North Carolina Governor Declares 'State of Emergency' Over Education Debate
The stunt comes days after Justice Gorsuch warned of officials addicted to emergency decrees.

Is it an emergency when you're losing an argument? North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper thinks it is; he declared "a state of emergency for public education" because state lawmakers propose what he calls "extreme legislation" regarding education choice, funding, and curriculum. While Cooper claims no extraordinary powers, his performative declaration underlines warnings by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, published just days earlier, that government officials have become entirely too accustomed to issuing emergency decrees to bypass normal debate and to suppress dissent, and that civil liberties have suffered as a result.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
It's an Emergency When Opponents Disagree
"It's time to declare a State of Emergency for public education in North Carolina," Cooper, a Democrat, announced May 22. "There's no Executive Order like with a hurricane or the pandemic, but it's no less important. It's clear that the Republican legislature is aiming to choke the life out of public education."
Specifically, Cooper objected to the legislature's plan to expand a "private school voucher scheme" by which he means the state's Opportunity Scholarships. Currently limited to low-income students, a bill passed by the House and pending in the Senate would expand criteria for participation.
"The 'Choose Your School, Choose Your Future Act' eliminates income eligibility limits for the Opportunity Scholarship program," The News & Observer noted last week. "Instead, vouchers would be awarded based on a sliding scale with lower-income families getting the most money."
That doesn't sound like much of an emergency, but neither do Cooper's disagreements with lawmakers over tax cuts and teacher pay. And while his dispute with Republicans over "curriculum decisions on what students learn" is yet another serious example of the country's political fracture, it's also one that could be resolved by giving families vouchers to pay for schools that suit their needs and preferences. That is, one element of the governor's co-called "emergency" would actually be fixed by what seems to be his main "emergency" concern.
It's an Emergency When the Public Disagrees
It's worth noting that Cooper declared a state of emergency not just because he's losing an argument with lawmakers, but also because he's losing an argument with the people of North Carolina. School choice is popular among the public that elected the governor to office.
"Over two-thirds of likely North Carolina voters support the state's Opportunity Scholarship Program, which grants scholarships to low-to-moderate-income students to attend a school of their choice," the John Locke Foundation's Civitas Poll found in January of this year. "An even greater share of North Carolinians (68.8%) support Education Savings Accounts, which provide families with funds to pay for educational expenses, such as tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. Charter schools, which have become a popular education option for families, received 68.7% support among those surveyed."
The same poll found 66.1 percent of respondents dissatisfied "with the quality of education students receive in kindergarten through grade twelve in the U.S. today."
In polling conducted in North Carolina by Morning Consult, EdChoice reports similarly low satisfaction with K-12 education. Pollsters also reported that 61 percent of all adults and 73 percent of school parents support school vouchers. Sixty-nine percent of adults and 80 percent of school parents favor education savings accounts. Sixty-eight percent of all adults and 78 percent of school parents support charters schools.
It's an Emergency When People Want the Freedom Politicians Have
You know who else favors school choice? Gov. Roy Cooper himself.
"The Coopers have three daughters, Hilary, Claire, and Natalie, a 2011 Saint Mary's graduate," the Raleigh private school boasted in 2017. The announcement also noted that the state's first lady, Kristin Cooper, would serve as commencement speaker at the school's graduation ceremony that year.
Cooper's support of "choice for me but not for thee" has understandably become an issue in North Carolina's ongoing policy debate. It's hard to see how extending comparable options for picking schools and lesson plans to other families constitute a state of emergency—unless declaring an "emergency" has become a bad habit for politicians who resent disagreement, as Justice Neil Gorsuch recently warned.
A Pandemic of Emergency Decrees
"Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale," Gorsuch wrote in a statement published May 18. "While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent."
Gorsuch's statement was attached to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Arizona v. Mayorkas, addressing Title 42 public health powers invoked to raise barriers to immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic. But he made clear that he is broadly concerned with the overall proliferation of emergency decrees to bypass debate, exercise extraordinary power, and suppress dissent.
"Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow," he concluded.
Cooper invoked no special powers with his performative "state of emergency." But he very clearly wants to tap into a deference to authority that he hopes people have acquired through several years of executive orders intruding far into people's lives.
"These ideas spell disaster that requires emergency action," he insisted in his declaration.
No, they don't. These ideas, and disagreements over them, constitute perfectly normal policy arguments that Cooper happens to be losing to his political opponents and to the public at large. In a normal, functioning, democratic political system, you win some and you lose some. Losing is unpleasant; it may be bad if you lose to proponents of lousy policy. But that's not an emergency. Cooper wants to end-run healthy debate by invoking a sense of crisis.
Of course, government officials don't like disagreement. That's not news. But debate is healthy and it's a bad idea to let politicians try to marginalize dissent with authoritarian stunts.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
.
.
.
Just open the link——————>>> http://Www.Pay.hiring9.Com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Google pays $300 on a regular basis. My latest salary check was $8600 for working 10 hours a week on the internet. My younger sibling has been averaging $19k for the last few months, and he constantly works approximately 24 hours. I'm not sure how simple it was once I checked it out. This is my main concern............. GOOD LUCK.
.
.
BONNE CHANCE…............................ https://Www.Coins71.Com
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was jax all true and has totally changed my life.last month her pay check was $12712 just working on the laptop for a few hours. This is what I do, … VISIT THIS WEBSITE HERE………………. http://Www.topoffer1.com
it's kind of like handing out free memberships to the country club ... pretty soon you have people sitting around the pool covered in tattoos, drinking out of flasks and pissing in the bushes 🙂
But debate is healthy and it's a bad idea to let politicians try to marginalize dissent with authoritarian stunts.
This article simply cannot exist. tReason using the word "authoritarian" to describe the actions of a Democrat? That's just unpossible.
Poor sarc.
There is a lot of talk on here about who has muted who. I would be much more interested in a list of who are the most muted commenters. The idea behind a comments section like this is to generate discussion. So I generally only mute people, like sarc and squirrelsy, who add nothing to the discussion.
Believe i am on the most declared muted lists. I have ended up on hihn, Mike, jeff, sarc.
But my guess is sqrsly is in reality. With his walls of texts.
