Update for Everyone VI: What Is and What Should Never Be

[SATW]

So as posted in PAPOY, I spent my day in DC visiting various Senate offices. There was a lot of love from some offices, we had lunch with Rand Paul's staffers, who gave us an opportunity to meet him, and we got to have a meeting with Tim Kaine's Chief of Staff to discuss our concerns as residents of Virginia.  

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

Imagine using precious time and energy to lobby for a gang-rapist.

I use precious time and money going to clubs and getting wasted beyond the realm of what should be possible to numb the stress of the 100 hour weeks I do.

I respect that she's fighting for something she believes in, instead of just blowing it like I do lmao

Better to blow your dough on drink than to lobby for a raping drunkard to be on the Supreme Court.

Also, what she believes in seems to change depending on the time of week. Full on MAGA by 2020, I'd expect.

Drinking the haterade doesn't help you get laid.

[RINO Tom]

So as posted in PAPOY, I spent my day in DC visiting various Senate offices. There was a lot of love from some offices, we had lunch with Rand Paul's staffers, who gave us an opportunity to meet him, and we got to have a meeting with Tim Kaine's Chief of Staff to discuss our concerns as residents of Virginia. 

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

When liberals get their finest together for a protest, they are NOT bringing their best, LOL.

[fhtagn]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself.  

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself.  

This isn't about personality or character. This is about allegiance and Direct Action. I'm not defending their actions, far from it, merely saying it is a conscious choice to bow to the doctrine of Force in the name of Ends. In the liberal state, it was long ago decided that such was only the State's prerogative. Not so for the radical.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself.  

[PragmaticPopulist]

Went to this book event last night to get my signed copy of Steve Kornacki's new book.

https://twitter.com/HallieJackson/status/1046770862479814656

Also was glad to meet the man himself, along with Hallie Jackson!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Went to this book event last night to get my signed copy of Steve Kornacki's new book.

https://twitter.com/HallieJackson/status/1046770862479814656

Also was glad to meet the man himself, along with Hallie Jackson!

I like them both. They seem responsible.

[HillGoose]

oh dudes also a couple of days ago I met Karl Dean. Was cool. I'm definitely voting him for Governor of TN. There were some things I was iffy on in his positions but also he puts a lot of focus on areas I agree with him in, so he's got my vote.

[Donerail]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Sam, I like you but don’t ever forget that you’re basically a rich white kid from Saint Petersburg. Nobody is perpetrating “mass violence” against you.

Again, I want to clarify: I like you a lot. You’re a good poster and person. We’re all a little high strung right now but we don’t need to assault each other.

[fhtagn]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

It's not an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone, it's simply stating a fact about the person I'm speaking with. I can respect and understand the viewpoints of others who disagree with me just fine, both in real life and on this forum, and get along with those folks very well. Some of them have even become good friends of mine off forum. What I have no respect for, is people who would go as far as wishing violence or death on those who simply disagree with them. I stand by calling anyone who does that subhuman, because that is an accurate statement regarding them and their behavior. It's not limited to one side, but anyone who actually condones this.

I'm also not particularly interested in a privileged white kid that has no real life experiences with the issues he supposedly stands so strongly for lecturing me on right and wrong and acting like he is some sort of victim. Nothing I have posted even remotely suggests that I support mass violence against any people, and to somehow see my views as that speaks more about your paranoid delusions than my views.

[BBD]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself.  

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

It's not an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone, it's simply stating a fact about the person I'm speaking with. I can respect and understand the viewpoints of others who disagree with me just fine, both in real life and on this forum, and get along with those folks very well. Some of them have even become good friends of mine off forum. What I have no respect for, is people who would go as far as wishing violence or death on those who simply disagree with them. I stand by calling anyone who does that subhuman, because that is an accurate statement regarding them and their behavior. It's not limited to one side, but anyone who actually condones this.

