10A

Should I be surprised that someone so radically far-left, so as to believe the US has no left, is someone who freely dishes out insults?

You're talking about old-school reddiquette, which even reddit itself forgot eons ago: upvote well thought-out comments even if you disagree with them. And I actually do that to a degree, even if I dislike the author's point. But if I think the comment is wrong in some way then I downvote it. That's not to say I want the author silenced, just that the down button is there to be used sometimes.

This is just so off-topic and lacking in understanding that I'm not going to continue arguing. Especially with that closing remark. God bless you, pixelfox.

What's wrong with you, watching a video like that? I'm traumatized just reading your description of it. Are you okay?

I get your point, and I don't think either of us can convince the other. The honorable man dies with his boots on. That's my position, and I'm sticking to it.

But really, I'm concerned about anyone watching videos like that. That's really disturbing.

It certainly does sound like typical leftists if you squint. Everyone in this thread opposing free speech is an authoritarian. But if you actually read that definition word for word, it's a position almost nobody supports. What's more, the definition has been changed from the original political affiliation. I'm not surprised Miriam-Webster's open to redefining words, but try as they might, words still mean what they originally meant. Still, their definition is close enough to the original to demonstrate my point that there are no fascists left, unless you squint and look at modern leftists.

The standards of evidence for policy need to be high.

I do agree with that.

about 40% to be exact

Wow, that's super interesting. About halfway down the page it says:

Of the approximately 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2011, an estimated 9.2 million (83%) are Christians, mostly from Latin America.

So USCIS exhibits values that misalign with my own, but that's not entirely surprising. What is surprising, to me at least, is that my personal values are more closely aligned with illegal immigrants than legal immigrants. I'm going to have to digest that fact for a while.

As somebody who’s been to Latin American countries, that’s simply not true.

Well being that I value anecdotes, go on and tell me more please.

So breaking the law to resist tyranny makes you bottom of the barrel? That doesn’t make much sense.

Sorry, no, that's not what I meant. I meant:

• Breaking the law is generally a bad thing to do, whether it's a misdemeanor, felony, or whatever.
• Breaking into a country to break that country's law is what I called "bottom of the barrel".
• Breaking the law to resist tyranny is where I make an exception, and side with the American founders that "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God".

Families are not soldiers.

All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are part of the militia, according to 10 USC §246. Now I understand we're discussing other countries and other cultures here, but men everywhere protect women and children — that's one of the roles of a father in a family. If that means standing up to a tyrant, so be it.

And that is one of the root problems of conservatism, there is no empathy in an ideology which says that every problem to ever exist is a personal failure.

How's that a problem? It's built on fundamental beliefs in equality of opportunity and the principle that everyone has the ability to succeed. It also recognizes that we all fail in life, while some of us are motivated to learn from our personal failures and turn them into stepping stones to success.

This has to be a troll, lol

I wasn't trolling, honest. I was expressing a genuine opinion while recognizing it as a bit extreme, and acknowledging that I wouldn't want any individual to set policy by personal preference. I meant it, honestly.

That doesn’t dismiss my point.

How doesn't it? The words of God are the words of God.

Please consider 10 USC §246, which defines the US militia as all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45.

That may give you some background on my perspective. I expect able-bodied men to be soldiers, ready to fight and die to protect their families and neighbors at the drop of a hat. That's why we Americans keep and bear arms. It's not sexist to expect men to fight like men, and to find fault with cowardice.

It wouldn't. At all. But the principle of free speech certainly does.

This would be true iff signups were by invitation only.

Blocks are like blinders. They're not meant to prevent anyone else from doing anything.

No, political agitator, I'm not going anywhere. Welcome to the internet, where sometimes people disagree with you.

I'm sorry, what's hateful about what I wrote? You could have at least explained that before ranting about it.

Sorry for "frying your brain". Patriotic Americans own flags, hoist them, and fly them, showing respect for our neighbors and law and order. It may seem unrelated to being a law-abiding citizen if you're not part of the culture.