I doubt you are on a lot of mute lists. You actually only butt heads with a handful of posters. You are pretty aggressive with your pushback, more then I would be on an online community, but you are not boring and add something to a lot of discussions. Unlike Shrike who I muted for his constant boring DNC talking points.
I mostly push back on the few here like sarc and Jeff because of their hypocritical denials of their positions and victim signaling. Has been going on for a decade.
Shrike is just a paid gaslighter.
I’m probably muted by many. I’m pretty brutal to the leftist assholes here. Plus my refrain about the necessity of getting rid of the democrats is probably a ‘third rail’ subject to a lot of people here.
In any event, I’m pretty sure Sarc has me muted. I’m not letting it go that he threatened me then ran away.
If you think personal attacks are discussion, then I'm glad you've got me on mute.
Sarc acting like he wasn't spending all day yesterday engaged in personal attacks.
All I said to you was that getting worked up over politics must be miserable. That's not a personal attack. It's an expression of pity. Get a grip.
Poor sarc.
Sarc pretending that a personal attack isn't a personal attack.
I guess it isn't a personal attack when people express concern that you are posting under the influence of alcohol again. It's really just genuine concern.
It is more expectation than concern for me.
If you thought that was an insult then I don’t know what to say.
I even offered a means of relief. Stop voting.
Your vote doesn't matter. It will not change anything. All it will do is get you frustrated when the election goes the opposite of how you voted. It's an exercise in futility. I don't know why anyone does it except to have something to get angry about.
Run away you gutless pussy.
Calling you a delusional mendacious gaslighter is a character and mental health diagnosis. Telling you to GFY is an exercise recommendation.
I am a vicitm - sarc.
And if you want to know who is actually muted, look at the commentors who receive little or no responses to their posts which are usually insults of some kind. You know, the types of comments generate the kinds of discussions you are interested in.
Run away pussy.
I don’t get a lot of comments on my posts…
Back when I had faith that we could get constructive conversation, I began implementing a replacement for Reasonable. My primary goal was to eliminate the account spoofing going on at the time, but I also wanted to experiment with collaborative filtering and storing everything on a block chain to allow tipping.
My secondary goal was to experiment with bubble-popping. Do all +1 systems just reinforce bubbles as people brigade on people within their tribe? Or can you algorithmically find posts that are from other tribes but form constructive debate?
I never got too far, because I couldn't figure out a mechanism that incentivizes anything but tribalism. It is just too easy to dunk on or insult others and resort to cheap fallacious tricks in order to get +1's. I cannot figure out a way to surface posts that generate cross-tribe discussion that also doesn't reward people who are trading insults. Thus, the mute system is a simpler way to implement.
I try not to mute based on beliefs. I haven't muted Tony even though I don't think we agree on anything policy wise. I still see Jeff and Mike's post even though they are usually pretty disingenuous with their arguments. I find echo chambers boring I guess.
Right. My goal for a long while was to find people who could discuss in good faith the divides between right-leaning and left-leaning libertarian politics. Some people like Jeff could be good for it. But over time I realized that it isn't doable without some sort of system that incentivizes constructive debates and penalizes shit-flinging.
I see reputation as an important component of such a system, but my research led me to conclude that it is only good to a certain point. When people accumulate enough reputation, they abuse it. So you have a person who has high scores for collaborative posting, but then they change their standards to keep this position. In short, even people with High reputation sometimes make low-value posts.
As much as I tried to steer clear of it, I eventually concluded you need to do some manner of basic textual analysis to identify when a person was flipping from "high value" posts to "low value". So I shelved the project, until the end of last year when ChatGPT started looking promising as an initial filter in concert with a reputation system. I spent the first several months of this year investigating this. I think there is some promise there.
Reputation is an interesting idea. I can see why it can be a bit subjective and hard to qualify with an algorithm. I know how I identify "good" commenters who I am always pleased to see in a discussion but not sure how you could control for that. Squirrelsy posts a wall of text so quantity is not a factor. A simple like and dislike system might be interesting. There is some value to seeing youtube videos getting “ratioed” I think.
Yes, I have concluded that reputation isn't a single value, but rather a dimension of every relationship you have. That is, Overt doesn't have an overall Reputation, but rather a reputation with Dakotian, and a Reputation with Bob (and they have reputations with Overt).
So now imagine you have a blockchain-based database with all of this info- posts and reputation networks. Blockchain means that the data is distributed and un-censorable. And it just houses the data in encrypted form, so if you want, you can publish the key to your rep network, or keep it secret. You can also have various services creating annotated data, like an AI service that consumes and classifies/scores posts for various reasons.
This data asset could then be consumed by clients that interpret this data in completely configurable ways. Like only dealing with your tribe? Fine. Want people who have high reputation that overlaps across all tribes? You can do that too.
Reputation requires an external input which causes people to modify their beliefs, and no always due to acceptance of alternate viewpoints. Any system with upvotes or downvotes causes majority teaming and rarely a good discussion. Instagram and Twitter has caused behavioral responses based on engagement.
The only time you can have unfiltered belief systems discussed is without external inputs causing deviations.
I see your point but is it really an external input if someone logs onto this Libertarian(ha) site and spends the time to get registered so he can have input? Even if it is just an up vote or down vote? The point I tried to make to sarc a few times is that there are a fair number of lurkers like me who are on here a lot but do not have the time or desire to comment. So his childish behavior gets noticed even when few bother to comment.
I get how it would not be a perfect system but if someone is adding value to the board maybe that should be acknowledged. If a hundred people up vote the “True Libertarians” and a thousand down vote them, it might show them the weakness of their arguments.
The only non spammer I mute is SQRLSY. For obvious reasons.
"I never got too far, because I couldn’t figure out a mechanism that incentivizes anything but tribalism."
You choose your tribe and are only able to register approval of comments from another tribe, or disapproval of comments from your own tribe.
One difficulty is that nobody likes to acknowledge their own membership in a tribe. We like to cling to the idea of being independent and above tribal allegiances.
I might be near the top of the “muting others” list but only because I always mute the spam bots. 1374 according to the profile page. I think there’s only one actual human commenter that I’ve muted for more than a day or two.
