Burn baby burn! Texas on fire. 🔥

[Fuzzy1975]

Yep that was my point. And surely that should be seen as a huge problem, especially for moving forwards. That doesnt just apply to literotica either.... its an issue everywhere these days. And its sad to watch as it unfolds.

If you're trying to paint this forum as a microcosm of the world, I don't think that is true. Or maybe I should say I hope it isn't!!!

 

[ditzylildoll]

If you're trying to paint this forum as a microcosm of the world, I don't think that is true. Or maybe I should say I hope it isn't!!!

I really hope not either - something we can agree on

 

[John_von_Neumann]

I just reread what I said, And those words that it works differently in different states never came out of my... Well I'm voice texting so mouth.

Que don't say.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Thats further proof of my point though. This would be my first posting on the politics board. As far as I am aware I havent really said anything political.

And immediately I am being given a label for calling out the toxicity in these threads.

What political positions do you support? Because as a frequent poster on the Politics Board, I can tell you that every person who condemns “both sides” always turns out to hold conservative views.

 

[ditzylildoll]

What political positions do you support? Because as a frequent poster on the Politics Board, I can tell you that every person who condemns “both sides” always turns out to hold conservative views.

Varies depending on the issue being discussed. Some things I'd say I was left leaning on, others right leaning.

My only contribution has been to remark that both sides of the debate in this forum frequently devolve into name calling. I stated this in response to a post where the OP remarked they were looking to inspire nuanced debate, which I do not believe you will find on literotica.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Varies depending on the issue being discussed. Some things I'd say I was left leaning on, others right leaning.

My only contribution has been to remark that both sides of the debate in this forum frequently devolve into name calling. I stated this in response to a post where the OP remarked they were looking to inspire nuanced debate, which I do not believe you will find on literotica.

There’s often more nuanced debate among the liberals on the board. The conservatives get called names if they don’t engage in good faith—repeatedly posting debunked lies, or quibbling over the meaning of common words.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I really hope not either - something we can agree on

I think we agreed on a couple points, but I'm not here keeping score. I hope you continue to post in this thread, but if you choose to do so, you will need a thick skin. Here unlike almost all the rest of the site, there is no moderation. So what you post, as long as it doesn't break the TOS is fair game.

Unlike on the other forums where there is moderation. If an argument or flame thread starts there, it is removed. Posters warned or banned. That gives those other thread an air of politeness. But a polite society only remains polite, due to policing. Here there are no police.

 

[ditzylildoll]

I hope you continue to post in this thread, but if you choose to do so, you will need a thick skin.

I think that brings us full circle doesnt it?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I think that brings us full circle doesnt it?

See, you catch on quick! Just about everything posted on here eventually circles back around...*chuckles*

 

[bijedi]

Thank you. I'm aware why there is a politics board. That still doesnt make literotica a good place to find nuanced political debate which is what I believe the OP was looking for.

If that is what the OP is looking for he would engage with the arguments the other posters are making. Instead he dismisses their arguments as being tainted by elitist liberal socialist dogmas. Or with a regurgitation of partisan talking points and other peoples long debunked arguments. He is not looking for nuanced debate, he is looking for uncritical validation of his position.

I did not say you had denied my point at any point either - you merely proved exactly why the discourse is so broken.

 

[ditzylildoll]

If that is what the OP is looking for he would engage with the arguments the other posters are making. Instead he dismisses their arguments as being tainted by elitist liberal socialist dogmas. Or with a regurgitation of partisan talking points and other peoples long debunked arguments. He is not looking for nuanced debate, he is looking for uncritical validation of his position.

Perhaps? I took the statement at face value and responded in kind.

 

[bijedi]

Marshall was one of the worst mistakes in judicial history. That man single-handedly corrupted with the founders intended with the courts. He came into the courts with a concept of judicial evolution, and a concept of an evolving constitution. Up to that point that concept had been rejected by the courts for good reason. It was just a bad idea in liberal thinking in liberal universities. Marshall came along and applied his theory to the courts. What happened to the courts from there is almost irreparable.

The concept that because some judge somewhere or some series of Judges somewhere ruled a certain way on a certain case, now it should untouchable precedent, that is a fallacy on its face. You can always find a judge somewhere who ruled in some way the way you wanted them to rule.

Citing Marshall that way only tells me that far from being a constitutionalist, You are one who supports philosophies that corrupt the clear intention of the Constitution.

I wasn't citing Marshall because I agree with him. I cited Marshall because it was his court that established judicial review, and the acceptance of judicial review is what has led to that situation where the meaning of the constitution can change based on judicial decisions. It is a simple fact. I didn't pass any judgement on whether that situation is good or bad, it is just simply the way it is. I prefer to engage with the world as it is, not as I wished it was. I have found that the universe doesn't generally give a shit about my wishes.

 

[RoryN]

How the hell did this thing get to nine pages / 200+ posts?

