Emails: Cal State activists target conservative student group

[Priestiality]

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!"

Because it isn't a real party. It's a conglomerate of religious nuts like Roy Moore and Ted Cruz, ultra-libertarian "DESTROY ALL FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS RIGHT NOW" types like Rand Paul, and traditional Republicans like McConnell and Paul Ryan.

This is why they can't get anything done.

[Pterodactylus]

Modern McCarthyism

Those leftists! Let's root them out!

[oleander89]

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.

Some people don't believe that the State needs to sanction romantic relationships. How we define marriage now is irrelevant to those who take a position opposing marriage as a legal institution. What actual purpose do legal marriages serve now? They are for all intents and purposes, obsolete. If government was removed from marriage, the celebration or commitment do matter. What matters is how that couple wants to define and celebrate their relationship.

[Priestiality]

Some people don't believe that the State needs to sanction romantic relationships. How we define marriage now is irrelevant to those who take a position opposing marriage as a legal institution. What actual purpose do legal marriages serve now? They are for all intents and purposes, obsolete. If government was removed from marriage, the celebration or commitment do matter. What matters is how that couple wants to define and celebrate their relationship.

And it becomes a problem when those people try to impose on others that their way is the ONLY way.

[oleander89]

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!"

The left has radicalized more, actually. Both parties have been radicalizing though.

[Post]

"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.

https://torchantifa.org/?page_id=42

Google...

This is just as dumb as when people try to say BLM isn't an organization to try to downplay the bullshit they do.

[Themius]

The left has radicalized more, actually. Both parties have been radicalizing though.

Okay you apparently don't know what radicalized means.

Being more "consistently liberal" doesn't mean "radical" being more consistently conservative doesn't mean radical.

The left isn't popping out bombers and terrorist at the rate of the right lol.

The country as a whole is more left leaning, majority of people are more left leaning... fuck the overwhelming majority of the country support many "liberal" things that don't get passed because of "my party! what about my party!"

[Priestiality]

https://torchantifa.org/?page_id=42

Google...

This is just as dumb as when people try to say BLM isn't an organization to try to downplay the bullshit they do.

Chapters are autonomous organizing bodies that agree to the 5 points of the Torch Network. They may call themselves whatever they want, and can organize the best way they see fit. We work together to confront fascism and oppression.

I bolded the important parts for you.

Saying that makes them nationally organized is like saying Turkey is part of the United States because they both agreed to NATO doctrine.

[Blamblam41]

Some people don't believe that the State needs to sanction romantic relationships. How we define marriage now is irrelevant to those who take a position opposing marriage as a legal institution. What actual purpose do legal marriages serve now? They are for all intents and purposes, obsolete. If government was removed from marriage, the celebration or commitment do matter. What matters is how that couple wants to define and celebrate their relationship.

I mean to be perfectly fair, I've been asking for the removal of marriage from our legal institution mostly because it infringes upon the fundamental ideals of keeping church and state separate for years.

Or we, fundamentally as a society, need to come to terms and accept the fact that there is a fundamental, stark, and real world difference between a romantic marriage, a legal marriage and a financial marriage. One is derived from a passionate, sexual and/or reproductive nature. One is purely business and is a matter of efficiency. One is a status of legality that signifies all other legal bonds (If applicable or not otherwise designated.). There is just a fundamental fact that people get "married" for different reasons, thus different types of marriages should be the most efficient way to handle it.

[Post]

Chapters are autonomous organizing bodies that agree to the 5 points of the Torch Network. They may call themselves whatever they want, and can organize the best way they see fit. We work together to confront fascism and oppression.

I bolded the important parts for you.

Saying that makes them nationally organized is like saying Turkey is part of the United States because they both agreed to NATO doctrine.

It's like saying states are part of the United States...

[Priestiality]

It's like saying states are part of the United States...

Maybe if states didn't have to abide by federal law it would be.

[oleander89]

And it becomes a problem when those people try to impose on others that their way is the ONLY way.

I, and many other on the libertarian right, have no intention to impose our will on to you. I would just as soon see balkanization of the union so that you guys can have your multicultural socialist utopian experiment, while people like me are free to live somewhere with extremely limited government.

[Orbitus]

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.

Sorry that I am smarter than you since you used the bullshit fallacy that someone is going to force a fucking religious institution to do a gay wedding. It isn't even REMOTELY the same as forcing a bakery to make a cake.

