DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Biden's Cognitive ability

I haven't seen anyone on the left trying to force you to get "gay married" or have an abortion or stop going to church. You seem to be confusing views with actions. Nobody has asked you to abandon your views or religion. Nobody has asked me to abandon mine. Giving women a choice and treating those in the gay community equally isn't imposing anything on you.

Many Christians feel they’re being persecuted when they can’t trample the rights of others.

Many others feel they're being persecuted when they can't trample the rights of Christians.


I'm not picking a side as I'm definitely not a Catholic/Christian, but I am pointing out that the sentence is equally true when restructured.
It's a timeless battle.

When did anyone try to "trample the rights of Christmas"? I'm not saying it didn't happen but I've certainly seen a lot of claims concerning that which held zero validity. I've never had anyone try to stop or restrict my Christmas traditions or any other holiday for that matter even though many of them are steeped in pagan customs. If you're speaking about the separation of church and state I don't think that's really a "trample on your rights" issue. I think that's an issue of placing the beliefs of one religion over all others. The christian religion. It's like saying the very places you help pay taxes to support can be used for religious symbolism. At that point the question becomes whose rights are really being trampled on? I don't consider restricting a nativity scene from Courthouse Square an attempt to trample on the rights of Christmas.

As a quick off the cuff response you can see the decision rendered this week:


A private group was told no on flying a Christian flag. SCOTUS sided with the group in this one. A small example but if you don't think some people aren't trying to trample the rights of Christians you really aren't paying attention.

Separation of church and state. That seems not to mean anything anymore. Using government property to support a religion is not an attack on anyone and this has nothing to do with Christmas.

Do you think the church of Satan should deserve that same right?

The ruling from SCOTUS would have said so and I concur.

Did you read the decision or did you argue out of habit?

I know you love to label giving you an example that shows holes in your points an argument. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between debating an issue and arguing. The SCOTUS at this point and has for some time been nothing more than an arm of one political party or the other. Presidents actually use what they can accomplish with appointing SCOTUS judges as a part of their political campaigns.

Let's see how Christians react when the flag of the church of satan is flying over their local courthouse. If you truly feel the church of satan should hold the same right to fly their flag as the Christians did under the same set of circumstances I commend you. Most people aren't open minded enough to feel that way.

I think the smart thing to do would have been to avoid all of that by maintaining the separation of church and state. Hopefully you can understand that's not an argument. Other than your false claim that I was arguing with you, this is known as a discussion comparing two differing points of view.

But just watch what you will see if a flag of the church of satan ever flies over a courthouse. The vast majority of the very same people who felt they had the right to fly their flag will call flying the flag of the church of satan as yet another attack on Christianity. It's the way this game is played.

So you didn't read it, you just wanted to argue.

The decision was an unanimous so let's rule out the idea it was based on a political preference. The entire court held that this was a First amendment issue. Boston argued using the Establishment clause but this was found to not apply as it was not government speech, rather private speech. Boston did not vet ANY OTHER flag ever requested to fly. They chose the Christian flag to disallow. The original point was trampling the rights of Christians. Evidently just this week SCOTUS ruled that Boston did. It is a single example, it answers your question and proves the point. The fact it was granted cert by the court and found in a 9-0 way says Boston "trampled the rights of Christians."

You mentioned trampling the rights of Christmas but that makes no sense. If you really meant trampling the rights of Christmas instead of replying to PrplPplEater's comment about Christians then the SCOTUS decision isn't as applicable.

So did it say it trampled the rights of Christians anywhere in that decision? I highly doubt that. Or is that the conclusion you came to?

You seem to indicate that anyone who questions an opinion or debates a topic is arguing. It must have escaped you that's how social media works. People of differing opinions discuss and debate topics from differing perspectives. Your lack in understanding that very basic concept speaks much more about you than it does me.

Maybe we should all just sit in a circle, hold hands and sing Kum ba yah?

That's rich.

They said it violated the First amendment rights of the partitioners. That could very likely be seen as "trampling".

