The problem isn’t Marxism, the problem is the delusional progressive liberals as I keep reiterating on this forum within every political conversation. Their political idealism refuses to conform to the real world, delusions galore.
Liberals ignore realism or limitations concerning all political discourse.
The delusional progressive liberals are Marxists.
They’re just smarter about it than you.
The delusional progressive liberals that call themselves Marxists I would argue are fake Marxists and fake would be communists.
Talk to them more and nothing they believe in conforms to actual Marxism or communism.
At best these delusional liberals can be called Trotskyists but not all Marxists or communists believe in Trotskyism.
Hah. They wouldn’t be caught dead calling themselves that.
They figured out how to actually implement their deranged regime, the same one you dream about.
Welcome to Utopia, my son.
So are they. Like you, they are whatever they have to be.
I am a nationalist because I actually do believe in nationalism wholeheartedly.
Progressive liberals hate nationalism which is why they’re globalists supporting open borders and mass foreign immigration everywhere. Ultimately progressive liberalism taken to its final form is singular world government.
I on other hand oppose world government entirely especially concerning the individuals that push for that ideological nonsense.
Not sure where you’re reaching there.
I ain’t reaching for shit.
I just remember what happened when all socialist dellusions were cut to size, and how they gave some variation of your dumb socialist fantasy as a reason to bring them back and make us all poor again.
WEF are capitalists. Bill Gates is a capitalist.
Donald Trump’s Operation WarpSpeed capitalism.
Wuhan laboratory funded by military industrial capitalism.
Capitalists sure do know how to drive conservatives crazy with Marxist and communist boogeymen that don’t even exist. I’ll give you that.
Lol right, it was Trump behind the Wuhan bullshit all along.
This is why nobody believes you, and the dellusional progressive liberals are smarter than you. They are wise enough to avoid discussing it at all costs.
What is the essencial ingredient for socialism?
Anger.
What is the easiest way to keep people angry?
Keep them poor.
No person satisfied with how they are doing in life ever went “those capitalist bastards.” Except, of course, soul searching college students.
Technically it wasn’t all of the Trump administration by themselves, the Obama, and Biden administrations had a hand in it too.
You’re a byproduct of the red and blue team bullshit, in reality there are no democrats or republicans, there is only Wallstreet pulling all of the strings.
Until you and the liberal progressive fools figure this out nothing will change unfortunately. Partisan politics are so stupid and infantile.
I’m embarassed for you for thinking this.
The Obama “administration” was all recession, and he went as far as to say that that state of things was the new normal. That was of course more of a plan than a prediction. He just added more and more gunk to the machinery, in order to keep people poor, and things were never going to improve.
Trump didn’t “inherit a state of things.” He took immediate and drastic actions to clean the socialist grime out of the gears. He deregulated, reduced taxes, and instituted an aggressive foreign policy of pushing back on leeching and leveraging US power to demand, if not fair, at least not out right extortive terms.
All these things had an effect in weeks. It turns out that none of it was “impossible,” like the socialist scum wanted to convince people. Like wiping out ISIS was not so impossible after all. Like chilling the crazy Arabs out was not so impossible.
It literally took closing every single fucking business on the planet Earth for two years to put a dent on his achievement. During the usurper’s “term,” the coup on humanity had already happened and we all were poor again. You can’t just magic all that destruction off, like Trump was able to do with just retarded socialist regulations. It was no longer just regulation, it was simply a good portion of humanity that went broke, because people with guns forced them to shut their doors. Simply GDP loss. Real loss, not just distortion loss.
Because of fuckfaces like you and their pseudo-gay hate fantasies about Jews or whatever it is.
Hahahaha even not going to outright war with a nuclear superpower called nothing less than Russia was treated as a lamentable impossibility.
But guess what.
They still had their micro-scale war using the poor Ukranians as their chess pieces. Traitors in the US siding with Europe, which does nothing but talk trash about the US and leech its money and military power. But nothing like what they were telling us was so lamentably “impossible” to prevent, where Hillary Clinton was ordering military exercices on the Lithuanian border with Russia.
But ask these fucking fruitflies to remember any of this. Even if they remembered, they would be smart enough to shut the fuck up about it, because it tells the story so clearly.
Lawyer of Shiloh Hendrix
Things keeping track of on this political case:
1.) The Somalian with the video recording of Shiloh Hendrix fled to Somalia afterward where he is no longer in the country, was collecting money on GoFundMe regarding this, and was a criminal himself with a record of sexual abuse.