A bakery that was forced to bake a wedding cake, was forced to do so because they are a public business that signed a business license. If you aren't willing to serve the ENTIRE public, you cannot be a fucking business. Doesn't matter what bullshit religion they believe in, once they sign that business license, they pretty much had to put it to the side. Which is why they will lose EVERY COURT CASE THEY TRY TO BRING.

[oleander89]

Sorry that I am smarter than you since you used the bullshit fallacy that someone is going to force a fucking religious institution to do a gay wedding. It isn't even REMOTELY the same as forcing a bakery to make a cake.

A bakery that was forced to bake a wedding cake, was forced to do so because they are a public business that signed a business license. If you aren't willing to serve the ENTIRE public, you cannot be a fucking business. Doesn't matter what bullshit religion they believe in, once they sign that business license, they pretty much had to put it to the side. Which is why they will lose EVERY COURT CASE THEY TRY TO BRING.

The problem here seems to be the business license.

[Orbitus]

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.

Republicans are the kings of the victim cards. Just look at Supertony.

[Theinquisition]

I, and many other on the libertarian right, have no intention to impose our will on to you. I would just as soon see balkanization of the union so that you guys can have your multicultural socialist utopian experiment, while people like me are free to live somewhere with extremely limited government.

Maybe once CA falls off the country they can have it.

[Post]

Maybe if states didn't have to abide by federal law it would be.

Even if they didn't have their own rules to follow (which they do), you said this:

"Antifa" is not an organized group. There are not local chapters and district presidents that all meet up and plan their agenda.

And you were wrong, there's no getting around that.

[Orbitus]

The problem here seems to be the business license.

No, the problem here is the shitty religion. They aren't going to get rid of the business licenses. Otherwise, how doe we know if people are abiding by business laws?

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe once CA falls off the country they can have it.

Without CA, the country falls apart, since it is the biggest breadwinner in the country. Guarantee your state needs them.

[Endus]

Some people don't believe that the State needs to sanction romantic relationships. How we define marriage now is irrelevant to those who take a position opposing marriage as a legal institution. What actual purpose do legal marriages serve now? They are for all intents and purposes, obsolete. If government was removed from marriage, the celebration or commitment do matter. What matters is how that couple wants to define and celebrate their relationship.

They aren't even remotely "obsolete". They perform a pretty critical role in defining family units and so forth.

The people who think government doesn't have an interest in marriage are just . . . wrong. Thoroughly, objectively, and rationally. There is no basis whatsoever for those positions, and even if you wanted to pull this "it's obsolete" argument, you can freely enact that in your own life by A> not supporting religious marriage, in your faith, and B> not getting married, yourself.

I mean to be perfectly fair, I've been asking for the removal of marriage from our legal institution mostly because it infringes upon the fundamental ideals of keeping church and state separate.

The easier solution, there, is to just deny religious groups the capacity to marry anyone in the first place. That creates the separation you desire, far more easily.

Or we, fundamentally as a society, need to come to terms and accept the fact that there is a fundamental, stark, and real world difference between a romantic marriage, a legal marriage and a financial marriage. One is derived from a passionate, sexual and/or reproductive nature. One is purely business and is a matter of efficiency. One is a status of legality that signifies all other legal bonds (If applicable or not otherwise designated.).

This is all garbage. First, because emotional considerations are part of the legal framework, and second, because none of that stuff is integral to religious marriage in any respect either.

[oleander89]

No, the problem here is the shitty religion. They aren't going to get rid of the business licenses. Otherwise, how doe we know if people are abiding by business laws?

- - - Updated - - -



Without CA, the country falls apart, since it is the biggest breadwinner in the country. Guarantee your state needs them.

I guarantee my state doesn't need any other state. I have no interest in living in a global superpower and we would operate as a surplus when we are not linked to the reckless spending of the federal government.

- - - Updated - - -

They aren't even remotely "obsolete". They perform a pretty critical role in defining family units and so forth.

The people who think government doesn't have an interest in marriage are just . . . wrong. Thoroughly, objectively, and rationally. There is no basis whatsoever for those positions, and even if you wanted to pull this "it's obsolete" argument, you can freely enact that in your own life by A> not supporting religious marriage, in your faith, and B> not getting married, yourself.



The easier solution, there, is to just deny religious groups the capacity to marry anyone in the first place. That creates the separation you desire, far more easily.



This is all garbage. First, because emotional considerations are part of the legal framework, and second, because none of that stuff is integral to religious marriage in any respect either.

All you did was state I was wrong without offering why that is, but I suppose that's the kind of discussion we've come to expect from you. Marriage once had a function in society. It is no longer a serious commitment and it no longer exists to encourage population growth.