754, here. I have only muted a single human. That Nolan guy, because I am convinced his level of crazy is communicable.
1720- bots muted here and only one actual 50center i think. cant remember which one and i dont want to go thru them all to find out
I only have a handful of humans muted. The master baiters. I mute them so I am not tempted to defend myself from their lies.
I don't comment a ton, but I've only muted Sqrl (for the nothing spam posts that go on and on and Kirkland along with the bots of course)
I should add I was tempted to do Joe Friday but he's been missing or someone hasn't used that sock in a while.
Pretty sure that was one of Tulpa's many incarnations.
I only mute the spammers.
I, for one, am pleasantly surprised they noticed another governor.
"It never happened." --Trump
Not with Trump, that's for sure.
Quiz time!
"It's an Emergency When Opponents Disagree"
Does this describe:
A. Cooper when he declares an emergency over public education
B. Trump when he declares an emergency over the border wall
C. All of the above
Not.
A.
Leftist.
For realz.
Aww someone has a sad that I called out his tribe for doing the exact same thing the other tribe is doing.
And here jeff again admits he can't actually criticize a Democrat without trying to deflect it to a conservative. He has no problem criticizing conservatives in isolation, but will always defend democrats through deflection.
But he claims to not be a leftist.
All those years jeff screamed wbataboutism just showed how much of a leftist hypocrite he is.
This is why I attack Jeffy. He is an intrinsically disingenuous commenter. Often an outright liar. He spews out nonsense, that has typically been refuted before here, and derails real discussion. He doesn’t deserve to be with consideration or respect. Does anyone here actually have ANY respect for him? I mean, aside from the pedophile, who is on'y deserving of the most vicious attacks based on his pastime.
Trump exercised his authority under some ‘National Emergencies’ Act and said up front he expected to end up in the S. Ct. As expected lawsuits were filed. Some lost, some were dismissed due to lack of standing, and others supported Trump. S. Ct. added it to the docket.
The governor gave a speech or issued a ‘press release’ and used the phrase ‘State of Emergency’ which any citizen can use to express their opinion about any subject matter. No State law was used to issue it; it has no force of law – unlike Trump’s order, it can’t be litigated in any court.
The two events have absolutely NOTHING in common with each other. To argue they are the exact same thing is bat sheet crazy.
One was because they overruled a veto.
One was because of 5 million illegally crossing into the country causing a drain on services and resources into the tens of billions of dollars.
Exactly the same.
Yep. Another phony ‘Boaf sidez’ argument.
Still.
Not.
A.
Leftist.
For realz.
I'll give you a serious response when you decide to stop being a hack.
Poor Jeff.
And so this is an opportunity for Libertarians to be the adults and state unequivocally that we are categorically opposed to unilateral executive authority to declare bullshit emergencies, with perhaps only the tiniest of exceptions for catastrophic invasion or force majeure, and even then, it should be strictly time limited. We won't be the tribal morons who argue "it's ok when WE do it but when THEY do it, it's a threat to the Republic".
Don't accuse tribalists of having principles. That's mean.
And sarc joins in on Jeff's deflection for the left. Neither can ever criticize a Democrat without deflection and cries of both sides. They do not do the same if an article criticizes a conservative. Please watch. A fascinating group behavior of all leftists.
Usual bullshit from a couple of pussy bullshitters. We should just call the, the drunk and the fatfuck.
To be fair, principals, defendants, respondents and convicted terrorists bound in both factions of The Looter Kleptocracy, where the law says whatever you can get a judge to say it says.
No. This was the opportunity for a leftist to scream both sides whenever there is criticism of a member of the left. As you and sarc due any time reason does actually criticize a Democrat. Your only concern is to defend and deflect.
Hey, everybody remember that time Chemjeff had the opportunity to be the adult “and state unequivocally that we are categorically opposed to unilateral executive authority to declare bullshit emergency” vaccine mandates?
I do.
https://reason.com/video/2021/10/01/california-business-owners-sue-gov-newsom-over-the-lockdowns/?comments=true#comment-9136237
TL;DR, Chemjeff couldn't be bothered to "unequivocally oppose" mandates. To the contrary, he in fact constantly equivocated and excused these over-reaches of power.
So what are we to conclude about Chemjeff’s behavior, here?
For one thing, we can conclude that Chemjeff is completely disingenuous when he declares that he is interested in holding all leaders to the same standard. He is here to declare DOUBLE STANDARDS!!OMG11!! when his tribe is being criticized. But when the page turns, and its time to hold a Team Blue leader to the same standard, he can’t quite find a reason to do so.
Oh my dear Lord. I thought Jesse was bad with his dossiers, but you are worse.
Let's just correct the record here:
Chemjeff couldn’t be bothered to “unequivocally oppose” mandates.
This is a LIE, Overt. You are lying and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I dare you or anyone else to find any comment at any time where I supported government imposed mask mandates or government imposed vaccination. Just one.
FFS you keep a dossier on me that spans *at least* three years. Surely you would have noted whatever alleged "smoking gun" comment that you could wave in front of my nose and declare "AHA I KNEW IT YOU'RE AN AUTHORITARIAN SCUMBAG WHO SUPPORTS GOVERNMENT MASK AND VACCINE MANDATES AND HERE'S THE PROOF". You wouldn't pass up THAT opportunity to humiliate me, would you? No of course you wouldn't.
But you can't, because it doesn't exist. And you are now lying about it. While simultaneously whining about how *I* don't argue in good faith.
Seriously, go fuck yourself Overt. I used to think you were better than this. I guess I was wrong about that.
What you are actually mad about is that I did not denounce mandates as forcefully as you did. I never supported them, I always opposed them, but because I didn't have DEFCON ONE OMG PANTS SHITTING HAIR ON FIRE END OF THE REPUBLIC level of outrage about them, that proves that I'm "disingenuous". No, all it proves is that we're not identical. In particular, I didn't go along with the insane paranoid right-wing narrative that mask mandates was a part of some tyrannical plot to control the population into obedience and servitude. And because I didn't oppose mandates *in precisely the way that Overt expected me to*, that made ME disingenuous? No, Overt, it makes you a presumptuous twat.