I'm also not particularly interested in a privileged white kid that has no real life experiences with the issues he supposedly stands so strongly for lecturing me on right and wrong and acting like he is some sort of victim. Nothing I have posted even remotely suggests that I support mass violence against any people, and to somehow see my views as that speaks more about your paranoid delusions than my views.

Rather have a "privileged white kid" who takes a stand against privileged, coddled rapists such as Kavanaugh than a minority female who defends said privileged rapists.

Maybe consider that sjoyce actually has a shred of empathy and doesn't need to necessarily have something directly affect him to speak out. Of course, Kavanaugh's nomination will affect all of us when he's obliterating what's left of our civil liberties, the environment, and workers' rights (issues that I'm surprised you don't seem to give a damn about, considering your (G) and (L) history).

[fhtagn]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

It's not an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone, it's simply stating a fact about the person I'm speaking with. I can respect and understand the viewpoints of others who disagree with me just fine, both in real life and on this forum, and get along with those folks very well. Some of them have even become good friends of mine off forum. What I have no respect for, is people who would go as far as wishing violence or death on those who simply disagree with them. I stand by calling anyone who does that subhuman, because that is an accurate statement regarding them and their behavior. It's not limited to one side, but anyone who actually condones this.

I'm also not particularly interested in a privileged white kid that has no real life experiences with the issues he supposedly stands so strongly for lecturing me on right and wrong and acting like he is some sort of victim. Nothing I have posted even remotely suggests that I support mass violence against any people, and to somehow see my views as that speaks more about your paranoid delusions than my views.

Rather have a "privileged white kid" who takes a stand against privileged, coddled rapists such as Kavanaugh than a minority female who defends said privileged rapists.

Maybe consider that sjoyce actually has a shred of empathy and doesn't need to necessarily have something directly affect him to speak out. Of course, Kavanaugh's nomination will affect all of us when he's obliterating what's left of our civil liberties, the environment, and workers' rights.

PS: rapists are subhuman. If you disagree with that, maybe you're subhuman as well.

Unsupported claims of sexual assault doesn't make someone a rapist. Hate to break it to you, but that's just the truth. Yes, I do agree rapists are subhuman. I never said anything to indicate otherwise, and I certainly wouldn't defend one.  But to claim that there is undeniable evidence that Kavanaugh is a rapist that will obliterate our civil liberties, the environment, and worker's rights is simply delusional.

[BBD]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

It's not an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone, it's simply stating a fact about the person I'm speaking with. I can respect and understand the viewpoints of others who disagree with me just fine, both in real life and on this forum, and get along with those folks very well. Some of them have even become good friends of mine off forum. What I have no respect for, is people who would go as far as wishing violence or death on those who simply disagree with them. I stand by calling anyone who does that subhuman, because that is an accurate statement regarding them and their behavior. It's not limited to one side, but anyone who actually condones this.

I'm also not particularly interested in a privileged white kid that has no real life experiences with the issues he supposedly stands so strongly for lecturing me on right and wrong and acting like he is some sort of victim. Nothing I have posted even remotely suggests that I support mass violence against any people, and to somehow see my views as that speaks more about your paranoid delusions than my views.

Rather have a "privileged white kid" who takes a stand against privileged, coddled rapists such as Kavanaugh than a minority female who defends said privileged rapists.

Maybe consider that sjoyce actually has a shred of empathy and doesn't need to necessarily have something directly affect him to speak out. Of course, Kavanaugh's nomination will affect all of us when he's obliterating what's left of our civil liberties, the environment, and workers' rights.

PS: rapists are subhuman. If you disagree with that, maybe you're subhuman as well.

Unsupported claims of sexual assault doesn't make someone a rapist. Hate to break it to you, but that's just the truth. Yes, I do agree rapists are subhuman. I never said anything to indicate otherwise, and I certainly wouldn't defend one.  But to claim that there is undeniable evidence that Kavanaugh is a rapist that will obliterate our civil liberties, the environment, and worker's rights is simply delusional.

Right back at you. Maybe you'll revert to one of your previous forms one day and stop trying to deny the undeniable.

