- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:32 pm to TigerAxeOK
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:32 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
Shawn Ryan not getting any love any more? He's been hitting on some pretty big issues.
Is there any evidence at all that he’s even conservative?
He’s skeptical of the men and government but he’s pretty apolitical.
1
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:34 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
1. No, “right of the people” doesn’t mean “right of the state,” but it means a federal noninterference in a right the people already possessed in the context of maintaining a militia.
2. A state could (and some did) have established religions, restrict speech, or regulate the press, unless their own state constitutions forbade it.
3. Only applied to federal troops. A state government could, theoretically, pass a law allowing quartering of its militia in private homes unless prohibited by its own constitution.
4. State police could conduct unreasonable searches under federal law, though many state constitutions adopted similar protections independently.
5. Only federal prosecutions. States could have different standards for double jeopardy, grand juries, and self-incrimination.
6. States could — in theory — hold people indefinitely or deny jury trials unless their own constitutions prohibited it.
Well thank god for the 14th amendment then. Working as intended.
I guess it's just coincidence none of this really happened in practice.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:37 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
This dude sounds like elmo but he’s smart
Macintyre interviewing Dave Green sounds like the most effeminate blue haired troons saying the most based stuff
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:37 pm to 3down10
quote:Most of it did not happen in practice because the States are the ones who ratified the constitution. In other words, the State constitutions already had the same beliefs they were enshrining in the constitution. Of course they wouldn’t be radically different.
I guess it's just coincidence none of this really happened in practice.
But some of it did happen. States did have laws on speech, on religion, and on guns. All you have to do is Google this to learn more.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:46 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
I’m sorry that you’re wrong and that you’re taking it this hard. If it helps, the 14th amendment was ratified and you don’t have to worry about these things.
The 14th shows it's working as intended. And only the 1st limits to congress, not the others.
I don't think it was applied and done the way you are claiming, or that it was actual intent. It's like slavery. While the constitution allowed it, it was more of a compromise than what was actually wanted. People condemn them for the slavery, but that doesn't mean it was really intended.
In essence what the constitution defines is what it means to be a free person who has liberty, and a just form of government. So I don't think it's a coincidence that a single amendment fixed it and that it's just a matter of extending who the rights belong to that it fixes things.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:49 pm to 3down10
quote:You’re the only one who thinks this. Go read a book.
I don't think it was applied and done the way you are claiming, or that it was actual intent.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:51 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Most of it did not happen in practice because the States are the ones who ratified the constitution. In other words, the State constitutions already had the same beliefs they were enshrining in the constitution. Of course they wouldn’t be radically different.
But some of it did happen. States did have laws on speech, on religion, and on guns. All you have to do is Google this to learn more.
But isn't that the point? That these things weren't really ever allowed or intended to be allowed?
I already knew about the religion thing. But beyond that are you talking about things other than justice/civil related powers? I mean there are still places even today where you can't take guns and that's fine. Are you saying there were laws that prevented citizens from owning them and/or regulated what they could own?
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:54 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
You’re the only one who thinks this. Go read a book.
I'm always willing to learn new things, but these things you say could happen didn't really happen. So how can that have ever been in the intent?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:55 pm to 3down10
quote:Yes
Are you saying there were laws that prevented citizens from owning them and/or regulated what they could own?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 2:58 pm to 3down10
quote:The intent I’m describing wasn’t that citizens should be unfree at some federal level, rather, the intent I’m describing is that the bill of rights was only intended to restrain the federal government
but these things you say could happen didn't really happen. So how can that have ever been in the intent?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 3:11 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Yes
I'll look into that. I'll be shocked to find it's beyond the normal things and/or bias to the way not all rights applied to people equally. Land ownership, slaves, etc.
Again, I tend to over look those kinds of things because it's more a matter of who the rights belonged to rather than what rights a citizen should/did have.
For example, slaves didn't have a right to many things. Landowners had more rights, etc. I'm not going to argue that all rights were applied equally or correctly in that way. They did not. But I do think what it meant to be a free person and what rights people should have were defined.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 3:15 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
The intent I’m describing wasn’t that citizens should be unfree at some federal level, rather, the intent I’m describing is that the bill of rights was only intended to restrain the federal government
The constitution itself is a document of limited government rather than a document of limited rights.
If you just say the government can do anything other than the specifically listed rights, then it's a document of limited rights. If you say the government can only do the things specifically listed, then it's a document of limited government.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 3:16 pm to 3down10
Black freedmen were restricted from gun ownership in almost every state.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 3:18 pm to 3down10
Yup. Constitution is a document that gives limited powers to the federal government. Only in very few ways does it restrict the power of the states. The state constitutions were the documents that limited the powers of the states.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 3:31 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Black freedmen were restricted from gun ownership in almost every state.
Yeah, I don't really count these kinds of things. I have no problem agreeing that not everyone had the same rights. Nobody can during the slavery era etc. I only focus on them defining what it meant for those who had full rights.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 3:36 pm to Pettifogger
It’s Crowder and Wilkow for me.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 3:37 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Tucker is too sensationalist for me at this point. Platforming people who others won't is fine, but I find it difficult to discern any real consistent line of thought from Tucker at this point because of how he operates his show and brand.
He is one I take with a grain of salt personally, but I really enjoy some of his takes and think hes a huge influence regardless. Is it good that he is such a huge influence? TBD.
quote:
Auron Macintyre
Great follow on X
Posted on 10/30/25 at 4:03 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Ah yes that old Democrat talking point:
That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
That's not what you are pushing. What makes you think liberty is contrary to these things?
In order to have liberty I must be taxed extremely heavily, so that I can pay for the political agendas of others. So that money can be sent over seas to other countries. In order to kill people of other religions, to maintain 750+ military installations around the world, and so forth.
None of what the government is doing is justice, moderation, temperance, frugality or virtuous. And that's why we have a loss of liberty to the point of me talking about basic rights is now "radical liberty".
Posted on 10/30/25 at 8:13 pm to tide06
quote:
Is there any evidence at all that he’s even conservative?
He’s skeptical of the men and government but he’s pretty apolitical.
Fair enough. The writing is on the wall in some ways, but Shawn does come across as just more "for The People" as opposed to partisan. However, that does more closely align with grassroots conservative ideology that anything right now.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 8:21 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I like Shawn. I don't really learn anything from Shawn (about culture or politics). But he does interview some people like I describe.
I mostly keep my gun influencer world and my political/intellectual world separate despite people like Ryan trying to combine them.
I guess I always thought of him as conservative political because of the subjects of his interviews often delving into political and societal issues.
If you don't mind me asking, got any suggestions for good follows I might be missing in the gun influencer spectrum? Most of the people I follow are also into topics other than just firearms exclusively, such as Chadd Wright of "3 of 7 Project" and the guys from "Dirty Civilian", but I do love me some Colin Noir and Banana Ballistics. I like some Brandon Herrera but his language is often too NSFW to watch around most of the company I keep.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News