It isn't anyone who argues, it is specifically you. You make wild assertions, get handed evidence you don't read and then continue to argue. That is here for the fight. You want to be taken seriously, read a SCOTUS decision, understand what it says and make a cogent rebuttal. It is obvious you didn't bother to read it as you argued, incorrectly, that it was a partisan decision.

I don't expect everyone to agree on every topic, especially when we are talking about opinions, but if can't be bothered to actually try to make proper points then why would anyone take you seriously? it is fine if you are here to fight, that is valid, but you could own it instead of being sophist.

You actually haven't cited any evidence. You gave no links to your source. When pressed on it the decision certainly did not say anyone's rights were trampled on. That's your own translation of what you think the decision means. You see, that's not how any of this has worked since this board began. You give a link to your source and if there is something specific you wish to point out you quote that part as your evidence of the point you are making.

Here you said there was a case you wished to cite, but you didn't cite it. You claimed it said something but did not quote where it said that. When pressed on it, come to find out it didn't say what you claimed it did. You didn't actually cite any case or anything stated in the case. It's not my job to look up a case and read it to make your point. Then you reach some conclusion that it certainly doesn't make which is that Christianity is under attack.

In our back and forth only one of us has been accusatory in regards to our motives. Only one of us had cast aspersions on the other one. That's how one conducts themselves when they are trying to start a fight. That person wasn't me. I think you could use a mirror.

Thanks for helping make my point. Nothing about the topic, nothing of substance included. Just trying to start an argument.

Did you need me to hold your hand and link directly to SCOTUS' site then point to the PDF download?

I'm thought you were more grown up than that. My mistake.

I'm sorry you feel the need once again to take personal shots because you don't understand that it's up to you to give sources to make your point and not mine. Yet you claim it's me who wants to argue.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf

Right there on the front page of SCOTUS' site, very latest decision rendered. Teach a man to fish and all that.

Ironically you argued without knowing where the actual sorce material is, which indicates you didn't read it. THAT is being here for the fight. And if you hate personal shots maybe you should stop taking them, you get back what you give and your derision towards anyone that doesn't agree with your "I said so I am right <insert lots of little laughing guys>" is legend.

So now you will be getting it back. Let me splain it to you Lucy......

A defense attorney isn't responsible to make the prosecutions case for them. When the prosecution is making their case, they are responsible to turn over the evidence to the defense and provide evidence to make their case. You made a false claim that lacks evidence. For some reason you think it's up to me to help prove your case. That's not the way any of this works.

And no, what you claimed is not stated in this decision. Nowhere does it say that anyone is "trying to trample the rights of Christians" as you claimed it did. Nobody had to read it to know that was a lie. Now you just keep whining about how people are supposed to believe that the decision says something it does not say.

Again you are snide and didn't read the decision nor did you apply that to the point made.

I would say that anyone denying a enumerated protected right in COTUS is trampling rights. The city of Boston saw a christian flag and denied it out of hand. SCOTUS said this was not appropriate in this case. This was the original reply to "trample the rights of Christmas(sic)". The decision was released this week, it is an example of same and all it takes is one positive example to rule out a negative statement.

Ironic you treat people horribly but you expect others to be considerate to you. I don't really mean ironic, I'm being nice.

I don't care if you are considerate or not. I can play it any way you want to. You don't deserve consideration but in this case I gave it to you anyway and you decided to take it in another direction. That's fine.

Yes "you would say". Which is a conclusion you reached based on something that was in no way stated in the decision. That's your right to reach any conclusion you wish.



Do I need to splain this to you as well?

Now you can continue with your tantrum and claim that a conclusion you reached means that was something the decision stated. It clearly was not stated in their conclusion. .

Do you dislike someone speaking to you in the way you treat others? Shocking since you act the bully here and we know bullies don't like it when they get push back. Especially when that is all they have an can't make a cogent debate point about the original issue.

