ThreePointTakedown

I'll just say I agree. mspart (insert just as many if not more articles and quotes contradicting the position you articulated here) I agree

Helped to insight an insurrection is not the issue. He did do that. But that is beside the point. The plain text reads, 'shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.' Its the aid and comfort part. He did all the other things too. Of which there is little doubt. A criminal conviction is not needed for a constitutional violation. This one unfortunately comes with a penalty of not having the opportunity to finish what they started. He's a poor leader, with poor ideas, poor imagination, poor choice in a supporting cast(in that no one with any integrity or isn't in on the grift, will work with him, that should tell you something, even Bill Barr and that's a low standard). If SCOTUS overrules the decision, they're credibility will be shot for a generation or longer. If they uphold it, it will rightly cause a mess with the election process. But we'll figure it out. One of the other crappy candidates will win. 45 will run as a write in or 3rd party candidate and break the GOP for good. Can't happen soon enough, honestly. Y'all need to get your sh together. Letting a 70+ year old infant fun your party has caused some damage. Ps. isn't the Speaker giving aid and comfort by blurring the faces of those that broke into the capital but may not have been charged yet? Would be interesting if LA brought that up in a court case. Who else would be able to win that vote?

Death rattle of a lost argument. Dog bless!

Is a 'conviction' needed to keep someone off the ballot for not being a citizen or 35 years old? No. Same situation. Sorry that its confusing. A trial was held. Testimony was offered for and against. A judge made a decision. That's it. If SCOTUS upholds it, which they should, then he doesn't get to play president anymore.

So is the 'opinion' that presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office. Just that usually the DOJ is on the side of the executive.

You can't yell 'fire' in a public place and not be held accountable if it causes people to be harmed. He invited people to a place. Told them they had to fight(his words). Was told, in real time, that people were there with weapons. Urged them to go to the capital building. Watched on live tv for three hours without so much as a word. Then said, 'I love you' to the people that broke through windows, tried to break through a barricaded door to the house floor, and beat up capitol police. I'm sorry that you can't or won't see the facts. But he yelled 'FIRE!' Its a shame he's never met any consequences until now. We may not have a need for this conversation if he understand the 'find out' part but maybe he will this time. Free speech is not absolute. You cannot encourage someone to commit a violent act. You become, somewhat, responsible for the outcome if it is attempted let alone carried out.

Great thread. Lots of good points. Fun conversation.

The US as a democracy is a myth. We are a Constitutional Federal Republic. McConnell only said something so stupid as to get the heat off of himself from holding the other moron responsible for this in the first place. Its a constitutional issue. It is not voted on by the people it is agreed upon from the jump. The only thing that is needed is an instance, done. A case brought. Done. A judge to agree. Done. Then it goes to a higher court. Done. and so on. We don't vote to hold someone accountable for individual violations of first or second amendment let alone the constant violation of the emoluments clause by a certain someone. Civil rights. They are all done through the courts. You may not realize it but you are 'moving the goal posts' by suggesting this. If you do realize it you should know its a dishonest way of addressing an issue.

States are given the responsibility to run their own elections. But this doesn't cover elections. It just covers the primary.

Probably. But if you're going to be the party of the high road and democracy, you have to take the hit in the short term. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Because now the one judge in nowhere Texas is going to get a similar case filed with him saying that Biden did the same thing because of blah, blah blah.

Hard to see how that is true at all. A few voters brought the case and won. A Judge agreed. The supreme court of that state agreed. He can't participate in that state. He would still win. Unless other states move to do the same. This IS Democracy. If he wasn't worried about losing power and getting prosecuted like he is now. He probably wouldn't have done a lot of things a trapped person would do to get him in this mess. As much as you don't want to look critically at the people responsible. McCarthy said he did it. McConnell said he did it. His own AG said he did it. Coming from a side that thinks actual demons exist and are controlling the hearts and minds of their opponents, this is a stretch.

