The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Well, it is a bit hyperbolic, but I don't think that it's completely inapt. And its the approach, or the mentality, that I am calling totalitarian - not the laws.It's like if we were coworkers and every time we had a minor disagreement about something you ran to the boss to get them to implement a decision so you could force me to comply with your way.It's that approach of running to and using an authority to force your dissenters into compliance rather than working with them and coming to an agreement that I find distasteful.I don't think calling that totalitarian is too far off - if we're not talking specifically about the form of government, itself.

Not quite. Who decides who fits in? What if you have two X chromosomes, were born a woman, identify as a woman, but look kinda butch?For example ... Woman Sues Restaurant That Ejected Her From Bathroom for Looking 'Like a Man'.

You mean like trying to restrict women's access to abortion? You mean like issuing executive orders that discriminate against LGBT's? Shouldn't we be talking about the totalitarian right? No, of course not, "totalitarian" is the wrong word. Misguided, intolerant and authoritarian perhaps, but not totalitarian. Gee, ad hominem is so easy. We all could just sit in opposite corners and shout adjectives back and forth, instead of having a discussion. Or maybe we could just leave the name-calling out of the discussion?Anytime you have to follow your use of a word with several "let me explain what I mean by that" paragraphs it's a strong hint that you're misusing the word.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify first sentence.

Or like restricting murderers access to homicide I kid, I kid. Start a thread, I'll comment there too. Pssh, don't give me that pedantic crap; words are defined by how they are used.If I say a song is cool are you going to question me on how a song can have a temperature?

You are in good company here...

quote:

---

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less.

---

But I wasn't arguing that the right is totalitarian. I was making an absurd argument to show how the word can be misused in either direction. I'm not on the left or right and I think the name-calling from both sides is ridiculous and beside any points being made. So you're going to provide your own word definitions and require everyone else to use them too? How Faithish, totalitarian even. That's common usage - it's in the dictionary.Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on common word definitions at the root of the disagreement about the Obama guidelines adding anything to the interpretation of the law, but if you truly believe they added nothing then you can't use it as an example of your misdefinition of totalitarian.--Percy

Are you sure that people generally don't try to come an agreement in these cases? I mean legal action is a matter of public record. Private discussions less so. The guidelines were a useful tool to point to during those discussions. When agreement cannot be reached, then civil action takes place, in some instances (probably the minority of them). There are often months of exchanging letters, meetings and discussions before the legal action finds its way into a hearing or court. Court's and other such bodies are often reluctant to hear a case where such attempts have not been made.The guidelines were useful. They provided a sense of security that the Federal government has their back. Revoking the guidelines indicates a certain attitude, and the comments justifying the revocation reinforce this impression: The Federal government doesn't have your back, even in principle, this should be an issue for the States.It is not totalitarian to be upset about this development. It is not about having the Feds tell people what to think. It's about what the Federal government thinks, and the message that sends in both situations and the fear of what the future holds.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

On the Gay Marriage thread I brought up the plan I'd been hearing about to use witchcraft against Trump, and of course the idea was ridiculed. Here's a report in The Huffington Post. I'm also moving it because it is clearly off topic on the other thread. Witches Plan to Cast Mass Spell Against Donald TrumpThe report says they'll be casting the spell once a month until he's removed from office, starting in February. I didn't hear about it soon enough to pray against it. Some 5000 on a Facebook page are pledged to cast the spell.Whether you believe in the efficacy of witch spells or not, isn't there something just a tad anti-democratic about using any special tactics for a political purpose to defeat a President half the voting population elected? But that would include violent protests too. I guess we no longer honor the usual American democratic institutions, it's all-out war from the Left.

Knowing several Wiccans, I can assure you that a witch's spell is nothing more or less than a prayer. So I assume that you also believe that it's a tad anti-democratic to use prayers for a President that over half the voting population voted against?

Sorry Faith but casting spells against a sitting President is a Constitutionally protected Right in the US just like praying for a President is a protected Constitutional Right; thank God.

abe: Trump WON. He's the President. Who voted against him is now irrelevant according to American tradition. According to that tradition the outgoing President and his administration graciously leave the field to the incoming administration. This civilized practice has been violently discarded by the Left in every possible way since Trump won. /abeWe are told in the Bible to pray FOR our government leaders, not against them, no matter who they are. And that was written back in the time of some of the worst of the Caesars. I admit I found it hard to pray for Obama, but did manage it from time to time.But there are levels and degrees of witchcraft. As the story says this is just to have him removed from office, not do harm to him, though it is admitted there are spells that can do harm as well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why did you not criticize imprecatory prayer against President Obama and Hillary Clinton?The hypocrisy is strong in this one.Edited by Theodoric, : No proof of support

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Without evidence that is just another sleazy EvC accusation. Please produce the post where I said that.I don't recall doing that. Years ago I heard some preaching in favor of imprecatory prayers but it was a short-lived episode and not something I practice. Again, we are told to pray FOR our leaders.It is, however, good to pray against witchcraft and specific forms of evil. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is, however, good to cast spells against prayer and specific forms of evil.