“moderate” “impartial”
Can you tell us any of your moderate views? I know that you love guns and hate affirmative action. That’s about all I’ve been able to glean, and those are not moderate positions.
Cite? I don’t see this at all. This appears to be more about your perception that what actually happens here.
I strongly support same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights. I also strongly support religious freedom, and certainly don’t think any church (whether a denomination or a specific congregation) should be forced to hold weddings for gay or lesbian couples, or indeed to hold weddings for anybody. As far as I’m concerned, the Church of the Blue-Eyed Aryan Christ should be able to refuse to solemnize interracial marriages without suffering any legal consequences (“legal” consequences as opposed to social consequences and general public opprobrium).
But I do have to point out that the lawsuit linked to here involved the Church of England, which is of course still the Established Church in England. I think maybe if you’re gonna be the “Established Church” of a country, then that country has a right to demand that you serve all of that country’s citizens. My preferred solution, of course–and IANA Englishman–would be to dis-establish the Church of England (and any other such religious establishments) as saying that a particular religious denomination must “serve all of a country’s citizens” is kind of absurd: Must the Church of England be equally open to polytheists or atheists as it is to Anglicans? But then, why should England’s UK citizens who are Catholics, Christian “dissenters”, Jews, Muslims, polytheists, or atheists have to put up with their country having an “Established Church” that they don’t belong to and whose beliefs they may–strongly–reject?
For this site to be a liberal echo chamber, the liberals would all have to agree with one another in lockstep. Generally speaking we don’t agree with one another in lockstep on most topics, but you’re correct that we’re all in general agreement about the fact that Trump being obviously evil and such, and so on those subjects we may indeed sound like an echo chamber. Particularly if a person isn’t really reading for comprehension, since we actually can disagree quite vociferously on the details. So I should amend myself to say, if you’re not really reading for comprehension then we can sound like an echo chamber.
Banning isn’t the problem being discussed here, though. None of the posters being praised have been banned. They’re supposedly brave for posting here despite all the liberals “shouting them down,” and somehow fighting against censorship.
And while I personally don’t think there is a liberal echo chamber, I’m treating that as a given in replying to you. Even if there is a liberal echo chamber, can we not agree that that speech does not in any way censor your speech? That even if everyone tells you that you are wrong or says they don’t want you here, they are not censoring you?
I loathe this idea that people speaking out against you is somehow a form of censorship. It is a new conservative argument that I abhor. When they say things against liberals, it’s free speech. When a liberal says things against conservatives, it is censoring conservative free speech.
It’s dumb and I hate it.
That’s not what is being said BigT.
I find your explanation of what is being said . . . lacking.
CMC fnord!
Well, it would fall on the ears of the people who hear no evil and thus is an exercise in futility that I usually have the energy to pointlessly engage in when I’m at the computer. But not on a mobile device.
So you deny being a conservative, and you agree with and support all my talking points. Guess what? You’re now a member of the liberal echo chamber!
So now you DO think there is a line to be drawn?
Still having trouble with what “moved to the right on gay rights” means.
They shouldn’t get married? They shouldn’t sue churches? What?
So lets’ find out WHAT rights of his they abutted or impinged or whatever.
I suppose that makes you an advocate of disestablishmentarianism (BOY, that’s probably the longest word there is!) (;))
On a more serious note, one might question whether people in GB/UK are more correctly labeled as “citizens” or as “subjects”.
Only if you aren’t an anti-antidisestablishmentarianist.
Jesus loves atheists. Fond of agnostics, but really, what more could you expect?
Well he SURE didn’t think much of the “organized religion” guys, the self proclaimed “holy” men, the “do as I say” guys, the Pharisees, the “enforcers of rules for everybody else”.
But I’m STILL waiting to see Damuri Ajashi etc say somethng…
What rights does he think LBGTQ should be ALLOWED to have, and how ANYthing they do or want to do affects HIS rights or freedoms in ANY way.
Still waiting.
Just what is the meaning of “moved to the right”??
One might question it only if one does not bother to look it up. As of 1949, British citizens are British citizens. British subjects constitute a different category of people who are not citizens. In fact, there are several categories of British nationality: British citizens, British Overseas Territories citizens, British Overseas citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British subjects, and British protected persons.
The U.S. got a small piece of that action - there are U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals, the latter being people born on American Samoa and Swains Island or have a parent who is. These are U.S. possessions but “nationals” cannot vote in U.S. elections or hold office.
The delivery service should have stamped “DUMB SHIT ENCLOSED” on the box you came in.
The Libertarian Republic? The fucking Libertarian Republic?
Ummmm, OK. So it’s a right wing propaganda rag.
I prefer to get my “facts” from The Onion or the Babylon Bee or the Weekly World News.