slug.com slug.com
36 12

Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

It is often better to define ones limits before they are tested. Doing so while calm and clear-headed enables logic and reason to be used instead of heated emotions. Also, as limits are often tested incrementally, there is less incentive to resist each small change until it's too late. Knowing ones limits can help mentally prepare for change - especially political and social change.

For example, if Biden hypothetically wins, what's something that he may do in office that would convince you (and others) to take resistive action? What non-violent action might you take? Attend a protest? Speak out in "woke" work meetings? Write letters to local politicians? Move to Canada? Something else?

Admin 8 Dec 15
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

36 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I'd say a line in the sand is trying to turn my country into a theocracy, most likely a Christian theocracy. I would certainly fight against it in whatever legal avenues I could. If that didn't work, I'd give my life to defend the freedoms of others.

LOL. No need to worry!

That comment is absurd in the extreme. Granted, Islamic Republics exist; but a Christian theocracy?

I’d be interested in hearing your definition of Christianity.

I believe that "Wokeism" is a theocracy [slug.com]

@GeeMac

He held his finger up in the air and tested what way the wind was blowing moved in that direction and calls himself virtuous. Born in another age he would have been burning witches.

@GeeMac Islam by definition is a theocratic movement, believing that no law is above the church ... or mosque as the case may be.

I will note and concede that many Monarchs throughout history believe that they are endowed with special rights by God, mostly deluded and using that as a means to oppress their own people and others, often in conjunction with a certain religious institution created by men, but I do not know that there has ever been a Christian theocracy.

This may be in part because the Christ warns us that all things of this world are temporary, and while we should pray for all our leaders, and follow the laws of man unless and until they contradict the Law of God, we are merely temporary guests in a temporary world.

@AnomalousAnon1 true, and Islam is not just a religion but also a judicial, administrative, regulatory and cultural system which doesn't recognize the modern western tradition of separation of church and state.

Well, first, let me say the question is asking what your line in the sand was. I stated my personal opinion on it. Nowhere did I say it was possible, or close to happening, or anything of the sort, yet people are jumping down my throat now and calling it absurd and pivoting to Islam to distract from any criticism of Christianity. Which, to be clear, I said any theocracy - which includes Islam - but Christianity would be the more likely one in the US. This seems pretty telling that some are so easily triggered here.

@GeeMac, my definition of a Christianity theocracy is using the Bible as the law of the land, over the Constitution. On the extreme side, it is forcing people to be Christians, and imprisoning or executing those who are not. On the moderate side, though still a line in the sand and something which should never happen, it is throwing out the Constitution and forcing Biblical law on people, treating other religions as second class citizens, even if they are still technically allowed to keep their private beliefs; this would be going back to making homosexuality illegal, using taxpayer money to fund churches, inserting captive-audience Christian prayer in school, removing sexual education in schools, teaching creationism, forcing women to be subservient to their husbands, outlawing abortion, etc. We can just look at the early days of Puritans in the US for an example. Of course, Christianity can be a broad term, and no single sect can seem to agree on what is the right interpretation - Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Mormon, Christian Scientist, Jehovah Witness, etc.

@lawrenceblair you say no need to worry, but I disagree. There are prominent Republicans, including Ted Cruz, who believe in the "Christian Dominionism" philosophy - seeking to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their understandings of biblical law. 7 of 9 of our Supreme Court justices, the highest court in the land, are Catholics. The US is in no way a "Christian Nation" yet many Christians still claim it to be so. We added "under god" to money and the Pledge in the 40s/50s. In a Pew study in early 2020, half of Americans said the Bible should have influence on US law, with then half of that group saying the Bible should take precedence over the Constitution. Jason Rapert is a prominent Senator who thinks the Bible should override the will of the people, and is part of a group called the National Association of Christian Lawmakers which is trying to force the US to adopt Biblical law. We already see other religions treated as second class citizens, where saying "Happy Holidays" to account for other religious observations in the Winter is somehow seen as an attack on Christians, and it is the height of insult if the Starbucks cups aren't Christmas-y enough. We saw slavery defended for decades because "the Bible endorses it" and then anti-miscegenation laws defended because "the Bible forbids it" and then anti-sodomy, anti-marriage-equality, anti-abortion, anti-civil-rights, anti-suffrage... you name it, all defended because of the Bible. The majority of the Republican party runs on "god" and basically spins a narrative that you aren't a "true American" if you aren't a Christian. In this past election there were campaign signs in my area for a woman running for Congress, which had "god" as her first priority, above country - I see this quite often with Christian politicians, who put god above country, and think their god should supersede the Constitution and the Ten Commandments are more important than the Bill of Rights. Just look at what is happening today with the new Q Anon Satanic Panic, just as it did in the 70s/80s/90s.

@AnomalousAnon1, don't try and pretend that Islam and Christianity are different in their requirements for converting people and being theocratic movements. Sure, Christianity as a whole is less violent these days, but let's not forget the Crusades or Salem Witch Trials, or even the more recent "Kill The Gays" law in Uganda (which was encouraged by US missionaries). The Ten Commandments specifically contradict the First Amendment. Christianity has tried to force Biblical law in the US (and other areas), so don't tell me it isn't inherently theocratic - it most definitely believes the church / god is above the law of the land. And don't try and pretend that Christianity believes in separation of church and state - all too often do I see Christians argue that it doesn't really exist, or that wasn't the intention, or it means the state can't control the church but says nothing about the church controlling the state, etc.