I would encourage everyone to read the comments from the post Overt is citing from three years ago. It is amusing to read in hindsight.
https://reason.com/2020/06/30/supreme-court-declares-another-abortion-law-unconstitutional/?comments=true#comments
And, applied to the current situation, I absolutely holding both Cooper and Trump to the same standard. They are both abusing their authority, just like Newsom and Whitmer and all but one of the state governors abused their authority in imposing mask mandates. But I don't think ANY of them did it, neither blue state nor red state governors, for corrupt tyrannical reasons. Cooper is abusing his authority with his declaration of an emergency, but I don't think he's doing so for terrible reasons. Trump abused his authority with his declaration of an emergency, but I don't think he did so for terrible reasons. They're both wrong and they are both acting like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum when they are told "no" by the respective legislatures that they can't have what they want.
Is that clear enough for you Overt?
“The difference is, I just don’t think a vaccine mandate is EEEEEEVIL. I think it is well-intentioned, motivated by a genuine desire to save lives at risk from COVID.”
That’s a direct quote of you, giving the benefit of the doubt to the government (and lest we forget, it was the Democrats pushing the idea of a mandate) and deriding people who rightly called out the government even considering a mandate.
Yes, in this case, I give them the benefit of the doubt for their motivation for pursuing a mandate. I never agreed with the mandate.
and deriding people who rightly called out the government even considering a mandate.
No. I derided the people who invented insane paranoid reasons for the mandate.
"Oh my dear Lord. I thought Jesse was bad with his dossiers, but you are worse."
There is nothing more precious than Chemjeff and Mike complaining that people hold them accountable for things they have said in the past. Why, it's almost as if they are salty that they can't come in here and gaslight everybody.
They act as if bookmarking a link is some massive obsession when in fact it is nothing more than, "Cmd-D". But that's the thing- they are so disturbed that people might remember and hold them accountable for what they have said that they can only hope to demonize people for doing it.
"This is a LIE, Overt. You are lying and you should be ashamed of yourself."
No it is not a lie.
"I dare you or anyone else to find any comment at any time where I supported "
Oh look, Chemjeff is being disingenuous...again. I didn't say support. I used Chemjeff's words, "Unequivocally Oppose".
And anyone can go look at those three days of posts and see that I asked him to do EXACTLY that- unequivocally oppose mandates. Speak out against them. Resist them. And Chemjeff couldn't do that. He sits here all high and mighty acting as if trumpers refusing to CONDEMN trump is some win, when he equivocated for over a week to avoid actually opposing mandates.
Of course, now Chemjeff would like to insist that he was opposing those mandates when weeks, upon weeks, he could do nothing but criticize people who pushed back on Vaccine Mandates. And not only that: but he was WRONG on the facts as he insisted that Masks and vaccines prevent the spread. WRONG. And yet here he is showing up again, acting arrogant like he is the adult in the room, who is consistent in his application of principles....and then whines when people throw his own words back in his face.
But that’s the thing- they are so disturbed that people might remember and hold them accountable for what they have said that they can only hope to demonize people for doing it.
No, the only thing that is disturbing to me is that you spend any amount of effort at all bookmarking "gotcha" quotes to throw back in people's faces.
Oh look, Chemjeff is being disingenuous…again. I didn’t say support. I used Chemjeff’s words, “Unequivocally Oppose”.
No, those were your words, not mine.
And even still, I did "unequivocally oppose" the mandate. I never supported it and whenever the subject came up I always stated that I was opposed to it.
And my criticism stands. You think "unequivocally oppose" means "get out the pitchforks and torches and oppose the mandates with the fury of a thousand white hot suns". And I didn't do that. I oppose the mandates by objecting to them, never supporting them and not supporting the people who did support them. But no, I did not oppose them with the emotional intensity that you did.
Your entire criticism boils down to a completely subjective interpretation of the word 'unequivocally'. Because I didn't read into your mind and determine what you thought when you wrote that word, somehow it's my fault. Umm, no. I did exactly what you asked. I opposed the mandates. I did so every time that it was mentioned.
Of course, now Chemjeff would like to insist that he was opposing those mandates when weeks, upon weeks, he could do nothing but criticize people who pushed back on Vaccine Mandates.
Another lie. What I did do was push back on the insane paranoid reasons given to oppose the mandates. I never said "you're wrong for opposing the mandate". I said instead "you're wrong for thinking the mandate is some Orwellian tyrannical plot", because I don't think it was.
You condemn me for not living up to a standard that you never specified in the first place. You lie about me and you slander me and my motivations. You are the one acting in bad faith. What IS your motivation for continuing to dredge this up? What are you trying to prove anyway?
"No, the only thing that is disturbing to me is that you spend any amount of effort at all bookmarking “gotcha” quotes to throw back in people’s faces."
Note that Chemjeff cannot keep his records straight. At first my accusation was a dirty damn lie, and now it is a "Gotcha quote".
Of course it is a gotcha quoute. Chemjeff can act as outraged as he wants, but his post had a clear purpose: to indict the character of all those people he disagrees with. He wasn't here to argue facts. He was here to try and expose the hypocrisy of his political enemies.
And having gone through the effort of picking that fight, Chemjeff wants to claim that it is totes weird when other people spend a little effort to serve him the same treatment. Please.
"No, those were your words, not mine."
These were Chemjeff's words, "state unequivocally that we are categorically opposed", and he is being disingenuous to insist that my words were measurably different.
"And even still, I did “unequivocally oppose” the mandate. I never supported it and whenever the subject came up I always stated that I was opposed to it."
Now, some would normally insist that this is just dumb. "Not support" and "Oppose" are not synonymous any more than "enemy" and "neutral" or "Passive" and "Resist" are synonymous.
But I know Chemjeff isn't dumb. He knows the difference between "not supporting" and "opposing". One is doing nothing. And the other is doing something (opposing).
And of course, Chemjeff knows this. His whole point of using the phrase, "state unequivocally that we are categorically opposed" was that he WANTED to trap his enemies into either disavowing trump or appearing to be hypocrites. That language is clear. He wanted clear condemnation of Trump- the same clear condemnation that Chemjeff could not muster when it was his tribe under the microscope.
