Emails: Cal State activists target conservative student group

[Machismo]

No....

He doesn't want the government involved in the legality of marriage period. Jesus, just admit your wrong man.

He's also all for legal immigration, but against illegal immigration, as is most Americans.

- - - Updated - - -



Thank you!! Someone gets it.

I'm not wrong, he opposed the legalization of gay marriage. He supported more government restriction, more big government. That's what bans are. He even tried to justify the tax benefits for married couples, but not gay couples... once again, more government involvement. That would be like saying that only white people being able to own guns would be a small-government solution.

Once again, his immigration stance goes against the free markets, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. It costs more, gets in the way of free trade and free commerce, and involves more government intrusion... not less.

[Travis B]

Tony I'm disappointed in you. I look forward to your threads because you usually post links from websites with crazy names that nobody has ever heard of, but this time you decided to go with boring old Fox News.

[Theinquisition]

I'm not wrong, he opposed the legalization of gay marriage. He supported more government restriction, more big government. That's what bans are. He even tried to justify the tax benefits for married couples, but not gay couples... once again, more government involvement.

Once again, his immigration stance goes against the free markets, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. It costs more, gets in the way of free trade and free commerce, and involves more government intrusion... not less.

This is pointless.

- - - Updated - - -

Tony I'm disappointed in you. I look forward to your threads because you usually post links from websites with crazy names that nobody has ever heard of, but this time you decided to go with boring old Fox News.

I'm calmer in my old age i guess.

[Orbitus]

No he's not, he is for getting the government out of marriage. He is for allowing churches to conduct their marriages as they see fit. It's hard to take your claims about the man seriously, when you don't even know his beliefs.

Show me 1 church ANYWHERE, that has been forced to conduct a gay wedding. I will wait.

[Machismo]

This is pointless.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm calmer in my old age i guess.

Saying you support legal immigration doesn't really mean much, if you continue to support more and more stringent restrictions. If I said I support the legal use of a gun, then proceed to make things much more difficult, that's still showing support for big government. Technically, California liberals support legal gun ownership. Would you say they support limited government?

[Theinquisition]

Show me 1 church ANYWHERE, that has been forced to conduct a gay wedding. I will wait.

He was talking about the slippery slope of, similar to forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Oh...it's orbitus, i just wasted 10 seconds of my life, great.

[Machismo]

He was talking about the slippery slope of, similar to forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Oh...it's orbitus, i just wasted 10 seconds of my life, great.

Then the small-government solution would be to oppose the ban on gay marriage, and also oppose forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings.

[Endus]

No he's not, he is for getting the government out of marriage.

Which is a fundamentally idiotic viewpoint, because marriage is, first and foremost, a legal concept. Having a religious party to celebrate your legal status change doesn't in any way affect that.

It doesn't matter if you get "married" in a church.
By an officiant who's permitted to officiate by the government.
In front of witnesses (a legal requirement).

If you don't sign the legal document, the marriage license itself, and get it signed off by the officiant and the witnesses required, and then file that form with the government, you are not married.

Conversely, if ALL you do is fill out that form as required and hand it in, you are married.

The church, the ceremony, the family, the celebration, all of that is irrelevant. It's like trying to say that you want it to be legal to drink if you throw yourself a "21st birthday party", regardless of when your birthday is. It's like saying you want churches to have the right to legally declare people dead. It's a nonsensical and grossly ignorant viewpoint.

Have whatever religious celebration of your marriage you like. But that celebration is not what matters. It may have importance to you, but it doesn't make you married, because your religious group does not have the authority to marry you. Just the authority to officiate a marriage, by the rules and standards the government has set.

[Theinquisition]

Then the small-government solution would be to oppose the ban on gay marriage, and also oppose forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Or keep the government out of both.

Something can't be illegal if the government doesn't regulate or legislate it.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is a fundamentally idiotic viewpoint, because marriage is, first and foremost, a legal concept. Having a religious party to celebrate your legal status change doesn't in any way affect that.

It doesn't matter if you get "married" in a church.
By an officiant who's permitted to officiate by the government.
In front of witnesses (a legal requirement).

If you don't sign the legal document, the marriage license itself, and get it signed off by the officiant and the witnesses required, and then file that form with the government, you are not married.

Conversely, if ALL you do is fill out that form as required and hand it in, you are married.