Ragnarok?

Glad we can have a good convo. Determining who was most impacted by the acts of the past and what could be done to give them a leg up from where they are and giving it to them, does not have to lead to the oppression of other people. Also, and mind you I am not a fan of anything that even seems like it is purposefully unfair(not sure if you've noticed), but how can something be fair and unequal?

What do you @ThreePointTakedown say concerning Thomas Sowell? Different strokes for different folks. I am not an expert. My philosophy is that I take sides with those that have less power or influence. Is his success stemming from privilege and does he lack heart? Perhaps in some ways. And perhaps in some ways. A poor, fatherless African American with a net worth better than the average Joe? Not sure what question you’re asking. Would you believe a man could be born in the 1930s, manage college in the 1950s and 60s, and be successful? He’s not the only one that’s done that. But again, outliers are not indicative of a trend just that they are outliers. He holds libertarian-conservative views. He warned about the unintended consequences of reparations, including perpetuating a victim mentality and creating divisions among different racial or ethnic groups. I’m sure he has some reason for saying that. Smart people can be wrong. This might be that occasion. One single person holding a similar view to yours does not make yours correct. Outlier. Supports the open market. Values education. Social welfare skeptic. Values individualism. Fair. Interview a few things. His book is quoted as saying, ” Dr. King's message was equal opportunity for individuals regardless of race. In the years that followed, the goal changed to equal outcomes for groups.” Not sure who has said or inferred that equal outcomes is the goal, but to me that smacks of dishonesty. At no point can I recall anyone advocating for equal results. Even as a layman I know that is an impossibility. If that is what his scholarship is based on he may be mistaken in his outcomes and opinions therein. *If you read the interview there are plenty of issues with his answers and the questions would love to, and I might give my opinion of the whole thing. Could be fun. Talking about lots of assumptions. Would be interested to see the data on these opinions. Critical of high taxes and government spending? Not sure of the question again. I didn't know much about Thomas... Wowza he nailed the recent presidents Didn't want Trump as president in 2016 Not wanting a criminally insane game show host to have nuke codes. Shocking. By 2018, said Trump was better than the previous administration Based on what? The health care plan he rolled out and passed? Tax cuts for the uber wealth? Criminally negligent approach and handling of a pandemic? The discussion of jab vs no jab notwithstanding. His approach to denying that it was happening and villainizing other countries. Which may have caused a spike in hate crimes against Asian people. Seems like he is equal opportunity when it comes to using any group to point his supporters at, as the cause of their plight. Which then leads to an uptick in hate crimes. I wonder why that is? Is there a parallel on the other side? One side hates fascists, is that the same? If Biden became president, the Democratic Party would have an enormous amount of control over the nation, and if this happened, they could twin with the "radical left" and ideas such as defunding the police could come to fruition. Did any of those things happen? Did 45 cozy up with the radical right to put wildly unqualified judges on the bench to further an agenda? Oh yes he did! So everything he was not in favor of Biden doing, 45 did and he was fine with it. That’s a bit telling don’t you think. Maybe he found a way to justify his sincerely held beliefs cloaked in scholarship. That would be something that one side likes to say about climate change, young earth, flat earth, and myriad of other topics that tend to not agree with their politics. Even though the vast majority of scholarship disagrees with them. It's almost as if... he is chanting with me on this BBS... MERIT, MERIT, MERIT! No one ever said merit doesn’t have its place. It seems as if you are trying to not acknowledge that to have a system based largely on merit there needs to be a more even starting point for everyone as a control to determine what merit really is. Because all the examples you and others have given on this and other threads want to point at obvious privilege and say that you did it purely on merit. Which isn’t true. Be honest and recognize your work ethic helped but being born into your situation, which was/is vastly better then A LOT of people, may have aided in where you have gotten to. And that their situation being much worse off then yours, could be a factor in not reaching a similar level of success. Looking back with clarity of vision and seeing the flaws in our parents’ approach and the things they subjected us to. Even though, at the time we thought nothing of it. They did their best, usually. Can’t fault them for not knowing or just being exhausted. But the truth is, good or bad, we as kids are not responsible for our situation. We are familiarized with whatever our parents and loved ones expose us to. Whatever they feel is beneficial for us at the time and/or in the future. Be it; self-sufficiency, strict adherence to a religion, love for the least among us, or just money. We have to navigate a world with different opinions as to the best way forward and we must grapple with it. Change our minds or change the world.