"Your entire criticism boils down to a completely subjective interpretation of the word ‘unequivocally’."
It doesn't. It is actually the verb (oppose). But again, Chemjeff is trying to weasel out here, and his squirming is delicious. Nothing makes me happier than to see a person attempt to play a gotcha game and get burned by his own match.
"Hate" is not the same as "don't enjoy".
"Condemn" is not the same as "won't endorse"
"Oppose" is not the same as "not support"
But that is the thing. Look at this post from Chemjeff in that week long dialogue:
https://reason.com/2021/09/30/abortion-ban-stimulates-interstate-travel-says-texas/?comments=true#comment-9132473
Feel free to read that entire thread and never once does he actually OPPOSE the actual mandates being made. Note that during that conversation, I wasn't even asking these people to oppose mandates in general- just oppose mandating children to vaccinate. And the best he could do was say that people "should" have medical freedom- after trying to bait everyone into an argument about whether or not vaccines should EVER be mandated.
I was looking for any indication that he felt his Team went too far. "Well, this one is wrong." "This time they went too far." Instead he spent more time explaining why people mandating vaccines mean well, than actually OPPOSING them.
It's clear, and Chemjeff can huff and puff and stomp all he wants. And that is what he will do because he was caught trying to get Trumpers to do what he himself would not do- criticize his own team.
Oh wait a minute.
When I wrote above, the following sentence:
"And so this is an opportunity for Libertarians to be the adults and state unequivocally that we are categorically opposed to unilateral executive authority to declare bullshit emergencies, with perhaps only the tiniest of exceptions for catastrophic invasion or force majeure, and even then, it should be strictly time limited. "
you actually think that the SOLE REASON that I posted that sentence, was to try to goad someone into defending Trump's border wall emergency, and then I would pounce on them and declare them to be an AUTHORITARIAN ULTRA-MAGA TRUMP-HUMPER? That was the ONLY reason that I posted it? Really? Just to fuck with them and call them names?
It couldn't be, that I actually think that we as libertarians ought to distinguish ourselves from the two major tribes and declare that we are unequivocally opposed to unilateral executive authority to declare emergencies, because it's the right thing to do - you think I really am okay with executive authority to declare things like vaccine mandates or Team Blue priorities, since evidently you think I'm basically no different than a Gavin Newsom in terms of ideology. Is that it?
And your stated evidence for this claim, are posts from 2-3 years ago, when I did not oppose vaccine mandates as vigorously as you would have preferred. I mean, you AGREE that I never supported vaccine mandates. But you and others were denouncing them as tyranny of the highest order, but because I did not see it that way *while still opposing the mandate*, I'm lumped in with all of Team Blue which was cheering on the mandate. Is that it?
And in not a single one of the discussions that you cited, or gotcha quotes from your dossier, have you ever produced any quotation from me about approving of the use of executive fiat to impose any mandate, have you? Because I don't. But you just assume that I would be okay with not just the vaccine mandate, but imposing it via executive fiat, because hey I'm just a leftist and all the other leftists are okay with executive fiat to impose mandates so I must be too! Is that it?
So at this point, Overt, you have finally reached Jesse levels of dishonesty. Jesse will knowingly lie about what other people believe, put words in their mouths, accuse people of holding beliefs that they don't hold and then demand that you deny and refute those claims. And if you try to engage with him to state the truth, he will just fling more poo at you, move on to the next baseless claim, cite some garbage irrelevant website, hurl a few insults, pull out his own dossier, and act like a total asshole. It is just pointless to engage with him at all which is why I've had him on mute for a while now. And you are very rapidly reaching that point with me.
The story above that you concocted about me is a complete fiction. I honestly sincerely truly was not trying to entrap anyone with that statement I made above. I honestly sincerely truly believe that executive authority to declare emergencies has been vastly overused and abused, particularly with the COVID pandemic but also with things like the border wall emergency, I have said many times that I believe that the power of the executive to declare emergencies should be curtailed, and I absolutely believe it can be a winning message for a libertarian candidate to distinguish him/herself from the other two teams, which are BOTH now totally comfortable with the excessive use of executive power. That is the truth Overt. The 'evidence' upon which you have built your case against me is incredibly weak. I *did* oppose the vaccine mandates, just not as vigorously as you would like, and even though we disagree on how vigorously they ought to have been opposed, it doesn't mean that every word I utter is some act of deceit trying to entrap conservatives.
But whatever, I also noticed in the prior conversation from two years ago that you believed that I didn't oppose the vaccine mandate as vigorously as you liked because, in your opinion, I would be glad to see conservatives tyrannized in that way. Because you must think that I not only disagree with Team Red, but that I utterly loathe and despise them and want to see them harmed. That is your pure paranoia talking there. I don't hate conservatives. I don't lie awake at night dreaming up ways to make Republican lives' miserable. That is a sick fantasy that you have about me and it comes from a dark place.
So knock off the paranoid story telling and Jesse levels of dishonesty, please.
"It couldn’t be, that I actually think that we as libertarians ought to distinguish ourselves from the two major tribes and declare that we are unequivocally opposed to unilateral executive authority"
Here we go again.
I am confident letting my case rest as it is. After half a dozen paragraphs, Chemjeff continues to insist that "Not supporting" something is the same as opposing it. He offers no reason why these two differing definitions should be conflated, he just demands over and over that I give him credit for "Not supporting" mandates when he was demanding that others "Categorically Oppose" their own Tribe's infractions.
Imagine if we were talking about some other violation of liberty like someone shoplifting from a business we co-owned. On the one hand we have people trying to OPPOSE the theft by screaming "Stop that thief!" And on the other hand we have George criticizing those people, "Now, now! Thief is a strong word! We don't know that he is at his core a thief- maybe this is a one time thing and anyways maybe he needs to feed his family. Stop screaming at the thief, you dolt, and ask why it is we even sell those widgets. We should be mocking the sale of widgets, not obsessing over whether this guy is stealing them."
It is obvious that, while George didn't support the thief, George also did not "categorically oppose" him. He didn't even call out for someone to stop him. In fact, he actively criticized the people who tried to call out the violation of liberty.
