TenWheelsForJesus

This is as dumb as complaining about women-only gyms.

I care more about dog shite than I do muslims.

quote:

---

We have freedom of religion. The government cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

This doesn’t mean the government should display commandments or have organized prayers in school. Now this doesn’t mean YOU cannot pray in school on your own. For those of you who believe we should, then how in the hell can you be against a call to prayer????

---

Because one promotes love and charity, the other promotes death and rape.

People need to stop pretending that Christianity and Islam are equally virtuous. We shouldn't allow any ideology that wants to destroy the foundations of this country even if it is disguised as a religion.

Stop letting people use our freedoms against us. If your "religion" is not aligned with the ideals that built this country, then GTFO.

This country is for moral people. Those who will murder their own 13-year-old daughter or sister for not wanting to marry a 50-year-old man are not moral. People who throw acid in women's faces for not covering their hair do not belong in a country based on freedom and traditional values.

We have to stop being so principled that we invite our demise. Suicidal principlism is no less suicidal than suicidal empathy.

quote:

---

Who disparages Friedman -- Reagan's favorite economist and perhaps the most ardent spokesman for free markets since Adam Smith? Friedman was the leading spokesman for school choice, limited government and personal freedom. One of his most famous books was called "Free to Choose." Who criticizes Thatcher?

---

The first question that should be asked after reading this is, "Why does the author think that disagreeing with Friedman is 'disparaging' him or that Thatcher is beyond criticism?"

The author is shifting the argument from policy to people to create an emotional attachment. Any criticism of a policy now becomes a criticism of that individual, who is beyond reproach in all things, or so the author wants you to believe.

The author is pushing a narrative using emotions rather than hard data. When that happens, it's always prudent to distrust the author until the facts can be verified.

But it doesn't look like there are many facts beyond generalities. It's basically just, "Vance is wrong because he agrees with that guy and not the guy I do. Oh, and you can't question my guy."

quote:

---

"I think that meritocracy can steal from us a sense of what really, really matters."

---

This was clearly cut from all surrounding context in the interview and placed in the middle of the article. Closing quotation marks signal that this quote and the quote directly before and after are individual quotes, not continuations of an argument.

Why did the author put in a controversial statement without providing the context around it? Would that context change the narrative being pushed? If it strengthened the author's argument, then surely it would have been added.

quote:

---

"If you turn economic development (i.e., prosperity) into a sort of idol, then you end up sacrificing a lot of the things that matter most."

---

This is true, but people on the right instinctively recoil when they hear criticism of a foundational principle of their beliefs like unfettered capitalism.

Vance is absolutely right here. Blind pursuit of economic development causes offshoring of manufacturing, a dependence on foreign adversaries, and a flood of cheap labor who destroy our culture and lower wages.

This is the GOPe vs MAGA argument, but the author wants you to think that putting American workers over the corporations is the GOPe position. It's the RINOs who have sold out the country for economic development, not the ones saying there might be things of value beyond profits.

Did Vance actually say 'i.e., prosperity' or is that the author's embellishment? Because economic development and prosperity are not the time. CEOS have made money exponentially through the 2 methods mentioned above at the cost of the American workers.

If 90% of economic growth benefits only a handful of people, can you really call that prosperity? If the majority of families are living paycheck to paycheck, is that prospering or simply subsisting?

quote:

---

 If Vance doesn't believe in those core principles of freedom and prosperity, maybe he's in the wrong party.

---

Look at this drama queen. More proof the author is simply trying to play on emotions instead of providing actual counterarguments. Nothing Vance said in the quoted snippets violates core principles of freedom and prosperity.

I see this all the time. "If you disagree with me, then you aren't a true conservative." The author is making the same basic argument. The author wants readers to think that if someone believes in a slightly different way to achieve the core principles than he does, then he just doesn't believe in those principles at all.

The author may ultimately be correct, but his presentation is very unconvincing.

If he's an islamist, then I don't care how they treat him. Muslims want us dead and are destroying every Western nation they can. I don't feel empathy for people who hate me.

quote:

---

Are we going to pretend that Europe is the only place where legislative bodies sometimes require actual majority votes? ?

ETA: everyone should note that OP and the embedded are lying. A super majority was not required. A simple majority of the whole body was required, not just the majority of those present.

---

In no world does it make sense for a law to pass when more people vote against it.

You are completely missing the point. A law should not pass unless a majority approve it. Non-votes are not approval. The default should always be rejection.

It was set up this way for no other reason than to allow unfavorable bills to pass while giving the corrupt politicians cover. It allows authoritarians to pass bills with a minority of approval. It's corruption, plain and simple.

quote:

---

cmon now use your head don't be such a purist.

---

This is where so many conservatives fall. They are so principled that they don't even realize what they are supporting.

By obediently supporting the "free market" without evaluating the results, people like the OP unwittingly support the "You will own nothing and like it" policy of the NWO/WEF.

Too many are OK with corporations controlling an item after it was purchased in the name of the "free market." At some point, you have to ask yourself if what you are supporting is truly beneficial or if you are only supporting it because of an ideology.

People who put all their faith in the "free market" are just giving more control to corporations. Then they will turn around and complain about the influence these corporations have over government policies while simultaneously fighting against any methods that can rein them in, all in the name of the "free market."

Too often, conservatives are so pure that they just shoot themselves in the foot.

This thread is about hot women, and you're posting a picture of a dude. The soccer board would be a better fit for your proclivity.

quote:

---

Good cop bad cop shite is so obvious

---

With the evidence repeatedly showing Trump in conflict with Netanyahu, this argument is the intellectual equivalent of "nuh uh."

quote:

---

Those are OG MAGAs.

---

It doesn't matter what Tucker was before when he is now promoting islam. You can't excuse an attitude that is detrimental to the country because he had the right views in the past.

quote:

---

Your level of awareness is astonishing.

---

It's really crazy. Almost daily, there are posts of whites being murdered outside the ghetto by blacks, and the general consensus is that it is a problem.

But because the OP used the word "scared," they now have to act like big, tough guys and that the problem we all agreed on before is now not an issue. We once mostly agreed that white people are being preyed upon, but now admitting the problem is a challenge to their manhood because of that single word.

They know what the OP meant, but that one word keeps them from accepting the obvious intent.