@JacksonNought You may also note that nowhere in my response was I in any way disparaging towards your point of view. I just observed that Islam is constantly seeking to implement its Islamic Caliphate, whereas I had not observed any evidence of a Christian theocracy anywhere in history. The last portion was merely an additional observation that any "Christian" Theocracy would in fact go against the teachings of the Christ.

@AnomalousAnon1 yes, you were more accepting. I tried to address everyone. However, it seems like the first few of the Ten Commandments, specifically that there is only one god, no others shall be allowed, he must be worshipped, etc, specifically call for obedience and putting god's law above man's.

You site all the politicians who wear a Christian patch on their coat sleeve as a danger to your much-loved secular state, a secular state which is actually secular in name only; actually, it is an anti-Christ state that is your dream. Well, an anti-Christ state is what we have and those politicians you say you fear are not going to change it, they have no real desire to change it; the platitudes they spout to their base are just that platitudes. Your wonderful do as you please dream for America is in full force and will not change because of any act of congress. Your claiming to fear phony politicians, bought and paid for by Aipac and other Israeli money is a joke. You merely have a hatred of Christ and Christians and that's fine, it's a free country, LOL, but for crying out loud, be honest about your hatred.

@lawrenceblair thank you for proving my point. You are a glowing example of what I am talking about.

These aren't politicians who wear a "Christian patch" - they are explicitly calling for the Constitution to be torn up and replaced with the Bible. They are the ones who claim all of societies ills come from not being "Christian enough" and we need to undo decades upon decades of civil rights progress. Biden is a practicing Catholic, and people like you call him phony because he respects other people's freedoms and doesn't try to force others to follow his religion. Obama was a practicing Christian, and people like you called him a "secret Muslim". Trump hasn't read a Bible in his life, and is the direct antithesis of Christian principles, and yet the Evangelicals have unwavering support of him because he will pander to them and try to force their dogma on the US.

The fact that you consider an even remotely secular society as "anti-Christ" says it all. Apparently giving people personal freedom, and creating laws based on common sense and common good rather than bronze-age fables, is someone anti-Christian to you. And you casually throw in some anti-Semitism as well. You check all the boxes!

Let's be honest about your hatred. You hate anything non-Christian. You actually do want a theocracy, and are upset that we do not have one. You are upset that these "phony politicians" who just pander are not actually trying to enforce dogma, as that is your end-goal. Apparently it bothers you that America is a free country.

@JacksonNought You are a sick deluded hater of all that is good. You take a picture of yourself and paste it over the face of those you hate to justify your hate. You deliberately twist and mutilate what another says to fit your diatribe. As I said you are a sick hater of all that is good.

@lawrenceblair "a sick deluded hater of all that is good" because I don't want a Christian theocracy. Got it.

Thank you for proving my point once again. Move to Uganda or Russia if you want it so bad.

11

I have no line in the sand. I take things as they occur and evaluate them based on the facts at the moment.

What might not be acceptable to me now could be later depending on the circumstances.

I don't trust Biden, that is why I didn't vote for him. I don't trust the Left because their approach to problems lacks any apparent understanding of CONSEQUENCES. So, if and when the time comes, my oath of military service remains in effect to this day....read of that what you will.

I don't trust the Left because their approach to problems lacks any apparent understanding of CONSEQUENCES

not to mention that most of the lefts initiatives run absolutely 180 degrees oppositional to the Constitution. There is no constitutional provision for things like Social Security, Health Care, Housing, Education, Space Exploration...the list is long. But it all adds up to the fact that every new initiative proposed in the name of serving "the greater good" shifts power from the people to the Government itself.

@iThink Those socialist policies are invoked by republicans too. Cheque please.

Agree. I never “un-took” my oath...that is beyond some people

@maxmaccc @iThink yes, once the programs were implemented into the federal government, both sides used them for political purposes - unfortunately, like adding eggs to flour, you can't separate them back out of the batter again. And STOPPING further erosion is still a good position....

@maxmaccc if you pay attention to my comments all throughout this site you will know that I hold both Repubes and Dems in the very same regard - corrupted, pathological in their mendaciousness, wholly unqualified and inept to leadership, malevolent, unethical,...in short whenever I say (and I have said it many times) Government is NOT your friend I am talking about top to bottom and inside out Gov't officials - elected and appointed to their respective offices. Just so happens that the Dems are the ones who are ramrodding the show at this time - of course with the tacit and somewhat silent support and approval of the Repubes. Just this caveat before I go - GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND!

10

Wow! Move to Canada is what the leftist said they would do. No conservative IS ever going to move to Canada because Canada under the current fool PM is a socialist disaster.

Rick-A Level 8 Dec 15, 2020

you got that right the PM Fool and his Cabinet of Whacks , based on diversity .... not intelligence or MERIT

8

As I said in a comment below, I took this oath when I enlisted in the U.S. Navy back in 1984:

I, Keith Throop, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Although I am no longer in the military, and thus no longer under the UCMJ, I nevertheless regard my oath to the U.S. Constitution to be binding. I will seek to fulfill that oath in any way that I am able, given my age and corresponding limitations. For now that means casting my vote, campaigning for good candidates, protesting, signing petitions and collecting signatures, contacting those who represent me, etc.

I've no insight what the military would need to see for them not to support a president... what's your take?