Wow...you claim others of having a "MO"...you ASSuming things about people is your "MO". Funny part is you "think" you are fighting for the oppressed when in actuality you are doing no one any good with the things you say. Here is a hint, people that are less fortunate than others don't need you making excuses for them. Excuse after excuse. By the way, it isn't a person's fault if they had a good family to fall back on. It isn't anyone's fault if they worked hard to get themselves out of a bad situation. Your opinions of whether I am helping aside. I fail to see how I am making excuses. I was and continue to point out that the opinions that people hold on certain topics may be skewed by their own unique experience. That those opinions could lead them to vote against their own and the interest of others in dire need. We all need to the clarity of a different perspective once in a while. If left to just what is easy or makes us comfortable and happy we could find ourselves holding some pretty bleak views. We could lose empathy or sympathy in the plight of those in less fortuitous circumstances then our own. And forget that to help raise the least among us we help to raise all. I too was in jross' position when I was younger, almost exactly the same position, a lot of debt and missed payments from extremely high interest rate credit cards and loans (I had no debt history, nor did my family), but I didn't have any of the things you claimed he had, and I was still able to get out of the debt I racked up...how...through working multiple jobs, getting a degree, and learning how to budget with absolutely ZERO help from anyone else. Seems as though you went through some tough years. You are proud of the person that came out the other side. And you do seem a little edgy when someone you feel was in a similar situation as you is challenged. As if you’re taking that challenge on as if I am questioning you or your experience. I’m sorry you feel that way. I make guesses about j mostly because we’ve had a lengthy dialogue on a number of topics and I have noticed(maybe mistakenly) a theme is several of the examples they have put forward. It seems as if you are trying to brag that you had no help with anything. That doesn’t sound fun or appealing or something I would wish on anyone given the chance, so I'm sorry. I’m glad you were able to make something of yourself under those circumstances. I hope you don’t have the opinion that because you made something of yourself from little to nothing that everyone in similar or worse circumstances is undeserving of help that may have eased your way a bit? If that is true, I would love to understand your position. If not, I’m glad you feel that way. I look forward to understanding you and your situation better. Let's see if you can work in reality and facts instead of pure emotion...who are the "victims still today"? And I ask based on policies in place today, or "systemic actions" that occur today. Please provide actual evidence of this. Do you understand what ‘moving the goal posts’ means? You are framing the argument as if a systemic problem that goes back 100+ years should only be looked at in terms of the policies of now. I understand that it is easier and less upsetting to ignore the terrible acts of past leaders of this country. But those things happened. The effects of those actions and policies still echo today. That you may be uninterested in acknowledging or righting such a massive injustice is unfortunate and as is your right to have that opinion. But wounds don’t heal if they are ignored. If you’re ok with that then you can yell at the top of your lungs against addressing anything other then what is right in front of you. To answer your question, it is the lack of policies to acknowledge, study, and discuss the atrocities of the past that are the issue and how much one side wants to fight in order to avoid addressing heinous instances from our past. Certain areas of certain places were acted on to keep those people from gaining upward mobility. I have a feeling you know that’s true. That these policies and practices are no longer legal or practiced as widely does not take away that the long term effects are being felt today. If not direct money to people, which could help greatly for some. Money to rebuild schools, infrastructure, libraries, investment in local businesses, something as simple as a grocery store. These are all things that would not fix the problem tomorrow but would indicate to those in the community that they are no longer thought of a second class. Will that take away money from those that already have these things? Very probably. Will they be outraged? Of course. Will they probably do just fine without for a little while? Almost assuredly. Equality to privilege feels like oppression.