 

[bijedi]

Perhaps? I took the statement at face value and responded in kind.

A fair position.

I obviously feel the poster's responses on this thread do not support his statement.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Funny. Jay doesn't know why we attacked Iraq and sanctioned Iran and North Korea or Cuba while we're at it. I mean I knew he didn't have an answer because that would require admitting he's wrong but still.

 

[butters]

Yes, rise above their limitations, but you're not going to rise above their document. That Constitution put down on paper the highest ideals, a government and a government could ever strive to meet. You are not going to be wiser than that document. You are not going to be smarter than that document. You don't have the wisdom to alter that document in a way that will do less than destroy it. That document should be honored and respected and followed in its original intent. It should not be treated as some living evolving document. Founders didn't write it that way. They did not intend it that way. We are not smart enough to treat it that way.

nonsense

who determines 'its original intent'? already we're on shaky ground, and just recently the most knowledgeable, world-renowned experts on the Constitution (Luttig & Tribe), Luttig virtually writing the 'bible' on The Constitution, determined trump was clearly a danger to the USA's democratic republic and wasn't fit to run for or hold a second term...and yet courts are arguing that he could (and some say he should) do just that, ignoring the most expert of experts because it doesn't suit trump supporters.

The founders did not intend that I have the right to vote.

indeed. know your damned place, gurl!

Absolutely not... However, the Constitution did not prohibit women from voting to begin with. It simply didn't say specifically, women you can vote too. The language of the 19th amendment is very much in line with the principles laid out in the Constitution in the declaration of Independence and in the original amendments to the Constitution. That was not adding to the document in the sense of what those who think the Constitution is a living breathing evolving document mean. It was simply stating and setting in stone what already was in the principal of the Constitution? Put another way it was making what was already a rule according to the principles already in the Constitution clearer.

lololol

and that is why the Constitution IS a living, breathing document. just look how many amendments has it seen, amendments with multiple clauses, too

Oh you are going to hate my answer to this. The answer to that question is found in the declaration of Independence. All men are created equal and endowed by CREATOR with certain unalenable rights.

The whole point of the declaration and the Constitution was that our rights don't come from government or the paper or the parchment or whatever else you are saying there... Our basic human rights come from God Almighty himself. He created us with a natural innate desire to live with that freedom. That is why there's a major problem with this philosophy on the left that says government's job is to guarantee living wages and health insurance and take care of all the social welfare stuff and to regulate what churches can say and on and on and on and on. That starts with a philosophy that says rights come from a government. And if rights come from the government, the government can remove those rights.

The founders held and I believe that our rights come from God. And therefore, any government that imposes their mandates on those rights is moving in opposition to the one source that has the right to give and take.

And yes I will make it very clear what I mean. The founders philosophy began with theology. That's the strength of the document.

you are as entitled to your antiquated belief as i am to mine: god is a construct of man seeking to explain away the stuff people didn't understand. And so your 'god' means zero to me; why should your beliefs trump mine? they don't.

Thats further proof of my point though. This would be my first posting on the politics board. As far as I am aware I havent really said anything political.

And immediately I am being given a label for calling out the toxicity in these threads.

if you are posting on a political board, perhaps you should have something even a little political to say. if not, what's the point? that'd be like me going to a cookery forum and speaking about anything other than cookery.

 

[JaySecrets]

If that is what the OP is looking for he would engage with the arguments the other posters are making. Instead he dismisses their arguments as being tainted by elitist liberal socialist dogmas. Or with a regurgitation of partisan talking points and other peoples long debunked arguments. He is not looking for nuanced debate, he is looking for uncritical validation of his position.

According to
the Declaration of Independence



https://encrypted-tbn3.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjIPFU7ehyhtUgCr-TJVvoS8pTLHeJsLsUK2CxURLHZFbqkBvd



, the source of rights is the laws of nature and nature's God. The Declaration states that
all men are created equal



https://encrypted-tbn3.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYCzwUwcT7AEg2_Qy8eVw1NA204oB0jyDpQJisATd4SDDCOnFw



and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Funny that what the founders said about politics contradicts what you say. I'll roll with them.

And we know original intent because the writers and signers wrote extensively about their intent and we have those writings. Start with the Federalist Papers and go from there.

 

[Sean Renaud]

LOL. Jay is such a fucking cuck. Probably put me on ignore since I'm asking simple questions instead of using the famous right wing technique of giving you so much information that if you don't have an hour to spare you aren't going to read through and find and link back to counter points. It is brilliant.

That said brother Butters I would argue the Constitution hasn't been amended enough to say "look how many" instead of "look how few" times it has been amended. Texas is an open carry state. . .but you're limited to a five inch knife. If someone can explain to me how someone with a Kabar Knife (The Rambo Knife) is more dangerous than someone with an AR I'd LOVE to hear that argument. We just ignore the Constitution because its easier that way. This is the sign of a broken system when all parties agree its easier to ignore it than use the proper processes.