@Admin
They are seeing it right now. Fortunately, he’s not a president yet.

@Admin It seems to me that most in the military over the years have supported presidents who they feel have supported them and who have taken a strong stance for national defense. In my experience, morale in the military always seems to be highest when Republicans are in office. This trend probably began with the Carter administration and continues until now. At least that is my impression looking back on things and speaking with many veterans from the preceding generations (as a member of both the VFW and the American Legion).

I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to do with whether the particular president himself ever served in the military. For example, Jimmy Cater served in the Navy and morale was quite low during his administration, and I haven't met any veterans who served under him who thought he was a good Commander-in-chief. On the other hand, Donald Trump never served, but he seems to be quite popular among the military and among most veterans. In between these two, however, the presidents that have been the most popular all served and were Republicans, whereas those who were less popular did not serve and were Democrats.

I think rank and file military will always follow lawful orders and try to respect the office, but they don't have much respect for presidents they regard as weak or who they think are selling out the country in some way. Those who serve out of a sense of patriotism and honor and swear an oath to defend the Constitution have little respect for presidents who seek to undermine it and who don't really seem to love our country.

@KeithThroop I voted for Carter, then joined the AF in 1977 - hated him, as did just about everyone I served with and we, as a community, voted and cheered for Reagan.

@tracycoyle You've basically stated almost exactly the sentiments of every veteran I've met who served under Carter.

@KeithThroop Thanks. Gives an insight into Carter.

6

History is full of examples of societies which fell into conflict, as if it had a life of its own. Those watching, and maybe even those who had the power to stop it, either did not enough, or could not do enough to reverse the inertia of motion of the destruction.

We are in such a time now. We are as if witnesses to a massive airliner on which we are all passengers, as its engines have stopped and its controls no longer functional, as we fall from a great height.

Victor Davis Hansen said that 2020 is the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Barring divine intervention, I believe he has predicted accurately.

I believe it’s broader and involves the death of western liberalism. The woke and the ignorant who think they are building a Utopia are unwittingly reviving the medieval era.

@GeeMac it's not just the West. It's global. It's the last few hurrahs of this "fullness of the gentiles" part of man managing his own affairs.

Long live the Republic!

@RobBlair I have finally decided from 3 or 4 years back that I would neither side with the Nationalistas nor the Liberals (the two parties in the PH duocracy; Psalms 146:3). Its better to be a Monarchist and trust our coming King. It's not going to be a democracy or a republic, but waaay much better.

unfortunately this is our fault ...the greatest generation !!...we became drunk on our successess that we ignored the academia ....where the more useless intelligenzia, indoctrinated our children with their poisonous anger over our Generation successes

i graduated University, BA in political science, in 1990 while starting my business, over attending law school... the attitude of the professors at the University were clearly Leftist, celebrating the NDP here in the Tundra called Canada ..... there were a few but not many that warned of such a change in the attitudes but it was overlooked and the media like the trash CBC in Canada always supported it

I just thought it was how they taught , angrily at the world...unmotivated workforce....as compared to my fathers generation as well

it was not until that my children started school then University that i realized the extent that this wrath of thinking has infiltrated our society .....in line with the new medium Techs....[ i call the 21st Century Renaissance]...................

the scariest part is i hear many friends / parents say they cannot maintain a conversation with their children today .......

i suppose Ronald Regan was accurate in stating “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

6

Resistance is futile — and likely part of the problem — because people foolishly allow themselves to pitted against one another. The political parties, the lobbyists, the fundraisers, the protesters, the activists and the media all need polarization and conflict. We’re all about lines in the sand, which is great for the elites because they never have to discuss the real issues.

Matt Taibbi talked about this in his book “Hate, Inc”:

If both parties have an equal or near-equal hand in causing a social problem, we typically don’t cover it. Or better to say: a reporter or two might cover it, but it’s never picked up. It doesn’t take over a news cycle, doesn’t become a thing.
The bloated military budget? Mass surveillance? American support for dictatorial regimes like the cannibalistic Mbasogo family in Equatorial Guinea, the United Arab Emirates, or Saudi Arabia? Our culpability in proxy-nation atrocities in places like Yemen or Palestine? The drone assassination program? Rendition? Torture? The drug war? Absence of access to generic or reimported drugs?
Nah. We just don’t do these stories. At least, we don’t do them anywhere near in proportion to their social impact. They’re hard to sell. And the ability to market a story is everything.

People need to stop arguing and start thinking; of course I don’t expect to see that happen anytime soon. When gullibility rules, name calling is the default.

GeeMac Level 8 Dec 15, 2020

The challenge is that "thinking" is not a common state of mind.

Succinctly put.

5

I only have one line that is to much and that is PAC or corporate money. As long as they only take donations from individual donors I will vote for them even if I don't agree with anything else they do. Nothing will be fixed until we have uncorrupted people in the offices of power. The main issue we need to fix is the campaign finance situation and only then will then people be represented instead of just the wealthy donors class as proven by the Princeton study that shows public opinion on issues has zero meaning on how politicians vote and that only the issues that the richest donors want are passed.

george Level 7 Dec 16, 2020

Wholeheartedly agree that the way elections have Progressively allowed campaigns be funded as wildly as they now are ensures nobodys voice but tge richest donors are heard and listened to. Just look at what Soro's voice has been abke to achieve in communities he has no concern for except to undermine their values and change the face of western democracy.

