Invisible Man
Member

Regardless what you think of the term, it's an existing term that has a meaning, and the OP used it in its normal way. It's also a term that is closely related to the movement this whole website is based on, and that has historically been used here a lot without anybody having a problem with it. You apparently didn't know what the Old Right was, and disputed the OP on the basis of that misunderstanding on your part. And now you want to complain about the existence of the term itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States)

Old Right is an early-to-mid-20th century movement.

The OP cited examples of Old Right figures who opposed tariffs. I don't doubt that you can find a counterexample or two. But if so, how would that not be just as much cherry picking on your part?

Tariffs should be voluntary. Anybody who supports tariffs should send extra money to the federal government based on however much stuff they buy from other countries, and as for why the rest of us don't do that, they should mind their own business.

..

I think it's the opposite of what you say. It may have had some steam among a limited subset of the population before that debate. And if so, that was because of the second part of what I said, Trumpers bringing it up just because it served the purpose of being handy anti-immigration propaganda. But it didn't blow up until Trump brought it up in the debate. I had never heard of the story, and neither had most other people.

Am I wrong? Is the bolded part something you disagree with? If so, I'd love to hear whatever argument you can come up with for your position. Hopefully something better than, "because Sarah McLachlan said so."

It's an issue that Trumpers suddenly decided to care about because Trump told them to, and it proved to be handy for anti-immigration propaganda.

On behalf of whites, please stop calling the rest of us your people. We aren't.

That is not a flaw. If the majority of people are wrong about something, we should present arguments to change their minds, not just go along with them because they're the majority. Much less should we suddenly decide to jump on the bandwagon just because Trump did. And if that's not what's happening here, then please find all the threads over the years where anybody in this forum ever thought that other people eating feral cats, dogs, or geese, was an issue of any importance. Notably, you haven't even tried to argue that anything I've said is even wrong. Your position seems to be essentially, "Yes, it's true that the lives of the people of Springfield have been improved by the sudden decrease of the feral cat population. But Sarah McLauchlan is against eating cat meat, so it would be dumb of us not to pretend she's right."

That is the way it looks.

Then let's talk about that. Instead of this non-issue of people eating cats.

Then what is your point? If it's not about government intervening, what's the issue here? If people aren't violating the rights of other people, mind your own business and let them be.

No. My argument is that it's none of the government's business. Listen to the argument you're using here. Any time you see something that you don't think is absolutely and universally right, you think the government should intervene. And you're a mod here.

You could have fooled me. I'm not ignoring public opinion, and I'm also not running for office. But when it comes to saying what's true or false, or right or wrong, I don't hold my finger up to the wind and let the Lilith Fair crowd tell me what the answer is. If my view is a minority view, then I'd rather do my best to change minds than just change my view so that I could be in the majority, like what you apparently do.

Be that as it may, that doesn't really support Dannnnnnno's claim.

Google "Springfield Haitians eat cats" and see what those regular people will read when they do that.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

In his defense, that's a natural thing to assume.

Here's a new Trump/Vance '24 Billboard I just saw.

Right. You just go ahead and keep teaming up with the founder of the Lilith Fair. As long as that's what Trump tells you to do. Why bother thinking?

Yes, Trumpers and leftists. But I repeat myself.

Then quit talking about all this other nonsense that doesn't even in the slightest bit reflect poorly on the Haitian immigrants and focus on that. The whole point of the Trumpers bringing up all this other stuff is so that they can play these games where they can show evidence of somebody eating a goose and claim that counts as evidence of somebody else stealing their neighbors pet. And also, when you're doing that, keep in mind that each case only pertains to the actual individuals involved in that case, and nobody else. If you actually find a solid example of somebody who stole somebody's pet, and the thief was a Haitian, then that counts as one Haitian stealing a pet, not "the Haitians" stealing pets.

Those other people need to learn to mind their own business. Trumpers calling 911 because they saw someone eating something they think is gross are just as bad as people who called Walz's tip line on their neighbors for not social distancing during COVID.

I don't see any need for me to admit that at all. My point applies whether they're eating them or not. But if they are, then good. It's a win-win. Trumpers are so caught up in criticizing this that they haven't even taken a step back to ask themselves what's even wrong with it if it's true.

Here's something interesting I just learned. It wasn't illegal to eat cat and dog meat in the US until 2018, when Trump signed a law banning it. https://www.wrdw.com/content/news/President-Trump-Signs-the-Farm-Bill-Making-Dog-and-Cat-Meat-Illegal-in-the-United-States-503308841.html I don't know if that was discussed here at the time, but I totally missed it when it happened. Just another example of Trump's tyrannical ways. Now I'm beginning to understand why the Trumper's are so inexplicably up in arms about this. They're not just incentivized to support their leader's dumb remarks, they also are incentivized to defend his dumb law. Also, as a point of order, this whole thread should be in the Freedom Living forum.

Perhaps. But I suspect that those who benefit from increased domestic surveillance should be able to find a pretext for that in this situation that will not adversely affect Israel.

Mr. Pence, please post another map showing all the Iranian navy assets surrounding the USA for comparison.

I see no possible way to construe this as anything other than a positive reason to welcome the Haitians and thank them for helping to solve this problem.