The church, the ceremony, the family, the celebration, all of that is irrelevant. It's like trying to say that you want it to be legal to drink if you throw yourself a "21st birthday party", regardless of when your birthday is. It's like saying you want churches to have the right to legally declare people dead. It's a nonsensical and grossly ignorant viewpoint.

Have whatever religious celebration of your marriage you like. But that celebration is not what matters. It may have importance to you, but it doesn't make you married, because your religious group does not have the authority to marry you. Just the authority to officiate a marriage, by the rules and standards the government has set.

We get it Endus, anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

[Themius]

No, he doesn't

He's said multiple times that he doesn't want the government involved in the business of marriage, period.

He doesn't want the state involved in marriages because it gives them a lever to force churches to perform marriages they don't believe in.

Why do people keep saying this like this? You don't get pass to go to a mosque and demand a christian wedding... you don't have a right to "force" a specific church to do something that NEVER HAS BEEN THE CASE yet people keep repeating this stupid rhetoric.

- - - Updated - - -

This is pointless.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm calmer in my old age i guess.

"I lost my argument this is now pointless!"

classic.

[Endus]

We get it Endus, anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

There's plenty of room for disagreement on a lot of issues.

On this one? None. Unless you live in a literal theocracy, which only blurs this line because the state and the church are the same thing, marriage is a legal structure, not a religious one. The government decides who can marry, not churches or mosques or whatever.

[Themius]

Or keep the government out of both.

Something can't be illegal if the government doesn't regulate or legislate it.

- - - Updated - - -



We get it Endus, anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

He gives you a fully thought out argument that utterly destroys yours and your reply is "oh we get it anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot"

Maybe you're just fucking wrong?!

[NM 156]

Well, I looked at the tpcus's list of professors.

https://www.turningpoint.news/right-...mic-terrorism/
This is not an extreme liberal point of view. In their article they even admit right wing groups commit more acts of terror.

"An undercurrent in these concerns over activism is the threat of escalation — of peaceful demonstrations veering into violence and property destruction. To be sure, disruption should not be mistaken for violence, and inflicting physical harm (not counting self-defense) on opponents and property often derails a just cause. At times, though, it is the violent or destructive demonstrations that draw the attention of the wider public and motivates decision makers to act. The response of the institution to nonviolent disruption often determines the reaction of agitators. Some will quibble about what constitutes self-defense or even violence, but America’s past has proved that the powers of persuasion do not often yield just results." - Stefan Bradley

It is a bit of a stretch to say that this is "praise" for violence an destruction. It reads as an admission that sometimes it works.


I don't care enough to search for evidence of racism. But they clearly aren't being honest in their depictions of the professors they attack.

[Machismo]

Or keep the government out of both.

Something can't be illegal if the government doesn't regulate or legislate it.

- - - Updated - - -



We get it Endus, anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

But he supports the banning of gay marriage, which puts the government right in the middle of it. He also tries to justify tax benefits for married couples. e opposed the legalization of it... meaning he wanted the government involved. I would love to get the government out of both, and that can only be done via legalization... something he opposed.

[callipygoustp]

First appearing on November 21, 2016, Turning Point USA also operates a website called Professor Watchlist in order to "expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom." The website lists academics who “promote anti-American, leftwing propaganda in the classroom” according to a blog post by Charlie Kirk. Tips are accepted from the public, and over 200 professors are currently listed. The website has been criticized as racist and pro-fascist, using surveillance type propaganda to manipulate ideas of truth, equality, and freedom. Critics have compared Professor Watchlist to the actions of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, who tried to publicly identify American citizens as Communists and Communist sympathizers in the 1950s.

Heh, that was the very first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the name 'Turning Point USA'. Shocking to see yet another far right/left group being hypocrites.

[Priestiality]

be willing to compromise and talk. But if the other side refuses to, such as is the case with Antifa

"Antifa" is not an organized group. There are not local chapters and district presidents that all meet up and plan their agenda. They're people that have decided to not tolerate fascism. The entire world has gone to war over this in the past. Y'all constantly bring up free speech and "muh constitution" while simultaneously calling for all media that isn't Breitbart, Fox, and InfoWars to no longer be allowed to exist. On top of that, you lot fail to realize that the first amendment doesn't protect you from your fellow citizens, it protects you from the government. On top of THAT, you've all been cheering Trump on for the same things you viciously derided Obama over. There is a dialogue to be held here, but it will never be held until the right recognizes their own hypocrisy. As has already been pointed out, the desire to consistently impose restrictions via government control is counter to true conservative ideals. Conservatives have been usurped by the crazies they needed to court to win back Congress. They courted the tea party and this is the end result. When you compromise your beliefs and pander to nutters, eventually the nutters start running the show. 30 years ago the GOP would have blackballed Trump right out of the party.