5

I feel like the best (and, perhaps, only) effective action that people can take now is to stop tuning in to "our overlords". Switch off the major social networks, turn off your TV, stop buying newspapers, refuse to let them sell your souls or eyeballs.

I am deeply concerned about the solidifcation of a corrupt political class but I don't see protest as a worthwhile activity at all. And now? The whole world is the same - move to Canada, Thailand, wherever - you're going to be met by another corrupt bunch of authoritarians dedicated to making rich people richer whilst destroying your lives.

The only way to fight back is to stop giving them money or time and that means a peaceful but permanent attack on their means of funding.

Trump is, in many ways, no better an option than Biden. He's still part of the billionaire class and while his actions were, definitely, somewhat better for those at the bottom of the heap than Biden's "sell the country to China" approach will be, it was still on his watch that the greatest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in history took place. They are all the same. The only thing that changes is the window dressing.

... yes support non-liberal tech wherever you can find it.

4

I believe we are the victims of massive coordinated fraud. The news media, ostensibly the guardians of a free society, have rapturously endorsed the fraud. Entertainment, sports, education, and corporations have all enthusiastically claimed their part of the collectivist message.

We are segueing into soft totalitarianism. The hard edges are emerging, however. There are demands that Trump supporters be punished for our thought crimes. BLM and Antifa, the Red Guards of this Cultural Revolution, are more explicit in word and deed. They all demand that every voice but their own be silenced.

Not every institution has surrendered, nor is every voice silenced. I will invest time and resources in these institutions and people

Every totalitarian movement hates religious faiths. They are independent moral authorities and totalitarians can't stand that. My faith has withstood many persecutions. As the saying goes, the Church is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. And as my Savior said, the gates of hell shall not withstand it.

Otherwise, I will try to be like Benjamin the Donkey in Orwell's Animal Farm. I will conform to the minimum necessary to get by and hope for better days.

Atheists against Marxism do not realize that they themselves carry Marxism's biggest baggage and its biggest goal for society: Atheism.

Which institutions do you think have not yet surrendered?

Howdy @Admin,

Generally speaking, institutions with explicitly conservative focus are maintaining their independence. Here in my state the Centenial and Independence Institutes are still sound. Institutions with an explicitly Biblical focus are maintaining their indepence. This forum has not, to my knowledge, surrendered

4

Wear a mask, a simple line in the sand for some.

I am going to engage in a LITTLE hyperbole and recognize that they are NOT the same thing - yet, an example that might set a tone:

Just wear the yellow star.....

I think most folks who respond negatively to the mask wearing edict are not so much offended by the mask as they are rightfully rebellious to a gov't overstepping its boundaries. The gov't has no legal authority to force anyone to wear a mask and I also believe gov't has no legal right to force lockdowns.

@TheMiddleWay not a valid comparison - at all; although both should be strictly voluntary.

@TheMiddleWay, @tracycoyle yellow star? sorry I don't get the reference.

@iThink the Jews in Nazi Germany were required to wear a yellow star so that people would know they were Jews.

As I noted, it is NOT the same thing as wearing a mask, but it IS as you suggested, a sign that government has WAY overstepped it's authorities...

@TheMiddleWay And completely unnecessary if you don't engage in sex. Which, is like 95% of us at this point! 🙂

@TheMiddleWay @tracycoyle prophylactics - both.

@TheMiddleWay does the government have the right to oder you not to have sex because stds exists, or fine you if you don't wear a condom, or ask you to tell them who every one of your sexual partners are if you happen to get an std?

@TheMiddleWay you keep evading the point which is that gov't has assumed a power it does not have according to the US Constitution - the forced and mandated wearing of masks upon the general population. It is also worth noting that the gov't officials themselves and their cohorts in the MSM do not follow those orders nor do they adhere to the quarantine mandate.
This would be akin to Gov't "forcing" gay males to wear condoms whenever, wherever they have or engage in sexual intercourse. especially during the time of the "AIDS crisis".
Of course Gov't officials would never do such a thing. Not only did gov't fail to impose such a mandate it also vehemently argued "constitutional rights" when it was suggested that gay men infected with HIV/AIDS be quarantined. go figure. On one hand govt told us that literally every man woman and child in the population regardless sexual identity were susceptible to the HIV/AIDS virus - yet no imposition or mandate of quarantining gay males in order to serve the greater good of shielding innocent people ...

Wearing of masks is more symbolic of the populations apathy and compliance with the demands from on high. It satisfies (for now) that hunger for the most powerful drug known to man, POWER.
The People intuitively know this - they recognize the danger of such mandates as what they are. A huge power grab. Today the masks - then the lockdowns - what's next.
Whatever that might be I would prefer taking my chances with the COVID over passively, apathetically giving up my Constitutional Rights.
My fear of unfettered (by law - by Constitutional edict) Gov't power and grabs for even more power is infinitely greater than any fear I might have over any strain of a COVID.

@TheMiddleWay Free Willy!

@MichelleD If that std happens to be life threatening would that change your view?

@maxmaccc I don't recall stating a view.

@MichelleD You posted "does the government have the right to order you not to have sex because stds exists," which would imply that you arrived at your question from a point of view.

@maxmaccc Asking questions does not automatically assume someone has a viewpoint. I will gladly give you my perspective when and if the gentleman I addressed answers the questions. It is not my opinion that maters. What matters is the questioning and the questions.

