jerryskids

This is the first of what may be several threads on my thoughts about cultural existential threats facing our nation, depending on how it goes and how much stuff gets swept under this topic. Marxism and Moral Relativism: Definitions of Marxism abound; for our purposes, I'll call it the support of the worker class over the ownership class, or the oppressed over the oppressors from an economic standpoint. Marxism also supports moral relativism: https://www.google.com/search?q=marxist+moral+relativism&sca_esv=4771c1dce5b9df5f&sxsrf=ADLYWIKmN0GtIzO1s5LmuDWRPAuBlaa9Uw%3A1715614907871&ei=uzRCZqHzNMT1kPIPr5iD8AY&oq=marxism+and+moral+rela&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFm1hcnhpc20gYW5kIG1vcmFsIHJlbGEqAggAMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIu4UBUP4WWJ1pcAF4AZABAJgBzwGgAdoOqgEFOC44LjG4AQHIAQD4AQGYAhKgAvcPwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICDRAAGIAEGLADGEMYigXCAg0QABiABBixAxhDGIoFwgIOEAAYgAQYkQIYsQMYigXCAgsQABiABBiRAhiKBcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhiABBiRAhiKBcICBRAuGIAEwgIaEC4YgAQYkQIYigUYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAgoQABgWGAoYHhgPmAMAiAYBkAYKugYGCAEQARgUkgcFOS44LjGgB8elAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp For most of its existence, Marxism and economics were closely intertwined. But in recent history, we have seen the tenets of Marxism extended to other areas. - BLM and anti-racism are racial Marxism, where the oppressed are black people. We are led to believe that white people (the oppressors) are inherently racist, as are all systems developed by the oppressors. Biden's administration has enacted many policies supporting this. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/19/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-advances-equity-and-opportunity-for-black-people-and-communities-across-the-country/ - The allowance of biological men into women's safe spaces and sports is sexual Marxism. It places the needs of the oppressed (the men) over the needs of the oppressors (cis women). Biden's recent Title 9 changes show clear support of this. - The support of Palestinians over Israel is... terrorist Marxism? religious Marxism? Obviously the Palestinians are the oppressed in this model. We see Biden's support for Israel waning in deference to the Islamic State of Dearborn. I do not believe in moral relativism; I believe there are some moral absolutes. But you need moral relativism to defend men in women's prisons, or woman-raping child-burning terrorists. Existential Threat: I do not believe that a nation can survive in the long term on a backbone of moral relativism. While the above specific issues are not likely to cause the demise of our nation, they are part of a clear pattern and trajectory towards increasing relativism. What is the American Way? Is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness good? How about the American Dream, that any person through hard work can achieve his/her goals? Is that good? We seem to be increasingly celebrating people for being on an intersectional scale more than people who achieve great things. Anyway, I've typed enough for now. I look forward to @BeachGuy23responding with a grammatically challenged one-liner, but hopefully this can generate some discussion among intelligent folks.

I'm not sure your point. Politicians make things temporary all the time as a means to end around the financial analyses to make it seem like stuff is paid for, or to get votes from the other side. And yes, the more they are extended, the more difficult it is to do away with them. Although in this case, the tax cuts should help a lot of people pay for ACA, no? Those are different than actual temporary relief for a once in a century pandemic that shut down the country. Regardless, I've shown a willingness to extend the benefits. But Gutter says I'm not serious because I'd rather give money to Argentina than health care to America.

Well, one of us is triggered by Argentina, because his MSM spun him up enough to post about it. Guy who thinks a false dichotomy is a serious discussion. Where is your list of Leftie boondoggle to cut to fund this extension?

This is an incontrovertible fact, but Saint's TDS won't let him acknowledge it. It was also the first time it was ever done to create felony charges, and it was done against the presumptive Republican candidate for POTUS. Two more facts he won't acknowledge. But it wasn't lawfare!

We're another year into extending the emergency Covid ACA subsidies, which will make it virtually impossible to undo them. The Dems know this of course -- entitlements are like toothpaste, very difficult to put back into the tube once they are out there.

I'm good with a little more west coast love.

Weepaws is allergic to links.

Weird, I was reading this thread and the commercial during the LSU/Bama game said that it is also the 50 year anniversary of Miller Lite beer. Coincidence?

Senate? Bernie is pushing AOC for POTUS.

Maybe you should read my comments before spouting off. I doubt it though, because you responded directly to some of them with "but muh Argentina! "

This false dichotomy is stupid even for you.