Quoting:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Boston’s flagraising program does not express government speech. As a
result, the city’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution fly their flag based on its religious viewpoint violated
the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. We reverse the First Circuit’s contrary judgment and remand the
case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered

This is not MY opinion. It is the conclusion the court reached. The petitioners were denied their first amendment rights due to the christian nature of their speech. Spin, lie, cheat, steal or stomp your feet. This is what the court ruled, it is an example of "trample the rights of Christmas(sic)" which you asserted does not happen.

Do you want to continue to ignore the whole point so you can point fingers someone doesn't give rat's patootie about your feeling or can you at some point make a reasoned opinion, contrary or not? If you wish to do the former maybe you should just start a blog so you can do it where people who might care can read it.

First you whine and then you go on to quote something that in no way states what you claimed it said.

Get glasses in says their 1A rights were violated.

Please walk me through your twisting on that to how you conclude those words do not exist.

You have reached the conclusion that the SCOTUS ruling means that the rights of christians were "trampled on". Which means

To inflict injury or destruction especially contemptuously or ruthlessly

That is a conclusion you reached and not stated in the decision of the court. You have a right to your own opinion. That doesn't make your opinion a fact.

It's okay man, just breath.

Ok. So you asked "When did anyone try to 'trample the rights of Christmas(sic)'?"

While this might not be the most egregious example of trampling the groups' 1A rights were violated. You can interpret that as being inconsequential if you like, but when a government entity denies a group their 1A rights solely because of religion, regardless of their stated excuse, that is trampling. Keep in mind that government entities are the elephant in the equation, they hold more power that individuals. Governments can compel, by force or threat of force their edicts, so when they withhold rights from individuals that is huge to me. We have no real way of redressing those violations than a court that also works for that government.

A right delayed is also a right denied, and the partitioners were denied their rights since 2017.

Bear in mind also I mention this is merely an example to counter your question. The logic does dictate if there is a single example to counter your assertion than your assertion is false. I'm not doing homework for you, believe what you want to believe, but currently the christian faith is under attack. It is counter to the many agendas of today, but that is a discussion for different thread. I see it in my daily life most days in one way or another, some seriously egregious and some more mild. I am not a follower, but I do believe people have a right to believe what they wish to if they don't hurt others without people attacking them or trampling their rights.

Just over half the country that voted for him does. Next question, grasshopper?

Do you understand fractions?

81 million votes.
329 million US population.
More like less than a quarter.

Well you have things like eligibility. Then you have things like giving enough of a damn to show up at the polls if you are eligible.

The wording of a sentence like OCD just wrote becomes a bit long and painful if you want to articulate it truly accurately. For the purposes of the context and his intent I think that most would not struggle to understand that he's saying of all the eligible voters who actually voted in the last presidential election, more than half of them total voters did in fact vote for him.

I've seen a bunch of really excellent posts and actual real political discussion on these boards today. Be nice to see if we can keep that going. To that point - the question would be why does the USA have such low voter turnout and what can we do to change it?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...st-developed-countries-in-voter-turnout/

Because we have a news media that pushes anger and fear to sell ads and does so with impunity.

"Trump is a criminal and must be stopped at all costs!" - MSNBC, CNN etc.

"Biden will destroy everything if he can find his own pants!" - FOX, OAN etc.

We've been pitted against each other in a game that the only winner is the pockets of the media companies. I find it interesting when people say "I know the media is biased but <that other side> is more biased."

Couple the media with people who are too lazy to go and read. Their talking head of choice tells them something and the believe it without hesitation. Go find primary sources. Read the actual transcript of the press conference, not some opinion piece on what was said, especially since we now know all news media is biased and will tell you what happened in a way to get you angry at those guys over there. Political debate has become a serious game of "but your guy is a nazi!"

You got the point. And yes I understand them.

Because BOTH sides give us nothing but trash as a choice. Give people good folks to vote for and they will show up to vote IMO. Give nothing but trash on either side to vote for and they figure why bother.

Biden calls Trump the ‘great MAGA king,’ bashes Scott’s tax plan

President Biden on Wednesday labeled former President Trump the “great MAGA king” and bashed Republicans, notably Sen. Rick Scott (Fla.), for their plan to combat inflation.

