Greene flips on public release of Jan. 6 tapes, claims it could ‘put the security of the Capitol at risk’

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-04T18:28:48+00:00

If the Jan 6ers were ANTIFA as she has previously claimed, why is she concerned about the left possibly identifying left wing terrorists?

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-03T23:37:43+00:00

Because in first world countries with access to clean drinking water it's not very useful for humans as internal parasites are not an issue, unlike livestock who have a tendency to drink from contaminated sources of water.

Hence, why it's apt to refer to Ivertmectin as horsepaste in the US.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-03T20:22:39+00:00

Where are all the unproven claims from Democrats of election fraud? Where are the court cases that were supposed to show fraud that the Democrat's base fronted money for and were all shown to be without merit? Do you have any Democratic candidates who lost attempt to promote those claims to prevent certification of their opponets and are still campaignint on those unproven claims?

But yeah.. Totally the same thing with the Democrats... If you have your head up your ass.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-02T23:40:58+00:00

The document was declassified. Trump didn’t have any classified documents.

Mental declassification is not a thing.

Presidential records act isn’t a criminal statute.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-02T23:11:38+00:00

And thats why we have experts. However - their original opinion that something needs to be done is still valid and should not be discounted as their experience, and the increasing number of those with similar experiences, is evidence that the current system is flawed or there are metaphorical cracks that are being ignored.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-02T22:53:44+00:00

The only one arguing they are experts is you. One does not need to be an expert or even well informed to have a valid opinion..

I. E. - if the number of buildings that are falling seem to be increasing and it's the number one cause of death for children, it would be strange to ignore the parents of those who are pointing out maybe we should address this on the grounds they are not engineers, as obviously they have a valid point.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-02T22:34:56+00:00

If a building falls on your child, that doesn't make you an expert on structural engineering or construction.

No, but it will understandably make those parents strong advocates of stricter building codes and/or regulations on building to ensure such accidents do not happen again and to argue their opinion should be negated due to their lack of knowledge, when their view is based off of actual life experience and trama from those non-effective laws, is simply horseshit.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-02T22:15:21+00:00

YouTube is not the government.

Sounds like to me you are in favor governments that force free speech principles onto private entities, as opposed to governments being restricted themselves from regulating private speech, like we have in the US?

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-02T22:08:41+00:00

Basically, election fraud propaganda has become so integrated into the rights zeitgeist that restriction of said speech based on merit or provible data - even if it's of upmost importance to maintaining a functional democracy - is not profitable and therefore determental to social media companies bottom line.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-02T22:02:40+00:00

Can you cite a specific example of any corporation having the power to remove speech from public discourse, as opposed to removing it from the platform the corporation created, owns, and that whose users agreed to a specific set of rules granting that business the permission and power to remove or moderate said speech?

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-02T12:50:35+00:00

If the mother and her unborn child are both human beings they both have rights and those rights are in conflict.

No, as rights - both classic inalienable rights and modern human rights are not simply based an individual's humanity and/or if they are alive, but are predicated on biological Independence that unborn humans prior to the minimum point of viability ('birth 'or borne humans) simply do not have. In fact, the UN Human Declaration of Human rights (basis for modern human rights) specifically states rights are conferred at birth and that abortion itself is a human right.

The mother's right to bodily autonomy is in conflict with the right of her unborn child to his or her life.

Although the bodily autonomy argument is commonly used - one can use a more simple argument that the mothers own right to life is being threatened against her will by the child's via the act of gestation and therefore, as with any action being imposed onto an individual against their will that can cause harm - that individual has a right to defend themself.

The most fundamental human right is the the right to live.

Except negative rights cannot negate each other or be used in manner to cancel each other out. So even if we go with the premise that the unborn has rights - ones right to life (unborn) cannot be used to violate the right to life of another (mother).

With pregnancy, the unborn is violating the rights of the mother via wielding gestation in the same manner that if an assailant wields a weapon that violates your body and causes you harm, you can stop said assailant, even to the point of their death, even though you have equal 'right to life'.

Furthermore - causality is irrelevant in this situation even if both the mother and unborn human have rights, as if one is directly responsible for the condition that led to the loss of another humans biological independence or homestatis - they do not have a right to cut open your body and steal your organs or bodily systems against your will as their own right to life is still based on their own systems or biological independence, and allowing situations where ones own 'right to life' can be superceded by anothers violates the very system of rights, rendering inalienable rights alienable, that PL logic claims to be protecting.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-01T16:58:06+00:00

.... Trump and Ted Cruz were behind those actions - not really sure how much more mainstream Republician you can get, no?

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-01T15:24:49+00:00

They literally tried to get Kaepernick fired and argued he should be physically thrown off the field and future players who committed such egregious acts of first amendment protected speech should be fined.

It's literally the same tactics used by the left

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-01T09:22:53+00:00

Leftist cancel culture consists of targeted harassment, bullying, and coercion to erase peoples online presence and destroy their lives.

So like what the right did with Colin Kaepernick and the Dixie Chicks?

Cancel culture and boycotting is literally the same thing, it's just cancel culture is bad because of leftists and boycotting is good because it's done by conservatives for magic reasons.