All this is predicated on being able to get a credit card when you're young. Not everyone has that opportunity or the realized or unrealized safety net of family to fall back on, which, if I had to guess, you had. Credit card companies don't like to gamble on someone with no credit history, no family credit history, or myriad of factors that have lead to someone not being ideal for credit. Seems to relate a bit to the, I don't know, systemic actions that have kept certain peoples from being able to elevate their station. And the effect NOW is they can't get credit to help build wealth and invest. Funny how it all comes back around. There are still victims, today. We just call them something different. The pattern in your stories tend to leave out the fact that, from the start, you probably had advantages that a good and growing percentage of people did and do not have. And the take away that you wrap them up in is 'if I did it this way, why can't everyone? Am I right?!' Short answer is, that for some people, you were born on third.

Thanks for sharing. What is your reasoning for today's people being responsible for the actions of long-dead people, and for the government to give lots of money? If we are a nation of laws and justice then we should take these and those crimes and/or injustices seriously; one, because we don’t want them to happen again(despite versions of them still happening), right? Or two, the victims of those injustices are still alive and being further disenfranchised and victims of systemic oppression that has kept them from gaining a foothold in this country and actualizing their right to freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I’m sorry that you can’t or won’t see the evidence of levers being pulled for and against certain people to aid or hinder their progress. These things DID happen. The effects were and are tangible. I had no hand in their oppression, but I still feel bad and hope to work to make it right. I don’t know what that will end up looking like. But in the meantime, I will advocate for fair treatment through government policy and the punishment of anyone who would attempt to gain from the oppression of others. Not sure why this is such a hot button issue? Where can I learn more about red-lining in 2023? I reject your question. I have a feeling you know what I’m talking about and the repercussions of redlining. That refusing to loan money to a group, systematically, based on their physical characteristics, over several generations, will have effects on their ability to build generational wealth(and that we've tied school funding to property taxes, keeping them in low income areas will keep them from getting good and proper education, also keeping them from gaining any ground, crazy how that works). I have a feeling you know that principle. That system was wrong and unjust. That it wasn’t technically illegal should make you ashamed of our country at that time and of those that were in charge. Some people were allowed all the comforts of being a citizen of this country and some were not. The ‘but where does that happen now and why should I care’ question is a tactic to maintain your cognitive dissonance with the issue because I have a feeling the rest of your philosophies wouldn’t mix well. That you've probably stopped reading at this point. I will just point out to everyone else that they should really research these things themselves. Its not hard to do. Just hard to read that they happened and their continued effects. Wells Fargo screwing their customers for years. That was pretty recent. Were their victims incredibly rich people? Probably not. Were they all made whole? Probably not. Were some of their victims put into dire financial circumstances for which they may not be able to escape because of the tactics? Probably. Your question is ignorant or malicious. Which is it? My current view The dead cannot be repaid; the time for reparation is lost. Nope. Estates can be created and endowed. Nobody in this generation is responsible for the actions of dead ancestors from generations prior. Our responsibility is to address the injustices of the past, acknowledge them and make amends as best we can. Ignoring them, as it seems you're in favor of, only sees further suffering of those that are currently effected by those injustices. That there are current sufferers is also something you choose not to acknowledge or are comfortable ignoring. There are economic and well-being considerations that contributed to failed African repatriate movements. Do tell? Poverty in America has some better things (clean water) than the middle class has access to in some African countries. Sort of telling that you only mention African countries as if they were the only victims here. Native American lands don’t have great