[fhtagn]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

It's not an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone, it's simply stating a fact about the person I'm speaking with. I can respect and understand the viewpoints of others who disagree with me just fine, both in real life and on this forum, and get along with those folks very well. Some of them have even become good friends of mine off forum. What I have no respect for, is people who would go as far as wishing violence or death on those who simply disagree with them. I stand by calling anyone who does that subhuman, because that is an accurate statement regarding them and their behavior. It's not limited to one side, but anyone who actually condones this.

I'm also not particularly interested in a privileged white kid that has no real life experiences with the issues he supposedly stands so strongly for lecturing me on right and wrong and acting like he is some sort of victim. Nothing I have posted even remotely suggests that I support mass violence against any people, and to somehow see my views as that speaks more about your paranoid delusions than my views.

Rather have a "privileged white kid" who takes a stand against privileged, coddled rapists such as Kavanaugh than a minority female who defends said privileged rapists.

Maybe consider that sjoyce actually has a shred of empathy and doesn't need to necessarily have something directly affect him to speak out. Of course, Kavanaugh's nomination will affect all of us when he's obliterating what's left of our civil liberties, the environment, and workers' rights.

PS: rapists are subhuman. If you disagree with that, maybe you're subhuman as well.

Unsupported claims of sexual assault doesn't make someone a rapist. Hate to break it to you, but that's just the truth. Yes, I do agree rapists are subhuman. I never said anything to indicate otherwise, and I certainly wouldn't defend one.  But to claim that there is undeniable evidence that Kavanaugh is a rapist that will obliterate our civil liberties, the environment, and worker's rights is simply delusional.

Right back at you. Maybe you'll revert to one of your previous forms one day and stop trying to deny the undeniable.

Maybe you'll develop some critical thinking skills in the meantime.

[BBD]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

It's not an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone, it's simply stating a fact about the person I'm speaking with. I can respect and understand the viewpoints of others who disagree with me just fine, both in real life and on this forum, and get along with those folks very well. Some of them have even become good friends of mine off forum. What I have no respect for, is people who would go as far as wishing violence or death on those who simply disagree with them. I stand by calling anyone who does that subhuman, because that is an accurate statement regarding them and their behavior. It's not limited to one side, but anyone who actually condones this.

I'm also not particularly interested in a privileged white kid that has no real life experiences with the issues he supposedly stands so strongly for lecturing me on right and wrong and acting like he is some sort of victim. Nothing I have posted even remotely suggests that I support mass violence against any people, and to somehow see my views as that speaks more about your paranoid delusions than my views.

Rather have a "privileged white kid" who takes a stand against privileged, coddled rapists such as Kavanaugh than a minority female who defends said privileged rapists.

Maybe consider that sjoyce actually has a shred of empathy and doesn't need to necessarily have something directly affect him to speak out. Of course, Kavanaugh's nomination will affect all of us when he's obliterating what's left of our civil liberties, the environment, and workers' rights.

PS: rapists are subhuman. If you disagree with that, maybe you're subhuman as well.

Unsupported claims of sexual assault doesn't make someone a rapist. Hate to break it to you, but that's just the truth. Yes, I do agree rapists are subhuman. I never said anything to indicate otherwise, and I certainly wouldn't defend one.  But to claim that there is undeniable evidence that Kavanaugh is a rapist that will obliterate our civil liberties, the environment, and worker's rights is simply delusional.

Right back at you. Maybe you'll revert to one of your previous forms one day and stop trying to deny the undeniable.

Maybe you'll develop some critical thinking skills in the meantime.

Your level of projection is on par with our head honcho. Very impressive.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Sam, I like you but don’t ever forget that you’re basically a rich white kid from Saint Petersburg. Nobody is perpetrating “mass violence” against you.

Again, I want to clarify: I like you a lot. You’re a good poster and person. We’re all a little high strung right now but we don’t need to assault each other.