So no, I do not believe Chemjeff when he says he really wants libertarians to "distinguish" themselves from the other tribes. Contrary to his statements, he did not act to distinguish himself from his tribe. He only demands that libertarians distinguish themselves from the right.
Here is a better analogy.
Imagine if we were talking about some other violation of liberty like someone shoplifting from a business we co-owned. On the one hand we have people who want to capture the thief and *execute him on the spot* for the flagrant crime of shoplifting. We also have people who think that the shoplifter is part of a worldwide conspiracy to deprive the shop owners of their livelihood and impose a New World Order. I, on the other hand, while opposed to theft, don't subscribe to this extreme punishment nor the paranoid conspiracy theory. And for this, everyone else things I'm actually 'pro-shoplifting' because I don't want to execute the shoplifter and I don't think Biden is deliberately trying to steal precious bodily fluids by hiring shoplifters to destroy conservative red America.
He only demands that libertarians distinguish themselves from the right.
And this is because I demanded libertarians accept vaccine mandates and mask mandates, just like Team Blue demanded, right? No, that isn't what happened.
And you never did address my claim above, that you completely invented this position of mine where you assert I wrote what I did solely to try to entrap Trump supporters. It is a bald-faced lie and you should apologize for it.
What a tragic waste of rhetoric! I muted the "Overt" sockpuppet as soon as it revealed itself a clu-clux cuckoo. Here is a list of Trojan Sockpuppets I ban based on attention to their mimetic patterns and propaganda parroting: https://www.tumblr.com/1929crash
Well since LT said it, it must not be the raving of a lunatic.
For the record, I have had exactly 2 accounts at Reason since I have been here. Overt has been the only account I use since about 2010. But that's the fun- if you don't have LT's...unique...take on the issues, including deriding pro-life people as female slave drivers- well then obviously you are not a PERSON who needs to be reasoned with. Nah, you must be a sock puppet.
But...anyone can read LT's site (just click his name, it's fun) and see why he might assume I am a sock puppet. (hint: it is because he is mentally imbalanced.)
Millions of illegals entering red states = bullshit emergency.
Two dozen illegals in Martha's Vineyard = actual emergency.
"...with perhaps only the tiniest of exceptions for catastrophic invasion...."
Oh, so you think Trump was in the right then?
You thought you'd curry favor with the commentariat by criticizing a Democrat governor taking the wrong side of a freedom issue by exercising a rhetoric trope?
It's the very first article in the history of Reason Magazine that criticized a Democrat!
Very first one ever!
The last one was also the very first one, as was the one before it!
The next one will also be the very first one!
And the one after that as well!
And here we see the leftist strawman be generated as those too dumb to become leftists actually can’t argue against the arguments their opponents make. Please watch this living leftist in the wild.
This leftist is also issuing mating calls to other leftists. We almost never get this on camera. Truly fascinating.
Can we skip the mating portion of this documentary? I would like to eat this weekend
As we have learned over the past 10 years, the #1 goal of the writers at Reason is to please the anonymous Internet comment forum posters, who by and large don't contribute a dime and represent a net cost to the publication. Yes, that's it. /sarc
We are seeing for the first time in camera a response calling for a third leftist to join the throuple in their mating ritual. Calls for the leftist tagged as Mike have been generated. The mating is growing intense.
The comments are useful in a way, in that they show how incredibly stupid and moronic tribalists are.
Finally I agree with sarc. The tribalist leftists here are stupid and moronic.
For example the comments on this article are informative.
The folks who are constantly saying Reason never criticizes Democrats are conspicuously absent.
That tells me that they're willfully ignorant, liars, or both.
Who are these folks? Can you provide a single example?
"the anonymous Internet comment forum posters,"
Pseudonymous, for the most part.
Look, infiltration works. The Civil War and Reconstruction saw Secret Service agents retasked to infiltrate the Klan with some success. Since then Jews in Hollywood infiltrated Nazi cells as liberals in Massachusetts infiltrated pro-Nazi and communist cells before WW2. Since then this business matured, and descendants include Nixon and Anslinger narcs, DEA, FBI and other officious owls of zealotry ferreting out unconservative, unchristian crimethink ever since the surrenders. We should expect nothing less, especially when Alabama rednecks invade the LP the say they did the DEMS in 1968. It's part of the game.
Anyone feel like refuting him, or should I take him on instead?
I think everyone reading his rants knows he’s in an advanced state of dementia.
“Is it an emergency when you’re losing an argument?”
I dunno, ask those “sanctuary” cities and counties that declared their own emergencies for getting what they asked for.
Now NC is getting into the “state of emergency” mix, so I guess we can just declare emergencies for anything now. How fun.
Can the NC legislature declare an emergency and zero out the budget for the executive?
But debate is healthy and it’s a bad idea to let politicians try to marginalize dissent with authoritarian stunts.
https://www.thefp.com/p/judges-ruin-high-school-debate-tournaments
But let’s say when the high school sophomore clicks Tabroom she sees that her judge is Lila Lavender, the 2019 national debate champion, whose paradigm reads, “Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. . . . I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging. . . . I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. . . . Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc.” ...
...Debate Judge Kriti Sharma concurs: under her list of “Things That Will Cause You To Automatically Lose,” number three is “Referring to immigrants as ‘illegal.’ ”
I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. . . .
All I see is "I will murder anyone who thinks differently than I think."
Kriti Sharma could have said it a lot faster and simpler:
"I will rule against anyone who believes that this is not the worst of all possible worlds. Every thing that is, is wrong".
Marxists have engaged in a revolt against reality since Marx. At least Sharma admits it.
All Marx had to contend with were mystical monarchic mercantilists. likewise of the looter persuasion. It was a fish-in-barrel carnival in the Opium War 1840s.
Marx contended with free market advocates and romanticists. The 19th-century Germans weren’t nearly as stupid as you think they were.
Aren’t Debate teams assigned their positions?
All comment threads would be 2/3 shorter if sarc and chemjeff didn't post and the long strings of reactions to them didn't exist. It's gotten boring everyone.
2nd this. Boring as fuck.