infrastructure to speak of in some places, means not reliable fresh water, Flint is in the USA, a Republican government installed a manager(some would say unjustly) that went and poisoned the whole town. On giving large sums of money No. Until the government makes progress on paying down its debts and spending within a budget, no money should be given to unfunded causes. I don’t think you really mean this. I have a feeling you would rather see money go to those you feel deserve it more. If more people in the last 150 years or so were given the opportunity to grow their wealth and invest in our country, we might not be in the situation we are in now. So you’re saying rather than right that wrong and perhaps help in the areas you feel are more needed. You just say ‘screw em until me and my friends get ours’? Seems a little self-defeating, greedy, and selfish. No. We learned about the impact of inflation from the Covid printing press. Printing money will cause an economic spending spree, followed by a reduction of purchase power and general life affordability. No idea what you mean by this. But if we taxed people who could easily afford it because of their incredible wealth(some of that wealth being spent as an insurance policy to help influence and write laws that help them keep and accrue more wealth) and do it to the tune of what everyone else has to pay we could probably pay for more and better things for everyone and not be in so much debt. No. The types of folks that are financially literate do not need the money. “You don't need to have extraordinary effort to achieve extraordinary results. You just need to do the ordinary, everyday things exceptionally well.” Fair point. Where does the literacy come from? Previous generations that have succeeded and passed down that knowledge. Which groups, that have not had widespread success due to the decks being consistently stacked against them were/are able to pass down that knowledge? Can you list any? Underpaid teachers are the third highest profession to become millionaires. Where’d you get that? Which teachers? What grade(s)? College professors? Where do they teach, what’s the breakdown? Just throwing out a figure like that doesn't answer any questions or helps you make your point. Look at this janitor who died with 8 million saved. Do you know what an outlier is and why they are not included in studies or statistics? 79% of millionaires did not get an inheritance. What can be asserted without evidence can be disregarded without evidence. No. No amount of money will satisfy the financially illiterate. I don’t disagree. But that is not a reason to avoid trying to make things right. And reeks of privilege wanting to stay privileged. The dark side of winning the lottery is that it will ruin your life. Again not a reason to avoid righting a wrong. On the government giving money The government is the people, including victims. Companies are not people because a company cannot go to prison. Government is the same way. Trying to tie them together to ease your guilt about helping is a dishonest tactic. There is no practical means to identify the victim, so everyone pays. Yes. That is something we will need to address. I don’t care who gets it. Its like UBI, give enough to enough people and then we can do what you wanted to do all along. Which is to let them figure it out. Once they’re at an even starting point, it’ll be up to them, just like you wanted all along. It is immoral to have the victims pay themselves. That’s a dumb attempt to invalidate an argument by purposefully making it circular. I see your word salad and raise you some croutons. The country is turning, has effectively turned into an oligarchy. Corporations and uber rich individuals are competing for a smaller and smaller piece of what pie is left. They do research to find out how to sell their products better and more effectively(often times those products aren’t a net benefit). This is symptom of the free market. I’m sorry but I don’t agree that corporations should be able to make a profit if they are not doing a net good to benefit the community they reside in. Will that hurt current business models? Probably. Will they still want to make money? Probably. That means they will change. I’m ok with that. The focus should not be on redistributing money to individual heirs. Rather, the focus must be on well-funded education and teaching how to do ordinary everyday things exceptionally well. Not just money for the schools, but programs that surround children with responsible adults outside school. Lets do these too. "It is not what you do for your children, but what you have taught them to do for themselves, that will make them successful human beings." Painting with an overly broad brush is your MO.

Do tell. What are your concerns?