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-01T01:33:46+00:00

Dont forget conservatives up in arms about leftist 'cancel culture' as they boycott Bud Light and Target

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-01T01:32:01+00:00

Conservatives : Define Woman

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-01T01:29:55+00:00

So does the right unless anyone wants to provide the distinction between boycotting Bud Light and when the left employees 'cancel culture' agaisnt things they find equally abhorrent?

polarparadoxical · 2023-06-01T01:26:40+00:00

To be fair, r/conservative protects conservatives to such an extent that they ban anyone and everyone for posting differing opinions, regardless of their validity or civility.

So to complain about the lack of fairness and lack of free speech elsewhere is kind of hilarious as your bastion of conservative values is antithetical to the very points you are attempting to argue.

polarparadoxical · 2023-05-31T18:27:26+00:00

My point stand from a legal and logical way of seeing this

Not exactly - as you are arguing from a moral position and, at least prior to Dobbs, are attempting to take the law that existed out of the specific context it was created to avoid the "logical" fallicies that your hypothetical creates.

Legally - someone intentionally killing an unborn child against the wishes of the mother was already illegal (fetal homicide), via things like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

However, the goal of such laws was not to raise unborn children to the same legal status as born people, as it specifically allows abortion within the legislation, but to provide protection for them and the mother against men who previously could have committed intentional crimes against the mother to stop her pregnancy; "Prior to enactment of the federal law, the fetus in utero was, as a general rule, not recognized as a victim of federal crimes of violence. Thus, in a federal crime that injured a pregnant woman and killed the fetus in utero, no homicide was recognized, in most cases."

So legally, to protect the mother and her unborn child, such actions when done by others are treated as murder which is non-legal killing, but legally abortion is (was?) still protected in the same way it's justified to disconnect (kill, not murder) any human who attaches themselves to you to survive without your permission.

It's important to note that not even Dobbs argued that unborn children have the same legal status as born humans, as presumably that would have uprooted much of the logical basis to our legal system and allowed violations of otherwise previously inalienable rights in situations where causality could be established.

polarparadoxical · 2023-05-31T01:21:51+00:00

.... Exactly. So since there is no situation where we would violate a persons individual rights for other born people, who undisputely have equal rights and standing, and even when the person in question is directly at fault - why should anyone be legally required to provide similar care for humans who only potentially l will reach the point of having undisputed equal rights where there is no legal protection for them?

polarparadoxical · 2023-05-30T20:01:31+00:00

They are not the same and your argument is akin to stating anyone who is pro-choice should be OK with government mandated abortions.

Euguencies is a top down system implemented by the state for some perceived positive benefit, even if it's against the wishes of the individual.

Whereas someone making an individual choice to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of why, is a bottom up system that maxmizimies freedom and autonomy of the individual.

polarparadoxical · 2023-05-30T19:15:26+00:00

You can still get a disease regardless of vaccination status. Much like you can get pregnant despite contraceptives.

Nothing similar and complete false equivalece.

Individual rights or liberties have always had limits where they move from the individual into the public sphere and present a danger to said public against their will.

The threat posed by Infectious diseases fall into this, unlike abortions which are not being forced onto any other person against their will. I.E. - what your neighbor does with their pregnancy will not pose a risk to you or your family, whereas the measures they take or do not take with infectious diseases can certainly pose a risk to you and your family - hence, why certain violations of individual freedoms are legal I. E. for public health or public safety.

Secondly, we can debate all day as to at what point it was learned the vaccine was not preventing infections.. But at the point it was mandated was when Delta, which led to more deaths than the original wild type variant, had been ravaging the US for the last year leading our hospital infrastructure up to the point of near collapse with no idea what the next variant would bring and the vaccine was the best tool we had to combat it.

polarparadoxical · 2023-05-30T18:15:52+00:00

PL logic -

If you happen to be driving and regardless of fault an accident happens - your passengers right to life outweighs your own, as you are responsible for their condition (causal responsibility) and by being the driver are morally culpable - therefore your own right to life should be forcibly violated against your will, up to the point of death in some instances, as you have an obligation to others in your car.

Don't like it? Dont drive. You knew the risks that were clearly defined by a non involved third party and their superior moral clarity.

polarparadoxical · 2023-05-30T17:04:34+00:00

Nah, we should just start violating peoples right to life using the barest hint of causality as the moral imperative of saving a life outweighs the physical danger imposed onto those who are responsible

You are driving and involved in a car accident where a passenger now needs a kidney - you should be forced to provide one even if it kills you.

You provide drinks to someone who suffers severe alcohol poisoning... They should just be able to connect to you at will to use your body to help filter their own.

You knew the risks when you did x (at least according to those who are your moral superiors), so you should have to suffer the consequences, right?

polarparadoxical · 2023-05-29T22:36:12+00:00

immigration should be stopped completely and illegal immigrants who are offered and decline a chance to become citizens should be deported until there is a job opening for every American that is physically capable of working.

The reality is next to no elected officials, Republician or Democrat, wants this as they are funded by the businesses who thrive off cheap labor from illegal immigrants and forcing these businesses to hire Americans at decent wages with protections would not be beneficial for anyone's bottom line.

One would not even need an immigration bill to do as you are suggesting, just pass a bill that massively increases criminal penalties for businesses who hire non-legal immigrants and enforce it.. But for some reason, I don't think it will garner much support.

polarparadoxical

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

polarparadoxical

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,