Besides, you can easily find my opinions all over this site, to include my profile.

@MichelleD Not an unreasonable assumption on my part though. You could still address my question hypothetically speaking.

@maxmaccc I'll give you my answer in pm in the morning if the questions remain unanswered. Right now though, I gotta hit the sack.

@TheMiddleWay Think of it this way.

The vast majority of masks being mandated have holes much larger than the size of the virus, and also have many detrimental side effects including diseases of the mouth, a reduction in oxygen flow to the body, including the brain, and do not stop the virus to begin with.

If you wear a condom full of large holes, how effective is it going to be? Would you listen to someone who demanded you wore a condom with holes in it? Would you wear the condom if it included the potential to create additional diseases for otherwise healthy people?

@AnomalousAnon1 the virus is passed on in large droplets when speaking, breathing, coughing, etc. The mask will prevent this from passing through. And no, there is absolutely 0 reduction in oxygen flow, this has been proven time and time again.

Why do you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt? Why can you be fined for driving a car without insurance? Why can a woman be fined for indecent exposure if she walks around topless in public? Why do men still need to register for the draft when they turn 18?

There are always arbitrary guidelines / rules put in place that encroach on our freedoms. Why is the mask now the line?

@JacksonNought "Why do you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt? Why can you be fined for driving a car without insurance? Why can a woman be fined for indecent exposure if she walks around topless in public? Why do men still need to register for the draft when they turn ?"

Because the federal body long ago overstepped their lawful restrictions under the color of law.

"There are always arbitrary guidelines / rules put in place that encroach on our freedoms. Why is the mask now the line?"

The mask is only one of many, perhaps the first one you have observed, but that does not mean there are not others. And your point about the arbitrary nature of "rules" and "guidelines" enforced under the color of law, with the full force of the law, remains the underlying cause of the problem.

@AnomalousAnon1 as long as we can agree that the body of law already imposes arbitrary authoritarian rules, and mask guidelines are no new phenomena.

@TheMiddleWay That is a private business interest. There also used to be a right for business owners to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The way it should be. If customers do not like the business or the way the business is run, allow them to vote with their wallets.

@TheMiddleWay First off, the quote is not mine. Second, please show me where this power is enumerated in the Constitution. (Hint: It is not, and thus, it becomes an unlawful even if not illegal law, where the federal system has over-stepped its lawful authority as restricted by the Constitution.

@TheMiddleWay Funny what even the slightest hint of research can reveal for anyone looking.

@TheMiddleWay, @AnomalousAnon1

Yes, it is a private business interest to have "no mask" in the "no service" clause. But this doesn't stop "maskholes" from complaining, saying they have a medical issue and cannot be forced to wear one, threatening legal action for not being allowed in, spitting on employees, destroying property, coming back with a weapon and attacking employees, etc. These Karens are quick to have a conniption being asked to wear a mask, but don't seem to have a problem with government mandates saying they cannot be topless while men can?

I can't see iThink's posts, he blocked me a while ago, but I can see what you quoted. As you say MiddleWay, COVID affects others. It's similar to driving drunk - sure you have the right to risk your own life, but you don't have the right to potentially harm others because of your poor choices.

@TheMiddleWay
"Those symptoms are made up by maskholes. There is no scientific evidence to back up reduced oxygen flow (otherwise doctors and nurses would be passing out by the thousands over the past centuries that they have been using masks) and disease of the mouth (if true; i'm unaware of any scientific lierature on this) but if true is a trivial concern compared to intubation and death."

There is evidence but it is very hard to find it due to the media censorship. There are people within the medical and scientific establishments that have shown that masks do no allow for proper oxygen inhalation and that there is a chance of inhaling a bit too much CO2. Naturally, most people are not going to suffer from a condition like Hypercapnia (carbon dioxide toxicity), though some do and the condition may be life-threatening. CO2 toxicity in a lesser degree can still cause headache, vertigo, double vision, inability to concentrate, tinnitus (hearing a noise, like a ringing or buzzing, that’s not caused by an outside source), seizures, or suffocation due to displacement of air. In fact, doctors say prolonged use of face masks causes hypoxia. "Breathing over and over exhaled air turns into carbon dioxide, which is why we feel dizzy. This intoxicates the user and much more when he must move, carry out displacement actions. It causes discomfort, loss of reflexes and conscious thought. It generates great fatigue. In addition, oxygen deficiency causes glucose breakdown and endangered lactic acid rise." CO2 regulates the pH of the blood—too much CO2 and the blood becomes too acidic; too little and it becomes too basic (alkaline). In either case, your body detects the change in acidity and you pass out. There is equal evidence out there related to dental but I do not know the specifics of it offhand.

I work in the care industry as a care provider. I had to take a client to the doctor at the beginning of the pandemic. Before taking him, we took his temperature and blood oxygen level. His temperature was normal and his blood oxygen levels were at 100. Then, we put a mask on his face and drove 20 minutes to the doctor. After waiting in the waiting for for an other 10 minutes, we were taken back by the nurse. The nurse took his temperature and blood oxygen levels as soon as we were in the room. When she first put the oximeter on his finger, it registered at 99 but within a few seconds, it lowered to 98. That caught my attention. moving on, I have to wear a mask every day and I have personally experienced some of the symptoms from above in any given workday. I get light headed, dizzy, and have trouble thinking and concentrating. By the end of my shift, I usually have severe headaches that persist for several days after my Friday. In other words, I've had persistent migraines, due to mask usage, since the beginning of the pandemic, wherein, I get one day of relief. This, and the experience I had with my client, is what made me look into the health concerns related to masks.