I admit I am occasionally guilty in regards to responding to his puerile victim mentality, personally have lyingjeffy muted. I agree that these two and those who respond do take up to much space on the comment section and apologize for when I contribute to this. Sarc's hypocritical victim whining just pisses me off sometimes. And his whole misrepresenting what people actually argue about reason (as above whenever he posts his stupid schtick about 'this story doesn't exist' and then cries later when people call him out for his bullshit). But I will work on ignoring his provocations in the future (because it's either deliberate provocation and dishonesty or a major level of lack of self awareness). Again, I apologize because I agree with you for the most part. On my good days, I just skim past anything he writes, because at this point I never expect him to write anything that is honest and meant for honest debate (despite his claims to the contrary). It's really not worth it. I really should mute him along with the few others I've muted (SPB, LyingJeffy, the bigot Misek, the bigot RevKirkland, and the certifiably insane SQRSLY). He's really not worth my time and I apologize for wasting yours when I do raise to his bait.
So, silence the libertarian types so girl-bullying KKKonservatives can spew forth with no criticism or opposition?
Where is the girl-bullying happening? Point it out.
It isn't bullying to make an individual accountable for his or her actions. You seem incapable of understanding or accepting this.
How dare the Repugs let the poors and darkies in the private schools with my pasty white daughter. – Cooper.
A reminder about the covid despotism of Cooper who boldly claimed “protesting is non-essential” before joining BLM protests later in the year.
https://www.wral.com/story/reopen-nc-protester-arrested-for-violating-stay-at-home-order-sues-gov-cooper/20830752/
Democrat, "It's clear that the Republican legislature is aiming to choke the life out of" ... [WE] mobsters Commie-Indoctrination camps!
Why YES! YES they are; because Republicans have a sense of Individual Liberty and Justice for all instead of [WE] Gov-Gun packers must RULE the world ideology.
LOL... What; did you think State Democrats were any different than Federal Democrats?
Justice? You get justice in the next world. In this one you have the law.
When laws are not applied equally, you don’t even have that.
So here we are.
"You know who else favors school choice?"
I thought everyone did. When have the people of North Carolina or anywhere else in the country not had the ability to choose the schools their children attend?
Wow... You're really out to lunch today. School is mandatory almost everywhere particular to districts. The only way to escape that is to BUY the Commie-Education as well as BUY a private Commie-Directed (BOE) approved one.
You can choose to send your kids to public school, private school or home school. You can even choose to send your kids to a school in a non communist foreign country. Or you can choose not to have kids in the first place. How is this out to lunch?
But you still have to pay for the public school, even if you opt out was his point. Time to brush up on your 'Hooked on Phonics' books.
You have to pay taxes if that's what you mean. These taxes pay for a military even if you are anti-war, for roads if you don't have a car, for hospitals if you aren't sick, for police, courts and prisons if you aren't a criminal, for schools if you don't go to school. And a lot more besides. The fact remains that his point was irrelevant. You are well within your rights to choose to send your children to a private school. Thousands already do and have been doing so since before the founding of the nation.
A private school "approved" by who again????
And nice (not really) job of tossing that tax charge into the wind of ignorance.
"A private school “approved” by who again????"
Presumably approved by the people who chose to send their children to them. I can't imagine parents going to the trouble and expense of sending their child to a private school they don't approve of. Can you?
Yes it happens all the time. Because of Gov-Gun enforced education "standards".
People have always had school choice. Sometimes they choose schools poorly.
paraphrased, "Only Gov-Guns can teach children!"
The constitution calls for national defense. Government education is not among the federal government’s enumerated powers.
You are free to choose private schools. Always have been. As you imply, it's been the case since the founding.
You actually aren't. Not when the government assigns a school for the kids.
So what does this state of emergency actually mean? Is the governor going to put masks on school buildings? Ban citizens from purchasing school supplies? Require school-age children to be locked in their homes?
Need more money and power. Details yet to be worked out.
No, the governor doesn't want children locked in their homes, he wants them locked in state schools where he can keep them away from the "bad" influence of their parents.
God forbid should the parents convince their children there only two genders and that men can't have babies which is grounds for CPS nazis to confiscate their children and place them in abusive foster care homes. You know, the sort of midnight raids with FBI SWAT teams.
It was done to threaten the Senate not to go along with the house to overturn his veto. Notice he didn't promise not to use executive orders in the future, just didn't issue one yet.
Apparently, "crisis" has been overused to the point where just calling it a "crisis" isn't enough anymore. We have to call it a "State of Emergency" now.
Like racism, fascism, and any of the multiple misusea of the suffix -phobia?
Also, for those who will chime in 'what about socialism, dehr?' note that the Democrats have multiple elected members who self identify as socialist and also a self identified socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union caucuses with them and has ran for their parties presidential nomination twice already. They also openly align with groups who openly espouse to be Marxists or that their leadership openly espouses to be Marxists.
And this isn't guilt by association, but pointing out that the DNC openly embraces these members, and have even given them positions of power within the party.
Cooper is the ultimate liberal hypocrite. Sends his daughters to a private school but refuses the same right for the people of North Carolina. Liberals are getting crazier and crazier by the day, just ask the people of San Francisco.
Since the people voted Cooper into the office, they have the right to take him out..... by what ever means necessary.
Gov. Cooper is an elitist liberal skank harboring the usual liberal/progressive woke b.s. of "I know what's best for you and you don't", commonly found among all liberal progressives.
School choice for me but not for thee.
AOC also went to a private girls school.
" refuses the same right for the people of North Carolina."
People in North Carolina have the right to send their children to a private school.
"AOC also went to a private girls school."
She's not a boy, is she? Then what's your problem? Americans have always had the choice of what kind of school to send their children.
"People in North Carolina have the right to send their children to a private school."
Tell that to all those families who can't afford anything other than a lousy public education. Are you opposed to handing them vouchers?
"She’s not a boy, is she? Then what’s your problem? Americans have always had the choice of what kind of school to send their children."
Read the line right before that: "School choice for me but not for thee." That's what people like AOC advocate for. How did you miss that? Don't be so disingenuous.
"AOC also went to a private girls school."
Maybe the critics of private schools have a point, then?
Curriculum decisions don't get resolved by giving families vouchers. What moronic shit logic is this?