I see our board Lefties have offered up a bevy of things the Dems could offer up to pay for more ACA entitlements. Like... ... who am I kidding, muh Argentina!

Muh Argentina! You guys are such sheep for your party lines, but you'll never admit it. I'd point out that your MSM masters don't like Argentina because it is an example of conservatism and libertarianism being more successful than socialism, and that's why they rev you up about it, but you'd just say "but muh Argentina money! " It is NOT a real concession to offer to get something you want (ACA subsidies) and propose the Reps give up something they want (Argentina support, which is strategically important). That's not how negotiations work. How about the Dems offer to carve out $30B of their progressive boondoggles? LGBTQ+ studies in the Middle East? THAT would be the beginning of a negotiation.

Why don't the Dems offer it? Since, you know, the Dems are keeping the government closed? And this is NOT supposed to be a negotiation, which all of you Lefties ignore whenever I say it. The negotiation is supposed to be for the actual budget. This proposal is idiotic, see my comments up thread. It would take these payments off the table for the actual budget discussion. I would be in favor of extending them for the period of the CR, not to exceed a certain date so that the Dems don't avoid approving the budget.

You responded to me as if you understood, then went back to this idiotic idea of giving an extension for a year, beyond the upcoming full budget. That's not a negotiation. That's a gift with money we don't have. If I were the Reps, I'd agree to extend the Covid ACA subsidies to the date they target for the full budget. And I would require the Dems to decide what of their boondoggle things they are willing to drop to pay to keep them going.

Why a year? Shouldn't it only be until the full budget is passed? You know, when negotiation is supposed to actually happen?

It's like you didn't read a word I've said. Several reasons why POTUS would hear a case? Ignored. Gays could have been added to the Civil Rights protected group list after 1964. Several other groups have been. The 13th-15th amendments were written specifically to protect former slaves. The 13th made slavery officially illegal throughout the land. The 14th made them citizens. The 15th codified their right to vote. You are arguing like the hysterical women that the author of that article fears.

I've been meaning to start a thread called "The Great Feminization." It's a fascinating article written by a woman who argues that the feminization of our institutions is destroying them. Here is a relevant excerpt: Your take, the liberal take, is what the author fears. Despite having majorities in both houses and the presidency in the past, you Lefties never explicitly added sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act. Much like you never codified abortion. So there is a risk that this court will follow the Constitution. I hope they don't though, because it would become a rallying point for the Left.

Well, you are proving my point about the Constitution. There is no enumerated federal power regarding marriage, so it technically defaults to the states. Guess we'll see.

Sigh... whenever I see posts like this, I respond with the following: https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology You'll note the following: - Sotomayor is the most biased and it isn't close. She is a joke, just voting for whatever progressive cause du jour with no thought about the law. - Alito and Thomas are next. - Kagan and Brown-Jackson are next. - The four other judges are all center right and the least biased. None of you libs ever respond to these posts, because the cognitive dissonance messes with your preconceived notions that the court is just a puppet for Trump and other pablum. This is all not to say that SCOTUS might do what you say. They might. Constitutionally, it's arguably the correct thing to do. But you know Roberts doesn't want to do it, so all it takes is one of the other 3 center-right justices to oppose it and he will side with the leftie loon justices.

You realize that not every case that is heard by SCOTUS overturns lower court rulings, yes? In fact I would guess this is much more often the case. Perhaps they just want to affirm the lower court ruling. This would put more weight on the ruling, and make it harder for someone down the road to challenge it. Perhaps they want to say that as opposed to abortion, where Congress did nothing in 50 years to codify it, in this case Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, so everyone just relax. Or perhaps they want to weigh in on what to do in the case of the plaintiff. IMO I agree with @MDC -- she's not officiating or blessing anything, she is just issuing a license, and if she won't do that, don't let the door hit ya on the way out. But maybe they would say that governments need to make reasonable accommodations, like if there are 5 people who issue such licenses, have one of the other 4 do it. Depends. Mamdani isn't strong enough to throw anyone off a roof. But if he invites his Imam buddy, the one who was an unindicted co-conspirator of 9/11? I'd pass.

Yes! Great song.

$8 for 10 McNuggets doesn't seem like a value meal, let alone an EXTRA value meal.

Just by accepting the case? What if they find in favor of gay marriage?

Same with injuries. I'm starting Harvey in two leagues, I wish the Broncos would feed him.