Education Spending and Policy: Is education a human right? It is the responsibility of the governing to ensure its citizens can carry on the function of the government. So, yes. If a man has rights, so must other men, so is it every man's duty to guarantee those rights? Go out of their way to defend them? No. To purposefully infringe on them? Also, no. Why are property owners paying a larger share to fund public schooling? Great question, would love to hear your answer. Why does my neighbor's property taxes pay for my family's K-12 education, not preschool or college? Also great question. Short answer, we have decided that school through age 16 is mandatory. Thru 12th grade is a nice round number to stop. College is a luxury, to some, that is not necessary in all case. I agree to the second part. Preschool, is another good question. Studies show that more money spent in pre-K gets paid back many times over in lifetime earnings and production. So we would all be better suited if universal pre-k was a thing. Disagree on social safety net vs debt/spending. We could put policies in place so we don't have to choose. Regulations also keep companies from causing huge catastrophes like 2007. There can be a middle ground, but there need to be tangible consequences. Like tough on crime but for corporations. Give them some freedom but break them apart when they run afoul of the law. National Defense Spending and Foreign Policy: Is killing always wrong? I believe so. The state should not be in the business of killing people, domestically or internationally. We should be past the point where injustice for any reason is tolerated to the point that one group feels their only recourse is violence. That ball just keeps bouncing. Does military strength correlate with its moral authority? Might does not make right. Does blowback matter when you have military strength? To people with a conscience, it should. To everyone else, they shouldn’t be in that position or quickly taken out and dealt with. Abortion: Does every human life count equally? Loaded question. What makes someone or something a person? Not sure. How can the 'abortion is murder' person support abortion for situations beyond the mother's health risk? Good point. If two people understand things differently, who is right? If the ideas one person has corresponds to that which maps with reality and the other does not, there is a conversation to be had about that. Firstly, does the non-reality person have the capacity to understand that they could be wrong or their information be incorrect? If not, the conversation will be futile. Does a person have the right to use my body for their purposes/needs without my consent? What criteria would you use to determine legality? Gun Policy: Should gun policy be put in place to save Republicans from suicide? Oddly specific. If you change it to ‘People’ then, maybe. 86% of all gun suicide deaths from 2001-2021 involved white people large population of 65y+ white men in non-urban areas We might want to study this issue more to see what the root issue(s) could be. Mental healthcare could be factor. Should gun policy be put in place to prevent Democrats from killing Democrats in metro urban areas? Firstly, not all city dwellers are dems or rural dwellers are pubs. The reason to put some policies is to stop loss of life and prevention of injury in certain situations. The topic is nuanced but for the most part guns have a small amount of legal purposes. They should be, as much as possible, kept to those uses. Metro Urban areas have 61% of the population and 74% of the gun homicides Metro Fringe (Suburb) areas have 25% of the population and 18% of the gun homicides Rural areas have 15% of the population and 11% of the gun homicides Black boys and men make up 6% of pop. and were involved with 53% of gun homicides from 2018 to 2021 ...CDC data pulls Health Care: Is health care a human right? Similar to education. Yes. Does having a right to healthcare mean one automatically possesses a doctor's services without having to earn or receive them as a gift from the doctor... who has the right to provide them? Licensed professionals. Should my neighbor Gary pay for a stranger's negative lifestyle choices? (overeating, drugs, self-sabotage) He already does. But now the argument shifts to your or his opinion of moral. How does this end? Does a smoker offset their lifestyle by working at a crisis prevention line or volunteering at a soup kitchen. Same scenario for every ‘bad’ choice you think is immoral? Who makes that actuarial table? Should we just trust You to decide who is work helping? Also, who’s to say that a few years into universal health care