If I have a voucher and I don't like what the school is teaching, I can send my kids to another school that doesn't teach that subject or use that method. The school gets to keep teaching the nonsense and my kids don't have to be a part of it. From a libertarian perspective, that solves the problem. If you want the state to mandate what everyone thinks and feels, then you are right, the problem is not solved.
Govt (the voucher issuer) decides what constitutes a 'school'. Liquor store doesn't qualify as school. Dickensian workhouse doesn't. Madrassa that teaches kids that their life mission is to conduct jihad against America doesn't.
What does constitute a school for voucher purposes? Generally, a curriculum that the Supremes have ruled is illegal if taught by government employees but is now legal if govt employees forcibly acquire the funds to hand over to a nongovt employee to teach.
Deductive. But it is also inductive if you look at the big picture and past performance. Copi is a good resource on both. There was a time when the national LP was libertarian and earned spoiler votes that got the looters' attention in a law-changing way: See joke (https://bit.ly/3QpGuKk)
The latest LP candidate supported the Marxist-led BLM. You don’t have ANY CLUE on what you’re talking about. You aren’t a libertarian.
No, he’s just some dementia ridden elderly dirty hippie. Hank is about as libertarian as our other great libertarians like Liarson, Groomer Jeffy, Shreek, etc..
Can't he just veto the legislation if he doesn't like it? He is the governor. Would there be enough to overturn?
There was a veto override already. He tried to have the Republicans "razor-thin SUPERMAJORITY" not do that.
I'll always love the phrase "razor thin supermajority"
Cooper is a lame duck, this is theater for the sheep. If he were running again he would not have pulled this idiotic stunt. There is nothing he can do to prevent the bill from becoming law.
The Dems in KKKarolinas are now battling their own Wallace voters who went over to the GOPee, just as the Klan did in 1928 to support Hoover's Prohibitionism against Whiskey Al Smith and FDR. OF COURSE the guy is freaking, since pecker-whacking of minor boys is no longer selling Thud Blight and girl-bulliers are re-enslaving women of BOTH colors like it was 1857 all over again! Aside from that and the GW Bush death sentence for potheads, the Dems are indistinguishable from their Brother Looters. Fratricide, let's face it, is beautiful when both are jerks.
The NC LP could weigh in on this. Their record is good and they are closer to the faeces flingfest than the rest of us. Do I hear a second?
"“They’re losing control over the minds of other people’s children, and they can’t handle it" Corey DeAngelis
About sums it up.
People should grip themselves and realize what the talking heads on the left are saying is not true. It is not an official "state of emergency". Cooper has no power to do that. He is a lame duck Governor with a legislature that is now a Super Majority on the other side and a Conservative State Supreme Court. People in NC got sick of the excesses of the left and voted out the wack jobs at all levels. Now Cooper can't just wave his magic wand for every progressive dream he has and get the legislature to rubber stamp it so he is throwing a tantrum.
His "state of emergency" is farcical and has no official meaning except a press conference.
BTW: He decried millionaires getting tax breaks to send their kids to private schools which is interesting becaue he is a millionaire that sent his kid to private school and he has gotten millions of dollars worth of tax breaks for putting solar panels on land he owns in the next county.
I should clarify. Cooper declared a "State of Emergency" but did not issue an Executive Order along with it so it is not an emergency, it's a political stunt.
So he’s just a typical demagoguing democrat socialist bitch?
"Cooper, a Democrat..." Why is the first impulse of Democrats always fascism?
Things would be far better if their first instinct was to slit their own throats or set themselves on fire.
At the risk of being indicted by some woke DA in some county and state that I've never visited, I say that Roy Cooper should be fed feet first into a running wood chipper. So should any other government turd abusing these so called emergency declarations in the service of their political agenda.
The revolution can’t come soon enough.
Why can't someone like Gorsuch simply declare a meta-emergency - an emergency caused by too many states of emergency? Issue an emergency executive order against states of emergency.
Do I have to think of everything.
I work online, go to school full-time, and have earned $64,000 so far this year. Through an online business opportunity I learned about, I've made a bunch of money. It's really extremely user-friendly, so I'm really delighted I found out about it. I work in this field. BONUS: Good luck.
Click here for the richsalary website. http://www.richsalary.com
This is what our closest allies are doing, you know the ones who backed GWB on WMD.
Now we’re backing them.
“Teacher Who ‘Misgendered’ Pupil Banned From Profession“
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/05/23/teacher-who-misgendered-pupil-banned-from-profession/
Maybe you don’t know what “allies” means. The UK is an ally of the US.
Fuckwit.
That was one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen on this site.
Misek has visions of swastikas dancing in his head, and plans for everyone.
I recognize my responsibility when I participate in elections fuckwit.
I missed it, I wish someone would summarize for me
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
You see your responsibility as raving nonsensically about the Holocaust, and your overall hatred of Jews.
Now fuck off you stupid Nazi bitch.
When an educator teaches your child that the mutilation and sterilization resulting from sex change surgery is “normal”, and expects them to recite it or fail, YOUR CHILDREN ARE BEING COERCED, only because our society tolerates lying.
I have the right to offend you. It’s called free speech and used to be valued. I don’t have the right to coerce you with lies. Society never openly tolerated lying like it does today. Truth and lies are regarded with equal detachment. Society has gone to shit.
Have you noticed how nice, polite and politically correct the communist Chinese and North Korean peoples are? They don’t offend anyone with their speech. They are also coerced.
There’s only one way out from our slippery slope of woke communism and censorship, criminalize lying.
I often wonder what the constitution would look like if it were created today. Where are the champions of freedom and inalienable rights? With the toll of over 60 million US abortion murders to date, I doubt that even the inalienable right to life would make the cut.
Funny, in plenty of countries that do criminalize lying, you'd be locked up. Might want to be careful what you wish for.
Which countries are you referring to?
The holocaust is a lie which I’ve refuted with the truth of correctly applied logic and science. Nobody ever has or ever will refute the truth I’ve shared.
Criminalizing lying ensures that truth is the only defence.
Today the truth that refutes the holocaust is a crime to share in every nation where it allegedly occurred.
Truth can’t be both a defence and a crime. I think it should be a defence.
Yeah, I’ve carefully considered it.