Holding Them Accountable

[Corn Pop]

I have only ever hear the words far-right. I dont think i have ever heard the words far-left, i mean the sun must shine from the lefts self righteousness.

Maybe the left is so far left that even some on the left or slightly right are somehow right-wing extremists.

I always found it amazing how Avi, a fair and honest journalist, who is brown, and a jew, got thrown in the same label cage as a white supremasist nazi. Both labelled right-wing extremists.

 

[Corn Pop]

Somewhere in the UK a city the police force was like watch out for the signs of right-wing extremism, like someone going to the gym for excersise. Basically someone going to the gym for excersise could be a possible right-wing extremist. I guess people have to stay weak, sick, and miserable, otherwise they cpuld be labelled a right-wing extremsit.

 

[Corn Pop]

I seen this in the news, must have been last month going from the date.

I agree with police here, definitely smells suspicious. Amazing how someone called a right-wing extremist had a gym they owned that was suspisiously burned down. Maybe the criminals/possible terrorists still thought he owned it. Thats up to law enforcement to investigate. Not sure if anyone has been or will be held accountable.

Gym formerly owned by far-right activist set alight in Caulfield

www.9news.com.au

 

[Corn Pop]

I'm saying that illegal immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes than native born Americans are.

Probably true because the last thing any law breaker wants to do who knows they are breaking the law is anything wrong or get busted. For example illegal overstayers are always going to stay vigilant and under the radar and do there best to stay away from trouble.

Why do some cities still call people illegal immigrants?. I mean is it not not better for them to just simply call them immigrants if thats there belief?.

I mean if someone has or does break the law and someone then aids and supports and protects that law breaker, i would have thought that is an offence in itself. Like just example someone illegally enters society from prison escaping and someone takes them in and protects them and gives them cash and housing.

I mean the law cant have double standards, like its somehow ok to support fund one law breaker but giving aid and support to another law breaker could be a life sentence.

 

[Corn Pop]

What happens if a known law breaker flips out or commits a crime?. Is the one who funded them and protected them and aided them going to be held accountable?.

 

[Corn Pop]

I dont know how anyone can call someone a law breaker by calling them illegal, and then supporting or funding them. Thats obviously supporting or funding illegal activity.

Probably best to just call them immigrants if peoppe want to claim they are not supporting illegal activity.

 

[Corn Pop]

There is alot of crookedness.

I mean anyone who is classed as illegal they become very vulnerable, and it can lead to slave labour and all sorts of illegal activity and they do and can get taken advantage of.
There are cases that go on, even in countries not anywhere even near the crisis the USA boarder has.

Where illegal immigrants or illegal overstayers get payed basically nothing to work , tgerw be like 20 of them all sleeping on a cold concrete floor with a matress with a single toilet, and 1 gas cooker, all being taken advantage of.

No taxes payed, and the contractors pay them in cash. Completely crooked and criminal behaviour.

 

[Corn Pop]

Illegal immigrants have no rights under the law because they are not recognised, so they are the most vulnerable and easy get taken advantage of.

Im trying to protect them. Best to enter the safe and correct legal path and be legal so they cannot be taken advantage of.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Well, let's test that claim.

Do you support abortion?
Do you support teacher-led prayer in school?
Do you favor same-sex marriage?
Do you support unlimited immigration?

Let us know. Then we'll compare it to libertarian positions.

No to all questions. You can't win this by misdefinition. The right to life is given to us by God as part of our "inalienable rights", not Government. Same sex "marriage" is a modern construct where "marriage" was redefined contradicting historical usage over 6,000 years long.

 

[Corn Pop]

No to all questions. You can't win this by misdefinition. The right to life is given to us by God as part of our "inalienable rights", not Government. Same sex "marriage" is a modern construct where "marriage" was redefined contradicting historical usage over 6,000 years long.

Since the dawn of time the word marriage has always been defined, its always been the union between a scientifically recognised biological male and biological female.

Some people somehow have a problem with that when they could easy have there own ceremony and make up there name for there own beliefs.

The Church has already been destroyed, i mean who are these people and different cults who call themselves a church and use the cross as there symbol, yet they have nothing to do with Christ or Christianity or even preach the gospel, like scientology as one basic example.

 

[Corn Pop]

Everyone can have there own beliefs, yet some people just want to be imposters when they are free to make there own language and words and have there own symbols and have there own religious beliefs and cermonies. No need to interfere with others.

 

[Corn Pop]

During lockdown if people started supporting and funding people breaking the rules even to the point of just leaving there own home to visit there own family they were labelled national security threats who were placing the public at risk, yet many of those same people who were complaining about others calling citizens threats are now funding law breakers by the thousands who are illegally entering the country.

They should make there mind up if they respect the law or not. I mean its like in one case people must obey the rules or they are a problem, yet in another situation if someone breaks they rules they want to help them and give them free food, and housing, and cash because thye have sympathy and compassion for them.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, let's test that claim.

Do you support abortion?
Do you support teacher-led prayer in school?
Do you favor same-sex marriage?
Do you support unlimited immigration?

Let us know. Then we'll compare it to libertarian positions.