@TheMiddleWay you're right and I don't see that as a problem

@TheMiddleWay
"Read the link below for more information on how this "yes" manifests itself in our legal system.
Transmitting an STD: Criminal Laws & Penalties
[criminaldefenselawyer.com]"

Alright, good. This is exactly the direction I was thinking when asking the question because it is a matter of civil law vs. criminal law. Once upon a time, all of these issues brought up in the thread here (masks, condoms, car insurance) used to be under the jurisdiction of civil law. Somewhere along the line it changed and became under the jurisdiction of criminal law. This is where the problem is. I do want to write a longer thing on this, and plan to (maybe in a post) but, I spent so much time responding to the thing on the mask that I've run out of time. I will be back later to address this with a proper response but, for now I just want you to know of my thinking on the issue and my plan to come back to this later today. I do believe that this is an argument between civil law vs. criminal law.

@TheMiddleWay Full Term Abortions do the Same !!! .....as if [ fyi i am not in favour of such a ridiculous option]

4

My line in the sand is clearly defined by the constitution. Don't like it? Then change it according to proper process. Would I fight for that? Yep, to the degree an aging boomer can do so lol.

I took this oath when I enlisted in the U.S. Navy back in 1984:

I, Keith Throop, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Although I am no longer in the military, and thus no longer under the UCMJ, I nevertheless regard my oath to the U.S. Constitution to be binding. I will seek to fulfill that oath in any way that I am able, as you said, given my age and corresponding limitations. For now that means casting my vote, campaigning for good candidates, protesting, signing petitions and collecting signatures, contacting those who represent me, etc.

@KeithThroop What a wonderful reminder. I took the same oath when I entered the Air Force.

4

I definitely know where my line is and know what I'm willing to sacrifice to hold the line. I've also discussed said line and sacrifices with my family.

3

Gun control is definitely my line in the sand. Take people's guns, and you are taking their freedom.

Ptendas Level 6 Dec 16, 2020

So long as our hands are warm and alive...

3

Our country is being stolen from us. We have the material advantage, but a deficit in spirit, so we lose.

The answer for some time now has been Partition of the United States and rebuilding the spirit. They are synergistic projects.

Resegregation is going on at a local level... [theatlantic.com]

3

Critical (race/gender/sexual studies) theory.
Identity politics.
Forced lockdowns.
Censorship/ 'hatespeech'.
It's all decisive trash designed to turn us against each other. The elites don't believe it, but they use it to control the masses (like drugs/alcohol have been used to keep people stupid and weak, and fighting each other).

Tom81 Level 8 Dec 15, 2020

Unfortunately, CRT/Identity politics/censorship has slowly intensified over the last 40+ years... and here we are.

3

"what's something that he may do in office that would convince you (and others) to take resistive action?"
There is nothing he can now do that will put him back behind the line. He cheated . . . he crossed the line illegally! Besides Biden ain't gonna' do a damn thing, his handlers are. He is a senile idiot held up by Harris. No there is nothing that is going to put things back in order, that has become obvious; this nation just slides farther into the pit, that all. It is just one Washington rat after another deserting a sinking ship and taking their graft.

Agree with a caveat. I think the Biden handlers put Harris in place, act as her handlers. I see no way her bungled primary performance got her to this point.

Last time this happened it was 20 -40 years before it all shook out again.

3

My line in the sand was crossed decades ago. I failed to make a difference, then. Pointless to draw another.

I agree that it's disheartening to feel that we can't make a difference...

3

Move to Canada??? The land of the Woke?

Wasn't Oprah going to move there?

@Admin Land of the Woke... Trudeau Jr is in charge

Hello. Is Canada really that bad? I would love to have a holiday/vacation in Canada in the near future. I guess I won't notice how woke Canada is during my stay as a tourist.

Edit: I've just realised that you're in Australia. I thought you were in Canada.

@Naomi I have friends in Canada... they all hate Jr.

Oh dear.

i welcome non Lefties to move to Canada ...so we can turn the ship / shit here

@jpnese I fear it may be too late for Canada... you guys keep voting Jnr in.

3

If Biden should decide to push more gun control legislation and some of it passes, that would prompt me to take some sort of resistive action, be it joining a local protest group or contacting my local Representative. Moving to Canada is not an option, and besides why should I move all on the account of something unconstitutional? I'd rather stay and fight, whether said fight would merely be a verbal fight or if it would come down to the next civil war.

the next civil war Rational people v the looney tunes ?

@jpnese Looks to be that way...

2

Yep, it was Trump.

I guess because he was talking about you when he: "condemned totally."

@Penrodster Not sure what you mean by that.

@WilyRickWiles you ever wonder what it was like to live under the Hammer and Sickle society ?

2

I want to help people open up into talking about these touchy topics a priority. Wether they would be for or against the topic (if it's relevant), humanizing the experience of listening and speaking up during these times shouldn't be taken for granted since that's been lacking due to circumstance. An individual can only internalize so much fear before they "explode" into violence or defense against others from what the news shows. Locally, it's only a matter of defusing the match of "canceling" one another before it leads into further consequences of division to solve problems.

