A New Conservative Theory of Why America Is So Polarized

[Chris]

The reviewer's distaste for Caldwell is a little annoying, TBH. Orban and Zemmour are "disreputable" only to those who champion the status quo.

Well, I think he was representing the globalist view of Orban and Zemmour as "disreputable", but he wasn't always clear which side he took. Generally, I think it's difficult for Americans to see the difference between the American view of national populism as patriotic vs national populism vs democratic capitalism. I know I still have trouble having for so long been an advocate of free markets.

[Mister D]

Well, I think he was representing the globalist view of Orban and Zemmour as "disreputable", but he wasn't always clear which side he took. Generally, I think it's difficult for Americans to see the difference between the American view of national populism as patriotic vs national populism vs democratic capitalism. I know I still have trouble having for so long been an advocate of free markets.

I got a negative impression overall. It seemed he was trying to be fair but couldn't help but make a few pointed comments.

Yes that's true. Several of our members make no distinction. Nationalism is much more than a sentiment. It's an ideology and I believe a problematic one but I'll take nationalism over globalism any day.

[jet57]

Doubling down on logical fallacies doesn't make you logical.

Doubling down on ignorance and sophistry only keeps you in the loser’s circle Christoper.

Read - educate yourself.

[jet57]

Thank you. That was a deliberate set up so others can take you apart.

Prior to the CRA, men were treated as created equal before the law. Rights were preserved. Following the CRA, per the OP, men were granted rights by the government that violated others' rights in an attempt to change society. For example, women granted the right to abortion denies the unborns' natural right to life.

You’re way out on limb sawing it away from the tree now.

Nobody was granted rights over others, and I defy you to prove that to be true.

“Unborn”... that’s another topic dude.

[Chris]

Doubling down on ignorance and sophistry only keeps you in the loser’s circle Christoper.

Read - educate yourself.

Ad hom is a white flag. You've narrowed your posts to just that.

[Chris]

Doubling down on ignorance and sophistry only keeps you in the loser’s circle Christoper.

Read - educate yourself.

Ad hom is a white flag. You've narrowed your posts to just that.

[Chris]

You’re way out on limb sawing it away from the tree now.

Nobody was granted rights over others, and I defy you to prove that to be true.

“Unborn”... that’s another topic dude.

For example, women granted the right to abortion denies the unborns' natural right to life.

What, don't like a fact?

Another example, forcing a Christian baked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple violates the baker's right to private property and free association.

You as a social warrior probably can see that.

But the difference is once rights protected us from government intrusion, now rights are forced by government intrusion on society.

[jet57]

For example, women granted the right to abortion denies the unborns' natural right to life.

What, don't like a fact?

Another example, forcing a Christian baked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple violates the baker's right to private property and free association.

You as a social warrior probably can see that.

But the difference is once rights protected us from government intrusion, now rights are forced by government intrusion on society.

Your facts are non sequiturs here. The "Christian" won that battle. So I guess you don;t think that black people should sit at a pubic lunch counter.

Look Christopher, you trying to chew on a rock. Your specious argument will not hold weight up against what the constitution said, what the Declaration said and what the Civil Rights Act really did.

GO back to bed room; it's a school night; lay off the computer games, read a fricken book, learn something and then - maybe - we can continue this. You just don't know what the hell you're talking about. And start your damn anti abortion comments on a another thread.

[jet57]

Ad hom is a white flag. You've narrowed your posts to just that.

You're out of you league again junior.

Go and "PRAY" to the second amendment:

"This is my rifle! There are many like it, but this one is mine!!"...

[Chris]

Your facts are non sequiturs here. The "Christian" won that battle. So I guess you don;t think that black people should sit at a pubic lunch counter.

Look Christopher, you trying to chew on a rock. Your specious argument will not hold weight up against what the constitution said, what the Declaration said and what the Civil Rights Act really did.

GO back to bed room; it's a school night; lay off the computer games, read a fricken book, learn something and then - maybe - we can continue this. You just don't know what the hell you're talking about. And start your damn anti abortion comments on a another thread.

But you are beginning to understand the point at last!

So I guess you don;t think that black people should sit at a pubic lunch counter.

I hope by pubic you meant public.

It's not public, it's private property open to the public.

Politically, constitutionally, no, I don't believe the government has any right to meddle. When it does, it is protecting something that is not a right to one party and denying the right of private property and free association to the other party.

Now personally I find it abhorrent for anyone to so discriminate. But that is not a political problem, it's a social problem.


"Look Christopher" and what follows is merely your simplistic opinion that you're right and I'm wrong. You have no argument. It is merely the might of the government that makes you right.


But now at last you see what the OP argues about two different constitutions.