Comments on: Friday Talking Points -- Winning The Culture Wars

By: MyVoice

MyVoice — Mon, 12 Sep 2022 03:46:21 +0000

Here is a gift link to an entertaining Washington Post opinion piece on 45's legal attempt to "Lock her up" Hillary Clinton et al for the "Russia Hoax." Trump presented his Russia hoax theory to a court. It went poorly. Enjoy.

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Sun, 11 Sep 2022 21:10:49 +0000

GT, I agree with you. I have also said that I believe that any show produced by a "news outlet" that is going to push misinformation as facts should have to post a warning before and after the show and after every commercial break saying, "This show is telling you things that are not factual, and passing them off as facts. Be warned that you are being lied to... but you knew that already." The great part of this warning system is that it is only required when a show is providing misinformation as fact when there is clear evidence it is not fact. Opinion shows can have opinions; they cannot say those opinions are factual without the evidence necessary to prove it is factual. Based on the judges ruling and FoxNews' attorneys defense when Tucker Carlson was sued for lying to his viewers, the viewers are already aware that they are being lied to by Tucker. The warnings can not interfere with Tucker's first amendment rights because, as the judge ruled and their attorneys argued, the viewer is already aware that they are being lied to! The GOP went to court to fight for the right to knowingly lie in their campaign ads without being held culpable for any damage that their lies later caused... and they won. I like to remind my Republican friends that they wouldn't have bothered to have gone to court to win the right to lie without consequences had they not intend to do so!

By: goode trickle

goode trickle — Sat, 10 Sep 2022 12:27:21 +0000

Now if you really want to make the "religious libertarians"...err.. I mean repubs blow themselves up, pass a measure that requires businesses (i.e. hobby lobby) that are operating as a on the surface "public business" to disclose in job recruitment ads the benefits required by law that they will be denying if you chose to work there. I can already see the arguments that this kind of measure violates the right to privacy, right to practice religion, is socialist, is "big government", is overreach, America is going to hell, blah,blah,blah. The most simple retort to any of those arguments that the Dems can use is simply to ask "how does any part of this measure harm your liberties? If you want to practice your religion in a way that reduces the liberties of others after you have hired them by not providing access to legally required services by law that does not require any expenditure on your part I am fine with that...but really tell me how hiding that you are not providing certain expected services to potential employees harms your rights?" The Dems do a poor job of framing arguments to the most basic point of "we enable the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Which I will point out is not a "right" but a truth... At the end of the day the Dems can lay a lot of road by by just putting the liberty reductive repubs on the spot by asking, "how does this improve every Americans access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Alright, time to leave the airport lounge... toodles.

By: andygaus

andygaus — Sat, 10 Sep 2022 04:35:39 +0000

Democrats should point out that it isn't just abortion Republicans are trying to block, but also birth control, and they're doing it drip by drip already, with laws that say a pharmacist can refuse to dispense birth control if they have religious objections, and a company can refuse to cover birth control in their insurance policies if they have a religious objection. Also, companies with a religious objection to homosexuality can refuse to cover the cost of lifesaving medicine if that medicine might be used by gay guys.