I mean, I'm sure I probably still like SJoyce as a person, but his views have drifted very far recently. It's not entirely unrelatable; for one, he's at college, and for two, the Trump years have pushed many people into directly opposing camps. But (subjectively) it gets more than off-putting more than occasionally. What I typed still stands. It's hard for me to judge someone's character when they are within certain ideological prisms primarily because I tend to try to assume some good faith arguments, and because I know there are situations where one could understandably say action outside of the law was necessary (the American Revolution is a pretty uncontroversial example). That said, it's an approach I more than disagree with and one where I believe there's good reason we have law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sam, I like you but don’t ever forget that you’re basically a rich white kid from Saint Petersburg. Nobody is perpetrating “mass violence” against you.

Again, I want to clarify: I like you a lot. You’re a good poster and person. We’re all a little high strung right now but we don’t need to assault each other.

I mean, I'm sure I probably still like SJoyce as a person, but his views have drifted very far recently. It's not entirely unrelatable; for one, he's at college, and for two, the Trump years have pushed many people into directly opposing camps. But (subjectively) it gets more than off-putting more than occasionally. What I typed still stands. It's hard for me to judge someone's character when they are within certain ideological prisms primarily because I tend to try to assume some good faith arguments, and because I know there are situations where one could understandably say action outside of the law was necessary (the American Revolution is a pretty uncontroversial example). That said, it's an approach I more than disagree with and one where I believe there's good reason we have law.

Says you. I happen to have Loyalist ancestors who had to flee to Canada because they didn't think a disagreement over taxes warranted being traitorous rebel scum.

[anvi]

Well, I live here now, and even after fifteen months, the beauty of the place never gets old.

[/URL]

[DC Al Fine]

Sam, I like you but don’t ever forget that you’re basically a rich white kid from Saint Petersburg. Nobody is perpetrating “mass violence” against you.

Again, I want to clarify: I like you a lot. You’re a good poster and person. We’re all a little high strung right now but we don’t need to assault each other.

I mean, I'm sure I probably still like SJoyce as a person, but his views have drifted very far recently. It's not entirely unrelatable; for one, he's at college, and for two, the Trump years have pushed many people into directly opposing camps. But (subjectively) it gets more than off-putting more than occasionally. What I typed still stands. It's hard for me to judge someone's character when they are within certain ideological prisms primarily because I tend to try to assume some good faith arguments, and because I know there are situations where one could understandably say action outside of the law was necessary (the American Revolution is a pretty uncontroversial example). That said, it's an approach I more than disagree with and one where I believe there's good reason we have law.

Says you. I happen to have Loyalist ancestors who had to flee to Canada because they didn't think a disagreement over taxes warranted being traitorous rebel scum.

Lol yes. Bloody traitor rebs thinking their disrespect for the crown is normal.

[DC Al Fine]

Sadly, I suspect I'll soon be changing which church I call my home church.  As I've mentioned before on the Forum, I'm a UU, tho I'd be most comfortable as an old-line Universalist.  My home church was at the time I joined it one that unlike many UU churches steered clear of politics.  (Strangely enuf for someone on here, I'm not all that political but more interested in how politics works in the abstract.)  I go to church for spirituality, not politics, tho I realize there is no clear dividing line.

However, there's been turnover since I joined.  The old pastor was great but the new one not so much, at least not for me. In place of sermons on how to be spiritual when dealing with a particular social topic, it's mostly lessons on comparative religious experiences and holidays. I don't find myself in need of social studies lessons, even ones with a veneer of spirituality attached.

Moreover, the membership has taken a turn for the political.  They're doing so in a manner that I think leads from the heart, but isn't considering the head.  They're considering going in a new direction and jumping into it feet first. While some members of the congregation have taken an interest in immigrant issues and been active in them, the congregation as a whole has not. Getting active in those areas wouldn't be a bad idea, but going from essentially zero to considering becoming a sanctuary church is a bit abrupt, even if we had the capacity to do so, which I doubt. It's a very small church and we've run a deficit for quite some time.  It's not enough to cause a quick collapse, but I do see this as significantly hastening the decline in finances.  Build it and they will come is a movie line, not a financial plan.  Granted, I don't think offering sanctuary is the best use of resources to help the immigrant community, but it's not the policy itself, but the haste and recklessness combined with a major lurch into politics that has caused me to reconsider my connections to my current home church.