[Blamblam41]

So everyone that wants to have limitations on immigration is "white supremacist"? Ben Shapiro...lol...a white supremacist?!

You can be for legal immigration with respect to law, and not be "anti-immigrant" jesus Christ.

Yes. and every woman that supports freedom of choice just wants to do it so they can have unlimited consequence free sex.

The strawman whataboutism is about all that you, and your alt-right cronies, have these days. Though it's cute you think pulling a feather from mid-coldwar soviet russia's hat is going to help you.

- - - Updated - - -

"Antifa" is not an organized group. There are not local chapters and district presidents that all meet up and plan their agenda. They're people that have decided to not tolerate fascism. The entire world has gone to war over this in the past. Y'all constantly bring up free speech and "muh constitution" while simultaneously calling for all media that isn't Breitbart, Fox, and InfoWars to no longer be allowed to exist. On top of that, you lot fail to realize that the first amendment doesn't protect you from your fellow citizens, it protects you from the government. On top of THAT, you've all been cheering Trump on for the same things you viciously derided Obama over. There is a dialogue to be held here, but it will never be held until the right recognizes their own hypocrisy. As has already been pointed out, the desire to consistently impose restrictions via government control is counter to true conservative ideals. Conservatives have been usurped by the crazies they needed to court to win back Congress. They courted the tea party and this is the end result. When you compromise your beliefs and pander to nutters, eventually the nutters start running the show. 30 years ago the GOP would have blackballed Trump right out of the party.

I could not repost this any quicker

[oleander89]

Bullshit. They became a thing in 2012, alt-right was coined in 2010.

Alt Right was coined in 2010, but pretty much abandoned until 2015, where the term re-emerged, and was not popularized until 2nd half of 2016. There were no substantial "alt-right" groups in 2012. No one used the term. It was just the name of Spencer's website.

[Themius]

"Antifa" is not an organized group. There are not local chapters and district presidents that all meet up and plan their agenda. They're people that have decided to not tolerate fascism. The entire world has gone to war over this in the past. Y'all constantly bring up free speech and "muh constitution" while simultaneously calling for all media that isn't Breitbart, Fox, and InfoWars to no longer be allowed to exist. On top of that, you lot fail to realize that the first amendment doesn't protect you from your fellow citizens, it protects you from the government. On top of THAT, you've all been cheering Trump on for the same things you viciously derided Obama over. There is a dialogue to be held here, but it will never be held until the right recognizes their own hypocrisy. As has already been pointed out, the desire to consistently impose restrictions via government control is counter to true conservative ideals. Conservatives have been usurped by the crazies they needed to court to win back Congress. They courted the tea party and this is the end result. When you compromise your beliefs and pander to nutters, eventually the nutters start running the show. 30 years ago the GOP would have blackballed Trump right out of the party.

It is fucking pathetic.. the state of the GOP has grown more and more radical while the state of the Democrats have become more radical... they've more of less stayed about the same over the years.. while there are some radical left people the right suffers from it way more. 20 years ago republicans were like Hillary Clinton... who honestly is a 90s republican. instead what we have is... this shit show of a party that makes no sense.

"small government! But let's sue the government to make sweeping bans of stuff we don't like!" "Expand the middle class!! but less pass laws that make it harder for the middle class and may actually drop them to lower class!"

[Blamblam41]

It is fucking pathetic.. the state of the GOP has grown more and more radical while the state of the Democrats have become more radical... they've more of less stayed about the same over the years.. while there are some radical left people the right suffers from it way more. 20 years ago republicans were like Hillary Clinton... who honestly is a 90s republican. instead what we have is... this shit show of a party that makes no sense.

"small government! But let's sue the government to make sweeping bans of stuff we don't like!" "Expand the middle class!! but less pass laws that make it harder for the middle class and may actually drop them to lower class!"

I think that's what was most jarring about 2016 is seeing people that would have voted for Hilary and her policies back in the mid to late 90s and early 00s come out against her because she's a woman/democrat/isn't Trump. It's absolutely disgusting how polarized the Republican party has let itself become and completely annoying to see Democrats try to take a stance that's the polar opposite of polarization.