focused eliminating discrimination based on difference, most commonly race, religion, gender, etc...

The Senate also eliminates discrimination based on difference, the difference being population size. No matter how large the population is, each state gets the same amount of representatives.

 

 

So its whatever you want it to mean, I got it.

Because what it is mostly focused on race, religion, gender... what most informal documentation names specifically... IS NOTHING to do with state sovereignty. 

The comparison isn't entirely baseless but it is inaccurate.  The senate structure is about political federalism and not demographic equity.

[uncle bernard]

12 minutes ago, jross said:

Because while it is technically possible it is practically impossible.  It will take two-thirds of Congress to propose amendments and three-fourths to ratify.  So many amendments would need updated that it would perhaps be easier to create a new constitution.

 

It's hard, so give up? Coming from the "work hard, be personally responsible" guy? lmao

[jross]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Exactly. Just like Jimmy, you're missing the kid's point in the video. He's poking a hole in Charlie's argument to force Charlie to argue the specifics of the issue instead of referring back to a general principle that is contradictory.

My question has nothing to directly do with the video.

It's a legit theoretically question on consistency.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

6 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

I'll never change my mind on Hamas. I'll never support them unless they disarm and commit to nonviolence.

I've voted for a Democrat once in my life and I regret it.

How many lies in one post?

[uncle bernard]

Just now, jross said:

So its whatever you want it to mean, I got it.

Because what it is mostly focused on race, religion, gender... what most informal documentation names specifically... IS NOTHING to do with state sovereignty. 

The comparison isn't entirely baseless but it is inaccurate.  The senate structure is about political federalism and not demographic equity.

Explain. Why can't it be both? You can split power between the federal and state government without the Senate. We already do that! State power (federalism) is guaranteed by Article IV of the Constitution, not the Senate.

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, jross said:

My question has nothing to directly do with the video.

It's a legit theoretically question on consistency.

Right, that's why I'm not committed to the larger principle here. It has to be judged according to each specific situation. I can also tell you I'm in no way committed to the version of DEI you have in mind, so there's no contradiction in my position.

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

It's hard, so give up? Coming from the "work hard, be personally responsible" guy? lmao

Were you in favor of doge?  A lot of people like rv said it was to hard and not to do it.  

[jross]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

It's hard, so give up? Coming from the "work hard, be personally responsible" guy? lmao

Personal responsibility includes "accepting the truth from whatever source it comes."

"The better part of valor is discretion."

[ionel]

15 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

You've confused yourself here. If you don't think everybody should have equal representation, you should be against the Senate, which imposes equal representation on everybody regardless of population size.

You are the one who said 1 man 1 vote not me.  

[uncle bernard]

3 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

How many lies in one post?

See, you're doing it again. Anytime you encounter something that contradicts your priors, you say it's a lie so you don't have to think for yourself. Start thinking, man! Have some pride!

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Were you in favor of doge?  A lot of people like rv said it was to hard and not to do it.  

I was critical of DOGE, not because of it's stated mission, but because it ignored the largest sources of waste due to ideological reasons. If someone wants to audit the Pentagon and cut back on the corruption/waste, they have my full support.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

You are the one who said 1 man 1 vote not me.  

Yeah, the Bernie Bro likes to make it up as he goes along and make claims that he said one thing when he actually said another.

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

You are the one who said 1 man 1 vote not me.  

Right, not 1 state, 2 votes.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Yeah, the Bernie Bro likes to make it up as he goes along and make claims that he said one thing when he actually said another.

You still haven't started thinking. Make an argument. Show me where I'm wrong! Point out what I said that you think I'm lying about. Copy and paste is easy!

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

You still haven't started thinking. Make an argument. Show me where I'm wrong! Point out what I said that you think I'm lying about. Copy and paste is easy!

Copy and paste is your livelihood.

[jross]

6 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Explain. Why can't it be both? You can split power between the federal and state government without the Senate. We already do that! State power (federalism) is guaranteed by Article IV of the Constitution, not the Senate.

Because the power was not written for demographics, and it is unfair to retroactively claim it was. Senators represent their states, not subsets of demographic groups.

 

[ionel]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

I like the popular vote because I believe in 1 man - 1 vote. 

 

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Right, not 1 state, 2 votes.

You said "1 man - 1 vote" not state.

Of course your "democracy" will never happen as 99% of women will vote against it.  

[uncle bernard]

5 minutes ago, jross said:

Personal responsibility includes "accepting the truth from whatever source it comes."

"The better part of valor is discretion."

Lol, okay confucius.

Neither of these quotes apply by the way. I actually read Henry IV a month ago (where the better part of discretion is valor quote comes from).

He's excusing his cowardice (faking his death to avoid a fight). There is a certain wisdom in that, but it only applies when there is danger.

It is precisely because there is no danger for advocating for legal changes in this country that the principle does not apply! The whole point of America is that we don't have to sacrifice valor for our personal safety, like Falstaff. We have a legal right to fight for what we believe in.

[uncle bernard]

5 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Copy and paste is your livelihood.

Still avoiding thought. Show me where I'm wrong coward!

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

 

You said "1 man - 1 vote" not state.

Of course your "democracy" will never happen as 99% of women will vote against it.  

Jesus, man try to keep up.

Yes, *I* said 1 man - 1 vote. *You* are the one saying 1 state, 2 votes.

Okay, now try again.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Still avoiding thought. Show me where I'm wrong coward!

*wrong, coward!

[jross]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

Lol, okay confucius.

Neither of these quotes apply by the way. I actually read Henry IV a month ago (where the better part of discretion is valor quote comes from).

He's excusing his cowardice (faking his death to avoid a fight). There is a certain wisdom in that, but it only applies when there is danger.

It is precisely because there is no danger for advocating for legal changes in this country that the principle does not apply! The whole point of America is that we don't have to sacrifice valor for our personal safety, like Falstaff. We have a legal right to fight for what we believe in.

I'm saying you have to be real and understand what fights you have a chance to win.  

There is a non zero chance that the country will change on this topic.

A waste of time.

[uncle bernard]

6 minutes ago, jross said:

Because the power was not written for demographics, and it is unfair to retroactively claim it was. Senators represent their states, not subsets of demographic groups.

 

Federalism is not solely established through the Senate. It's established through the Constitution.

The primary purpose of the Senate having 2 senators was exactly written for demographics - to balance the power between low population states and high population states.

"The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. . . "

James Madison, Federalist Paper 62.

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Jesus, man try to keep up.

Yes, *I* said 1 man - 1 vote. *You* are the one saying 1 state, 2 votes.

Okay, now try again.

Quote me where I said that.