So what to do?  There really is no perfect fit, at least not in my area.  UCC would work theologically for me, and indeed my first few years up until my family moved from Florida to South Carolina when I was not quite five were with a UCC church being my family church.  I even read a good bit of leftover UCC youth literature that my older siblings had used in Sunday school there when I was of an age to read.  But the one UCC congregation in the area is a former Metropolitan Community Church, and while it's not an LGBT-only church, it understandably is a major focus, but it's not a focus for me. LGBT issues don't significantly impact my personal life.

The Moravian Church would be a good fit for me , but they have no churches in South Carolina, let alone my part of it.

Disciples of Christ would also be a good fit theologically, but the one congregation in the area I might consider joining suffers from a serious lack of membership and it's not in a convenient area for me.  It has a fairly large 1960's era church built to accommodate the expected continued growth of that church, but like all mainline churches has suffered declines instead since then. It just doesn't strike me as vibrant.

So I'm considering joining the ELCA. I do regularly attend one for Bible study and serve every so often as a lay reader on Sundays there.  My qualms at becoming a member are mostly that I take doctrinal creeds seriously and while the ELCA is liberal theologically it still has creeds.  As it is, I have to take a minor liberty (see below) with the reading of the Apostle's Creed that conforms to Isaiah 7:14, without placing a particular interpretation thereof.

But I like the church and the pastor, and I've begun preliminary discussion with her laying out my concerns about joining.  We'll see what happens.  There is still a couple weeks before the vote at my current church, tho I have little doubt that at most my concerns will cause them to proceed more cautiously, but I do think I am likely to switch from being a member of a UU church and an associate of an ELCA church to the reverse, even while remaining the same theologically.  It's odd in that I'll essentially be going from being one of the most conservative members to one of the more liberal members of my home church.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Almah Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Very interesting. I'm glad you are taking the creeds and confessions so seriously. Could you elaborate a little bit about why the Disciples of Christ are a better fit for you theologically and why you are opting for a less theologically fitting but more vibrant congregation?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Sam, I like you but don’t ever forget that you’re basically a rich white kid from Saint Petersburg. Nobody is perpetrating “mass violence” against you.

Again, I want to clarify: I like you a lot. You’re a good poster and person. We’re all a little high strung right now but we don’t need to assault each other.

I mean, I'm sure I probably still like SJoyce as a person, but his views have drifted very far recently. It's not entirely unrelatable; for one, he's at college, and for two, the Trump years have pushed many people into directly opposing camps. But (subjectively) it gets more than off-putting more than occasionally. What I typed still stands. It's hard for me to judge someone's character when they are within certain ideological prisms primarily because I tend to try to assume some good faith arguments, and because I know there are situations where one could understandably say action outside of the law was necessary (the American Revolution is a pretty uncontroversial example). That said, it's an approach I more than disagree with and one where I believe there's good reason we have law.

Says you. I happen to have Loyalist ancestors who had to flee to Canada because they didn't think a disagreement over taxes warranted being traitorous rebel scum.

I was referring to Americans, not Loyalists.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hurricane Michael is going to make a smack dab impact on Tallahassee. I’m in for it. Gillum finksed up the last hurricane bigly.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Long story short, I feel like I'm being forced to put my independence on hold so I can help my brother can get independent. Liberties are being taken with my schedule while my dad refuses to change his around.

Considering the year or so I've fought to not take on a parental role, to say I'm not pleased is an understatement.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So I’m alive and unharmed, and my apartment (and most of Tally from what I can tell) is unscathed. No power currently but everything’s good. Pray for Panama City Beach though. I’ve heard rumors that the city has been devastated but I can’t get any TV and my internet is weak to non-existent. Atlas loads at least!