No to all questions.

So you're not a libertarian. (except for the second one, which libertarians object to)

Not all libertarians are consistently libertarian, but I never encountered one who favored outlawing abortion, favored teacher-led prayer in public schools, opposed the right of any two competent adults to marry, and who opposed free immigration.

The right to life is given to us by God as part of our "inalienable rights", not Government.

I happen to agree with you on that. Many libertarians oppose abortion on those grounds, but recognize that attempts to recruit the state to suppress abortion tend to backfire. Notice the disasters for pro-life since the Dobbs decision, for example. Deep red states like Kansas and Ohio had voters pass initiatives to make abortion a constitutional right in those states. And public opinion, which had been increasingly pro-life for decades, has now reversed.

Those who look to the state to make us good, (or at least "behave good") usually end up making things worse, as in the case of Dobbs. The telling point is that the far right is no longer making much noise about abortion, and the democrats are using abortion to raise money and attract former republican voters.

 

[Barbarian]

Same sex "marriage" is a modern construct where "marriage" was redefined contradicting historical usage over 6,000 years long.

No. Many traditional societies recognized same-sex marriage. It was not acceptable in Hebrew culture, which is why it's not in ours.

Turns out, it happened a lot, if not ostentatiously...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44285272?mag=the-long-history-of-same-sex-marriage

 

[Uncle J]

Exclusive: Key figure in fake electors plot concealed damning posts on secret Twitter account from investigators

Kenneth Chesebro, the right-wing attorney who helped devise the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot in 2020, concealed a secret Twitter account from Michigan prosecutors, hiding dozens of damning posts that undercut his statements to investigators about his role in the election subversion scheme, a CNN KFile investigation has found.

Chesebro denied using Twitter, now known as the platform X, or having any “alternate IDs” when directly asked by Michigan investigators last year during his cooperation session, according to recordings of his interview obtained by CNN.

But CNN linked Chesebro to the secret account based on numerous matching details — including biographical information regarding his work, family, travels and investments. The anonymous account, BadgerPundit, also showed a keen interest in the Electoral College process and lined up with Chesebro’s private activities at the time.

The Twitter posts reveal that even before the 2020 election, and then just two days after polls closed, Chesebro promoted a far more aggressive election subversion strategy than he later let on in his Michigan interview.

Chesebro’s lawyers confirmed to CNN that the BadgerPundit account belonged to Chesebro...

 

[ezrider]

Exclusive: Key figure in fake electors plot concealed damning posts on secret Twitter account from investigators

Kenneth Chesebro, the right-wing attorney who helped devise the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot in 2020, concealed a secret Twitter account from Michigan prosecutors, hiding dozens of damning posts that undercut his statements to investigators about his role in the election subversion scheme, a CNN KFile investigation has found.

Chesebro denied using Twitter, now known as the platform X, or having any “alternate IDs” when directly asked by Michigan investigators last year during his cooperation session, according to recordings of his interview obtained by CNN.

But CNN linked Chesebro to the secret account based on numerous matching details — including biographical information regarding his work, family, travels and investments. The anonymous account, BadgerPundit, also showed a keen interest in the Electoral College process and lined up with Chesebro’s private activities at the time.

The Twitter posts reveal that even before the 2020 election, and then just two days after polls closed, Chesebro promoted a far more aggressive election subversion strategy than he later let on in his Michigan interview.

Chesebro’s lawyers confirmed to CNN that the BadgerPundit account belonged to Chesebro...

And just to highlight another piece of the article that you sourced....

“You don’t get the big picture. Trump doesn’t have to get courts to declare him the winner of the vote. He just needs to convince Republican legislatures that the election was systematically rigged, but it’s impossible to run it again, so they should appoint electors instead,” wrote BadgerPundit on November 7, 2020, the day multiple media outlets, including CNN, called the election for Joe Biden.

 

[Corn Pop]

 

[Corn Pop]

Yip.

 

[Corn Pop]

Like above, some people tried to call it out and protect the people but were just labeled a problem or a threat when in the end the highest courts are in there favour.

Peoppe calling out banning citizens from entering in a lottery system and many were made stateless banned from entering there own country of citizenship, and i was labelled a trouble maker, yet the high court ruled it violated civil rights and agreed with me. So i was not really the problem.

Oh, so now it admitted that scoial distancing and masks was all just made up as well with no science behind it, they just went with it?. Call that out and complain during covid and people were labelled a problem as a public health threat. Tracking, there was science behind that either yet also forced on the people.

Basically many who called out any covid policies were labeled conspiracy theorists, or cencored, or were labeled a threat to public health.

 

[Corn Pop]

The highest court in judgement of a violation of human rights is one thing, but on a larger scale, like state or nation wide, i dont know so can only have my own opinion on it, but i would class that myself as crimes against humanity because its the suffering of many on a state or nation wide scale on a human rights violation.

But as it goes the excuse will always be at the time they just thought they was doing the right thing and caring for the people. Yea ok. Heard that excuse in history a few times. Its always about tying to protect the people why many suffer. Its always in the name of safety and security.