we curb all those things and they don’t exist anymore or in such a small percentage as to be nearly irradicated? Why let your irrational dislike of others keep you from helping? Wouldn’t you want help if you needed it? Would you care who helps or just appreciate it? Is cost savings better than innovation? You’re gonna need to expand on that, not sure what you’re asking. The word 'affordable' is a nice touch. Social Security: Is it intergenerational injustice? Nope. Just used as a political football because it was successful and thus needs to be dismantled to prove that the system doesn’t work. If given everything it needs plus a hike in the level by which the tax is taken out, it would be even more successful. Not everyone has the wherewithal or the means to save for retirement or bad investments or stock market crash 6 months before retiring. Having a bit of a cushion that you pay into your whole life, that you don’t have to think or worry about, is nice. What is the consequence of the government supporting the people rather than the people supporting the government? Would love to hear your answer to this one. Cancel Culture: Why do its users identify as oranges? Who? Gay Marriage: Why is marriage needed for any of its benefits? If its not equal its lesser and that is just wrong. Its an idea and piece of paper backed by law. What could possibly be reason enough not to open your arms to any and everyone that wants to be involved in the institution? Does anyone care if a person gets those benefits? The people in those relationships. Should a transgender couple have adoption priority over a heterosexual couple to meet DEI quotas? I reject your premise. Government Responsibility for Citizens' Prosperity: Is the government's main function to defend individuals against those who would take their lives or property by force? I would change the last word to ‘unjustly’ but yes. Is the government the criminal when they take the bread from Gary (by force) and redistribute it to Peter? Reject the premise. Raising the bar of the minimum starting point that everyone should have in this country, should be the goal of the federal, state, and local government. What we do with that minimum starting point is up to us and our circumstances. But a good amount of people are forgotten, dismissed, or abandoned by those entities before they get a chance in the game. That should bother everyone. We all don’t need a mansion. But for small but growing number of people in your country are left without the means to have even a fighting chance to succeed. Reparations: Is one generation an independent nation from the previous generation? No. What would happen if the victim's heirs returned to the situation before the injustice occurred? Huh? What type of reparations should there be? Provided from who to whom? Money. Lots of money. US government because those policies led to the effects that still manifest today. Change laws and punish businesses that have had and may continue to have racist policies, like red lining. Environmental Conservation: What obligations do we have to future generations? Telling question. How does the reasoning for this obligation align with the reasoning for social security? Would love to know how you square this circle? Is it realistic to balance environmental conservation with economic growth? For all intents and purposes the metric of economic growth as a barometer for success is wrong. It is a simple number to help convince people who don’t understand economics(which is just about everyone) that things are going well or not. But plenty of things can be going well that would not effect positive growth and likewise the other direction. So, yes it is realistic to balance environmental conservation and a strong economy. What we are lacking is a form of capitalism or the consumer base to influence the markets enough to force large scale change that would be a net benefit to the environment. Its too profitable to maintain the status quo rather than swim upstream. Church vs State: Why does the dollar say, "In God We Trust?" Reject the premise. Which god? Does everyone believe in one god or any? Should we air on the sign of E Pluribus Unum, which is more accurate anyway? Is the 'God' concept a religion? Which religion? Yes. Good question. What constitutes religion? No sure. But in my opinion religions tend to have little to no evidence of the truths they claim to reveal. They appeal to emotion and clouded judgement. And tend to punish, shun, or excommunicate any and all that push back against the teachings. Think of every cult you know. Who would fall for such BS? So, ya, that! most of your answers I would agree with.