“Under my predecessor — the great MAGA king — the deficit increased every single year he was president. The first year of my presidency, the first year, I reduced the deficit, literally reduced the deficit by $350 billion, first year,” he said in remarks at an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers conference in Chicago.

Biden has been highlighting deficit reduction as a way to fight inflation in order to respond to criticism from Republicans that his American Rescue Plan, which had the price tag of $1.9 trillion and passed early last year, negatively impacted the economy.

“My Republican colleagues say these programs to help the working class and middle-class people, that, they say, that’s why we have inflation. They’re dead wrong,” Biden said on Wednesday.

He argued that “reducing the deficit is one of the main ways that we can ease inflationary pressures.”

The president brought up Scott’s proposed tax plan, which he has attacked recently while comparing it to his administration’s plan to combat inflation. Scott is the head of Senate Republicans’ campaign arm.

“I call it the ultra-MAGA plan, Make America Great Again plan,” he said of Scott’s proposal.

Biden and White House press secretary Jen Psaki this week have criticized the Republican Party for embracing what they call an “ultra-MAGA agenda.”

“Right now, the majority of our Republican friends just see things differently. They don’t want to solve inflation just by lowering the cost. They want to solve it by raising taxes and lowering your income,” Biden said. “If I didn’t see the actual document, I’d think I was making it up.”

“The ultra-MAGA Republicans’ proposal puts, here’s what it does, it puts social security, Medicare — this is the Republican plan now, the only one out there — and Medicaid on the chopping block every five years,” he added.

The proposal released by Scott earlier this year calls for imposing federal income taxes on Americans who currently pay none and sunsetting all federal legislation after five years, presumably including programs such as Social Security and Medicaid.

Biden and Scott have been fighting through statements this week. Biden on Tuesday said he thinks Scott “has a problem” in response to criticism from Scott that the president is “incapacitated and incoherent.”

The White House has previously gone after Scott, highlighting that aspects of his proposed plan would raise taxes on middle-class and lower-income Americans.

“I proposed a minimum tax for billionaires, but congressional Republicans have proposed the minimum tax for teachers, firefights and electricians,” Biden said on Wednesday.

Biden has also tied congressional Republicans to Scott’s plan, although other Republican lawmakers have either distanced themselves from Scott’s proposal or declined to embrace it.

The president on Wednesday also bashed Republicans for not supporting the PRO Act, which has stalled in Congress. The bill would stiffen penalties for employers who violate workers’ rights and strengthen protections for employees against retaliation.

“Let’s be clear, for our Republican friends, you can’t say you’re working, you’re for working for people and vote against the PRO Act. It’s not consistent,” Biden said.

https://thehill.com/news/administra...-great-maga-king-bashes-scotts-tax-plan/

Sounds perfectly sane to me.

Biden going with the new, improved "Ultra-MAGA" moniker.

That will scare people into thinking the new degenerates are even better, stronger, faster... more scary... more likely to take away all your democracy and leave you with just enough gas money to go sell your soul for a loaf of bread.

Oh, boy, lol... if only these episodes were animated.

Nah, I think as long as the Dems can remind Americans just how close the trumpians came to overthrowing the election the better it is for them. People have short attention spans. Some would like to brush it off and downplay it because that would favor them. They should never forget.

Yep, to both of you. Biden is only going part of the way. He should paint the whole fascist insurrectionist racist white supremacy criminal coddling right wing for the family friendly, gun loving, bible thumping mob rabble they are. Good to see we're on the same page Fate.

Spot on PIT! I mean we COULD make it sound more extreme (that scares them), but overall I agree. Just that kind of mood tonight.

"He should paint the whole fascist insurrectionist racist white supremacy criminal coddling right wing for the family friendly, gun loving, bible thumping mob rabble they are" This precisely why no one with a brain takes you seriously.

It continues...

You are a mean person, in my opinion. Making fun of one's cognitive abilities is cruel.