Nivy Level 4 Dec 15, 2020
2

some changes happen over a long period of time - people either learn to adapt or to tolerate more easily when that happens. Other things change suddenly - Sudden changes are very likely to evoke a strong negative reaction and possible - likely maybe to provoke violent response.

iThink Level 9 Dec 15, 2020
1

As I live in a country on the other side of the ocean, I don't expect to be directly affected by the lunacy that probably will unfold once Biden becomes president of the USA, starting with 100 days of masking everyone. The 'health tyranny' is a process that is also in full development in Europe and here in the Netherlands, used by the globalist elites to start this 'great reset' which seems to have been decided in the World Economic Forum in October 2020. All of a sudden every leader in the 'Free World' is proposing things that disenfranchise the middle class in their countries. Covid and the psychological warfare against common sense that accompanies its alleged eradication attempts turns out to be the tool to do away with representative government. For me the line in the sand is the attack on basic human rights for which the Covid drama is used. The moment comes when it is only possibele to uphold one's own humanity by saying 'no' to the authorities when these restrain traveling, partying, meeting each other, give opinions. Normal human behavior is not negotiable and acting it out is an inalienable human right. We must refuse to live like animals or robots. We must refuse to repeat lies.

Corjova Level 6 Dec 16, 2020
1

I didn’t realize I had a “line in the sand” but I suppose I’d now say it’s presidential elections getting stolen through massive voter fraud and a massive coverup by a completely corrupt mainstream media.

Andyman Level 8 Dec 16, 2020

Add to it the idea we don't deserve a careful audit and accounting and I am ready to make election fraud a capital offense. "Have we proven this case? Gather the wood. We're burning this witch."

1

It depends whats the topic

For example, I don't object to people who use racial terms or jokes as its harmless. I draw the line at sitting back while someone pushes racist dogma like social justice and then smears or tries to silence any criticism of this screed.

So long as I get to define "Justice", I'm all for it. However, today, "justice" can be just a label for "give me your stuff"...

@TheMiddleWay

I haven't so require a link please . Imay have been arguing against inconsistancy which is not the same thing.

@TheMiddleWay OK found it.

This was a debate where you were arguing at cross purposes and moving the goalposts so I gave up.

"We both agreed that said slurs and jokes at the expense of white people were harmful. "

No we didn't, I said that treating people differntly to each other was harmfull. I said racism was harmful not hurt feelings a priori
[slug.com]

Anyway heres the link you refered to, I was done then FOR THE REASONS STATED, and I am done now for your disingenious accusation.

@Admin

You are confusing justice for compensation here, which is a grifters justice. And you did ask for our "line in the sand", an opinion. Its theweighting of opinions that to an extent via jurisprudence lead to what we hope will be a more just society.

@TheMiddleWay

Thats not what I am saying, ive copied the whole conversation below, you are not smart enough to project prejudices onto me and I ssuggest you also be mindful of site rules/libel laws. As I have said elsewhere I have zero tolerance for your kind of bullshit. just let it go.
@admin

The problem here is if your white and suffer racism where do you go for your "safe space"?
TheMiddleWay 7 replied Oct 7, 2020 0

@CookieMonster
One problem at a time.
CookieMonster 7 replied Oct 7, 2020 1

@TheMiddleWay

But there isn't a problem if you have proper mechanisms in place, like reporting problems through complaints channels, or assuming that whites wouldn't be able to think up solutions to structural problems.

It is also half a problem excluding whites, why not deal with the whole one? At once? If there is a problem.
TheMiddleWay 7 replied Oct 7, 2020 0

@CookieMonster
It's not excluding whites. It's asking them wait their turn. When you have a big problem, it's easier to break it up into smaller problems and deal with them in turn. Now, it's non-whites turn; next, ti's whites turn.
CookieMonster 7 replied Oct 8, 2020 0

@TheMiddleWay

It doesn't work like that its not pie, everyone can have their turn at once on a simple policy decision, this avoids building up tit for tat cycles of resentment and hostility.

Do you have any evidence its a big problem and for who? Would you apply the same thinking to Grooming gangs?

This example would either be an organisation trying to make the right noises but not having a full grasp what they are playing with, fire to be blunt.
TheMiddleWay 7 replied Oct 8, 2020 0

@CookieMonster
Well clearly it's working that way in that we are asking white racism to wait a while as we focus exclusively on ethnic racism. Poblems are better and more efficiently solved if we solve them one at a time as opposed to doing too much at once

As for evidence, I am not a member of the University hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire so I can't speak to their experience. For example I don't know who "grooming gang" is.

However as a Hispanic immigrant in the USA I have plenty of personal anecdotal evidence as evidence that this has been a problem for me, my family, my siblings, and my other ethnic friends. Though, I remind you, that is merely anecdotal as I'm sure you can provide equally anecdotal personal evidence of white racism
CookieMonster 7 replied Oct 8, 2020 0

@TheMiddleWay

You don't get far by asking people to wait if they are being abused, you breed contempt and cycles of tit for tat revenge. Northern Ireland is a prime example of this. In fact no sane person would suggest parking people rights as there is what? A log jam?

The argument telling people to wait is one I have never heard. It seems like a made up argument to wriggle of the hook of defending racism. Do you have examples were this hasn't ended badly?
TheMiddleWay 7 replied Oct 8, 2020 0

@CookieMonster
Then if this is a pressing problem, one that demands action now lest it breeds contempt, then it is imperative that it be brought to the attention of human resources of the company where this racism is evident or local authorities where the problems of the racism white individuals encounter daily are laid out, how it's affecting their job performance, how they are abused by ethnic police, turned down for jobs by ethnic job providers, etc. And demand meetings of the sort in the meme or legal action against ethnic minorities.