How stressed you must be by creating a controversy that is a lie that you can pretend to rise above. Talk about inferiority complex.

Education spending and policy: public school should be funded by something other than property taxes or at least a means by which each school and student has a higher minimum as far as a starting point so as to offer better and more consistent outcomes National defense spending and foreign policy: we should not be the world's police. it causes more harm than good, in so doing we wouldn't need to spend so much money on defense, contractors will cry foul but that's what happens during a market correction Abortion: let women consult with their doctors for their health care needs, Catholic church should not be allowed to own hospitals or deny certain types of care Gun policy: keep em, but hunting and defense weapons should be different, hunting is a deliberate, tactical process and the weapons should reflect that, spraying bullets is not hunting, if you think so, do what everybody else does when they suck at something, lose, try again, get better, other wise everyone could do it(doodly doo to just about every mass shooting), it should be more difficult to kill so quickly. and i know the counter argument is just a 'perfect being the enemy of good' but profit driven gun policy got us in this mess and congress regulates commerce Health Care: other countries, including our neighbors to the north have universal health care, we need it, more people going to therapy for free would help with the inferiority complex that many people seem to suffer from Social Security: raise the limit(to infinity) by which social security tax is taken from income Cancel Culture: as 'alpha' members of the right love to say, 'stop whining, snowflake' they're consequences not censorship. learn the difference. Gay marriage: no one is making you marry a gay person, let it go Does government actually have a responsibility to play an active role to the citizens to help or aid in their prosperity?: yes, we can discuss what that means and how it can manifest Reparations and the effects of systemic oppression: should be an honest discussion with an end goal in mind and how to get there, tied in with education and what 'American Exceptionalism' really means Environmental Conservation: h$it is getting real, effects are being documented, steps need to be taken, all options need to be on the table except for 'wait and see' Church vs State: leave the personal beliefs you hold due to a personal experience that you had, out of government or the decision making process you use to produce or vote for policy that effects people that do not hold your beliefs. If you cannot do that, you shouldn't work in government. If its an actual thing it shouldn't be that hard to provide evidence, we get in trouble when we just take peoples' word for things when making government policy(ie, George Santos, Richard Nixon(I am not a crook), 45(locker room talk))

What are they really? Education spending and policy: National defense spending and foreign policy: Abortion: Gun policy: Health Care: Social Security: Cancel Culture: Gay marriage: Does government actually have a responsibility to the citizens to help or aid in their prosperity?: Reparations: Environmental Conservation: Church vs State: Because one person does not represent a group, I guess what I'm asking is what are your thoughts on these issues and why?

If you were talented and all-in on wrestling and the life style that entails, OSU could be for you. Training hard, cutting weight, school is less of a priority then winning, going to Stillwater to be coached by John, Zach, and Eric was an obvious choice. They are hardly the only game in town in that regard and they are not producing like that had in the past. Oklahoma has fallen on hard times. More Big Ten schools with Big Ten funding. PSU is obviously a prime destination for athletes with ambition and a need for a different sort of lifestyle than a Cowboy. Stanford and the Ivies are picking up some clout. Balancing academics, future earnings, and post grad competition has fueled an arms race that OSU cannot or has yet to offer. Seems like they are still offering an 'old school' wrestling experience when the market is and the kids are trending elsewhere. Bringing in Coleman was a step in the right direction. But they might have a few tough years until John's influence is replaced with a new vision for the future. One more in line with where the sport is heading.

Double U Tee Eff! How is this not evidence that cruelty is the point? This is everything they could want from such a case. Mother of two, trying, responsibly for a third. Something goes tragically wrong in the development of the fetus. Will most likely lead to, at best, a short and painful life, if at all, for the baby. At worst, threaten the life and/or the ability for further fertility of the mother. Supreme Court of Texas, firstly, takes their sweet time to decide on this issue(all republican Judges, BTW, another notch for cruelty being the point). Then after the fact, rules against the lower court. All of this following a barrage of threats from the AG(who is currently being investigated for securities fraud, trial set for April 15) aimed at the mother and any doctor or healthcare professional that might aid her. In so doing rules against an obvious exception that should be built into Texas law, but is now not an option. For pregnant people that do not have the means to travel out of the state they are now, by way of judgement of their supreme court, forced to struggle and die or carry a baby to term that more than likely won't live long if at all. How can you keep voting for these people? What are you getting from it? Is the suffering of your opponents your point too? I don't like to prescribe motive to actions, but these are too obvious to overlook. There is no sympathy or empathy in these laws or in these rulings. They are cold and calculated. With little to no consideration for those that would be effected. They have power and little worry as to what might happen to them as a consequence of this ruling and these laws. I weep for Texas and the pregnant people still living there.

Stinks that 174 is in no-mans-land when it comes to international styles. I would say Carter has had the more impressive career. Staying in the same weight class and continuing to distance himself from a talented field. A field that has grown in age and experience as well as youth and talent and yet no one has made as much as a dent.