Either way 27 times in over two hundred years the first 10 of which really shouldn't count as they were passed all at once and almost immediately. Many of the Founders wanted that in originally and many also though these things didn't need to be stated. No where does it give you the RIGHT to shelter or to hunt. Because without even being a mind reader or time traveler I can assure you all that the answer to can you haz house and kill and eat deer fell under "DUH! Do you ask the government if you can take a shit or wear clothing of a certain color? Fuck man we're trying to keep this as short and simple as possible. Let the people decide it will turn out alright." Clearly they were wrong on many fronts there. Left to our own devices many more species would be extinct in the US. And we have a homeless problem and even if you did have the tools and help needed to chop down trees and build your own cabin the land that isn't own by the government in one way or another is pretty much nil so you'd have to pay for the land underneath it which is frankly the majority of the costs of a home.

 

[RobDownSouth]

He didn't dismiss them, he doesn't agree with them. A major difference. No one here has to agree with your views, and you don't have to agree with theirs.

Didn't you learn that under your last Alt?

You may recall earlier this week he spoke out of the other side of his mouth when he asked for a rebuttal to his toxic Christian worldview and someone posted an article from Politico that directly addressed his false accusations. Back then, he lectured us on the opposite: that we were dismissing his arguments by using a quote biased source unquote.

But a source is not "biased" IF AND ONLY IF he agrees with them.

Ergo SOWELL GOOD POLITICO BAD.

 

[ditzylildoll]

if you are posting on a political board, perhaps you should have something even a little political to say. if not, what's the point? that'd be like me going to a cookery forum and speaking about anything other than cookery.

That happens a lot on the cookery shows here. They are much more magazine format than just cookery shows. Usually its people from the music industry or tv plugging their latest show/ book / single / self help video.

I originally commented in response to a different chatter, about something they had said on this thread. What I responded to was not a political point they had made, but more of a social commentary instead. I took the bait, responded, and now here we are. I hope thats ok!

And if there is ever a thread where I feel more qualified to share my political opinion, I absolutely will do

 

[RobDownSouth]

According to
the Declaration of Independence
, the source of rights is the laws of nature and nature's God. The Declaration states that
all men are created equal

and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Funny that what the founders said about politics contradicts what you say. I'll roll with them.

And we know original intent because the writers and signers wrote extensively about their intent and we have those writings. Start with the Federalist Papers and go from there.

^^^ guy has been here for 7 years and three userids and still tries to shitpost images from banned/malware sites.

 

[butters]

That happens a lot on the cookery shows here. They are much more magazine format than just cookery shows. Usually its people from the music industry or tv plugging their latest show/ book / single / self help video.

I originally commented in response to a different chatter, about something they had said on this thread. What I responded to was not a political point they had made, but more of a social commentary instead. I took the bait, responded, and now here we are. I hope thats ok!

And if there is ever a thread where I feel more qualified to share my political opinion, I absolutely will do

i was referring more specifically to web presence forums, not tv shows.

it's okay to post her however you wish, but i was just pointing out that if you are the one making comments about the lack of political content in threads, it may not be wise to tout your own lack of political responses. nothing more. i wish you well with your experience here and you will no doubt find, with time, the ignore function provided by the site makes for a more pleasant experience.

qualified? don't let that stop you; it doesn't stop most. however, by examining and quoting various sources of information and perhaps not using those easily found to be disreputable you might find your knowledge, as a layperson such as myself, grows over time. We can all express opinions... no law against that.

 

[ditzylildoll]

it's okay to post her however you wish, but i was just pointing out that if you are the one making comments about the lack of political content in threads

I'm not sure I did say that? I think I was more concerned initially about how threads descend into name calling and that literotica might not be the best place for nuanced political chat (which is what OP said they wanted, then complained when they didnt get it, which is when I jumped etc).

 

[butters]

I'm not sure I did say that? I think I was more concerned initially about how threads descend into name calling and that literotica might not be the best place for nuanced political chat (which is what OP said they wanted, then complained when they didnt get it, which is when I jumped etc).

i would say that is covered by my statement.

 

[SmokingFap]

According to
the Declaration of Independence

, the source of rights is the laws of nature and nature's God. The Declaration states that
all men are created equal

and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Funny that what the founders said about politics contradicts what you say. I'll roll with them.

And we know original intent because the writers and signers wrote extensively about their intent and we have those writings. Start with the Federalist Papers and go from there.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others were theists, meaning they did believe in a Creator. They were not Christians, as they did not believe that Jesus was the son of God and mankind's savior, but instead was a human prophet. And there's the whole "Let Congress make no law respecting establishment of religion" thing. So we were most definitely not founded as a "Christian" nation.

Here's the text of the Declaration of Independence, as a refresher for us all.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript#:~:text=We hold these truths to,their just powers from the