Now, if that doesn't work, then I would imagine taking to the streets to peacefully protest white racism would be merited.

If that doesn't work, then it seems that white racism can't be addressed any better than ethnic racism.
CookieMonster 7 replied Oct 8, 2020 0

@TheMiddleWay

Yes thats why its important to treat all instances of racism the same regardless who is targetted, if you sweep one aside it may be serious, your argument seems to lead to my conclusion.

Your last 2 sentences lack merit as they wonder of from the original point.
TheMiddleWay 7 replied Oct 8, 2020 0

@CookieMonster
I've never believed in critical race theories ideology period in particular the notion that one cannot be racist against whites because that is clearly wrong. But by the same notion it's not like white society has not had the power to address it for centuries and if it still exists, then it makes sense to let ethnic people take a crack at it and see if they can solve it within themselves and then apply those lessons to White racism
CookieMonster 7 replied Oct 9, 2020 0

@TheMiddleWay

You are using racist and nonsensical arguments to defend a racist position. The UK has had mass immigration for 20 years, the arguments that only certain races can have insights into curing racism, while ignoring the fact that white victims of racism would also have these insights is a racist and hypocritical argument.
TheMiddleWay 7 replied Oct 9, 2020 0

@CookieMonster
I've not ignored issues of white racism nor denied it.
Please state where in our conversation I've done either so that I can better not ignore it and better not deny it.

Furthermore, I've also made no racist statements. I fully admit that racism affects both ethnic and non-ethnic communities and that both deserve to be heard, though perhaps not simultaneously given that each community is the victim of the other.
Please state where in our conversation I have made a racist statement so that I may do that no further.

as for only certain races having insights into racism, I've not said that either. However, it is true that if an ethnic person is the victim of racism from a non-ethnic person, then that ethnic person has a responsibility to educate the non-ethnic person on how they are affecting them. Vice versa , if a non-ethanic person is the victim of racism from an ethnic person, it is the duty of the non-ethnic person to educate the ethnic person insofar as how they are being racist. consider that me as an ethnic person have experiences that a non-ethnic person will not have, will experience racism in a way that the non-ethan person may not experience, and thus the non-ethnic person will benefit from my experience. Likewise, if a non-ethnic person experiences racism from me, then it's important for that person to educate them on how I am being racist to them because I may not even be aware that I'm being racist.

In effect, if you are a non-ethnic person, and I don't want to assume that you are, but if you are and I'm being racist to you, then it's important that you educate me on how I'm being racist so that I can minimize it. Likewise, if I felt that you were non-ethnic and you were being racist to me, which I do not feel by the way, then it would be important for me to educate you on how this is happening. However, note that while it is possible for us to be simultaneously racist to each other, it is not always the case. It may be the case that I'll be racist to you and you not to me or vice versa. With that mindset, we may have to address one racism before we address the perception of racism from the other which has been my point all along
CookieMonster 7 replied Oct 10, 2020 0

@TheMiddleWay

"Furthermore, I've also made no racist statements. I fully admit that racism affects both ethnic and non-ethnic communities and that both deserve to be heard, though perhaps not simultaneously given that each community is the victim of the other.
Please state where in our conversation I have made a racist statement so that I may do that no further."

You just did again where you said "perhaps not simultaneously", why not? You have not come up with a reasonable reason for why some people have to wait if suffering, for example racial crimes.

If you are defending discrimination, then by definition if you can't justify it on grounds of uniqueness your arguments must be racist. Uniqueness may be things like race specific illnesses like sycle cell.
TheMiddleWay 7 replied Oct 10, 2020 Edited
0

@CookieMonster

You just did again where you said "perhaps not simultaneously", why not? You have not come up with a reasonable reason for why some people have to wait if suffering, for example racial crimes.You have not come up with a reasonable reason for why some people have to wait if suffering, for example racial crimes.

Then ignore the "perhaps" and white people should go en masse to HR or the police or local government and state their grievance. I'm sorry, I'm not white so I don't know what they are undergoing and they need to make their suffering known if they are not being paid attention to.

It's not racist to state that if two people are talking at the same time, neither is hearing the other. We are always taking turns if we want to listen to the other side and all I'm saying is to consider that maybe it's the ethnics persons turn to be heard by the non-ethinic. I'm sorry if it comes off as racist and I apologize if it did; it's not my intent to do so.

Like I said, I'm not white, and if there is an epidemic of white racism and death and prejudice and lost jobs and police brutality and slurs and denigration against whites from ethnic peoples, it absolutely positively needs to be made known by all means possible, up to and including as I said previously protesting if nobody is willing to hear them

If you are defending discrimination,

I'm not defending discrimination. Like I said, if the idea of "taking turns" is not possible because white people are suffering due to systemic racism against them, then they shouldn't take turns and they should absolutely make their grievances and suffering and plight known to their work, their government, and their community

1

Yes, though far too many don't.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 117

Photos 128 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #liberal #government #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #FreeSpeech #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #Police #friends #videos #Identity #culture #Google #book #policy #vote #conservative #evidence #violence #liberals #reason #economic #Socialmedia #USA #tech #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,713Top

    Moderator