2.) The nine year old at the park supposedly had a juvenile record where he was wearing an ankle monitor.
3.) This sounds like a case utilizing the court charge of disorderly conduct very poorly. I wonder if it will be completely thrown out overtime.
It’s the natural contrast to ‘conservative’. If one wants to conserve the status quo, naturally the other wants to progress past the status quo. Obviously nobody’s going to want to label themselves REgressive, you can’t expect someone to choose a branding that deliberately trashes their own beliefs, so of course if they want to contrast themselves with conservatives they’ll do so by branding themselves as progressives.
These are very rational misgivings about this law and the application of it.
I do feel it’s reasonable to draw a line somewhere, though. I don’t know exactly where it is. Do you?
If an African American calls another African American the N-Word, is it still considered a word of inciting violence?
It’s a broad and vague category, but let me look at the kinds of disorderly conduct related to that situation. I think anything that would make me consider punching someone first for my own safety could be included. I am not suggesting myself as the measure, just sharing my thought. Someone gets up in my face and growling with their fists out. In other words behavior where people start thinking they need to preemptively strike before the other does. Here are the areas covered by disorderly conduct, and interpretations vary state to state.
Fighting and Violence: Engaging in physical fights or violent, tumultuous behavior likely to cause injury or property damage.
Disturbing Noise: Making unreasonable, loud noise in public or residential areas, especially after being asked to stop.
Offensive Language and Gestures: Using vulgar, profane, or obscene expressions in public that tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
Blocking Traffic: Intentionally obstructing pedestrian sidewalks or vehicular roads.
Disrupting Assemblies: Disturbing lawful meetings, religious services, or funerals without lawful authority.
Public Intoxication: Being visibly and disruptively drunk in a public space.
Failure to Disperse: Congregating with a crowd in public and refusing to comply with a lawful police order to disperse.
I find it odd that this isn’t covered by other laws, but I wonder if it includes things like you participated in a fight even if you didn’t start it. Perhaps consensual fighting.
I definitely think it should only be a charge if you don’t stop. Short term loud noise should not be crime.
Three is the area that worries me. I think we should be allowed to be vulagar, profane and obscene unless this is part of another crime. Adult to adult I am pretty heavy on free speech. I think there are moments when people’s behavior elicits curse words and that’s ok.
Blocking traffic - unless it is very temporary, I can go along with this rule.
I think this is tricky and I would have to see. It’s the kind of thing where it could seem really quite horrible and where it could seem quite justified. But it could also infringe on our right to assemble and could easily be use to undermine a candidate a group doesn’t like. I think you get to yell out stuff and you live with the fine for disorderly conduct.
I don’t think public intoxication should be a crime. If it leads you to break the law, then that.
Depends on the situation. That’s an AI’s description and it was trying to summarize diverse laws from different states. I would hope that each state’s law is very clear and specific here. I meet in the city park in a thick picnic with family and friends. Is that a crowd? If we are blocking access to something, then I think it’s a lawful order to disperse.
With three if you systematically go after someone and are following them down the streets, that’s something that could make me approve police intervention. I think people should be able to say pretty much anything - except threats of violence - to someone and then the incident ends. I don’t think the content should lead it to be a court issue, however much I might think the person is being scum.
So, for parts of this I have grey areas and vagueness. I think context is important and duration, which I guess is part of context. I wouldn’t envy judges with some decisions. But I’d want to make it hard for the police to systematically go after people and incite disorderly conduct. In part because in a sense police have the right to conduct themselves disorderly. They can walk up and tell you to stop moving. They might have to tell you you can move again almost instantly but if I walked up to someone with my chest out (and certainly if I was armed, if holstered) and said stop moving, turn around, that’s getting close to making someone think they are about to be in a fight.
And what is offensive?
Keep in mind that after saying what she said on the video recording she got in her car and drove away. She didn’t follow or pursue anybody afterward.
So what we’re left with afterward is crude vulgar language that then becomes the crime itself.
She did not get convicted for using racial slurs in front of the child. That count she was found innocent on. She did get convicted for her interaction with the camera man. She did move toward him at one point, but it did not seem threatening. I’d call it goofy despite what she was saying. And he did not flinch a bit. I don’t think what she did there should be a crime. She’s an asshole. But society has amazing ways of punishing assholes.