David Larson @DavidLarson83

Tax cuts only 'enrich the rich' if you accept the premise that money earned by anyone belongs to the government by default. Your earnings aren't a government allowance. They're yours. Reducing what they take isn't a gift to the successful—it's basic respect for property rights. Stop treating productivity as a crime that needs punishing. #ncpol #NCGA

The News & Observer @newsobserver

a month ago

As tax cuts enrich the rich, it’s time for a millionaires’ tax in NC | Opinion newsobserver.com/opinion/articl…

9 3 8 1K 0

Hospitals should compete in the marketplace — not drag each other through endless courtroom battles and bureaucratic red tape. North Carolina’s Certificate of Need laws let big hospital monopolies block new competitors for years (just ask AdventHealth after their Weaverville fight). Result? Higher costs, fewer choices, and worse care for patients. Time to let hospitals battle on quality and price instead of in front of judges. Read @DavidLarson83’s sharp take in @CarolinaJournal carolinajournal.com/opinion/hospit… #Healthcare

I would like to report a murder. Well done, @benshapiro. Thank you! 👏🏼

@RealCandaceO To everyone who reads this and believes it, I have a bridge to sell you.

@AviBittMD Russian bread is so amazing people used to queue up for hours just to get a slice.

@donaldbryson Liberalism arose b/c all sides preferred it to the 150 years of carnage that followed the Reformation. Letting people follow their consciences (w/in reason) was a major leap & I've seen no "post-liberal" proposal that doesn't look a lot like a return to pre-Westphalia status quo.

Tucker Carlson Builds Time Machine To Kill Baby Churchill buff.ly/UPBEzqz

@BrianBalfourNC The idea of "positive rights" seems to collapse when prodded. Did ancient chieftains violate their citizens' rights because modern health care & housing didn't exist yet? Do poor nations do so today? Or does the "right" to these things come & go based on scarcity & availability?

@Catholicizm1 So if they're right once, they may be right more times? Fair.

@TaylorRMarshall This is detraction. You do not quote the dozens more times he has praised Christianity and said how he wants Catholics and Protestants to go to church and build their communities and sees them as allies.

@SteveSkojec @kalezelden I think @elonmusk should consider "type blocking," where anyone who fits the profile of, say, a GroyperTrad in their follows/views/comments could be blocked in one action. Otherwise it's just whack-a-mole with countless anons that are iterations of the same mind virus.

@dlongenecker1 And there are plenty of historical events like Wounded Knee or the Salem Witch Trials that we continue to talk about & acknowledge as horrible despite having fairly few people compared to even the low conspiracy-nut Holocaust SSPX totals of 300k.

@SteveSkojec Trads saying "Lumen Gentium says Mediatrix" & others saying Catholics worship Mary should just read official Catholic view (LG-62). Basically, just like only God is good & we only participate in his goodness; only Jesus is mediator/redeemer & we (& Mary) just participate in that

@DineshDSouza

@kalezelden Would you be friends with Fuentes & go on his show? Your life, but I'm just curious what the principle is here. I think Anthony and Robb are even more dangerous than Fuentes because they give Jew hatred a more religious justification.

@MattWalshBlog At a certain point, refusing to answer the question on if you have sympathy for Groypers/Fuentes answers the question.

@kalezelden Every day they post stuff mocking Jews and the Holocaust. If you're going to call out Groypers, these creepy SSPX types have a lot of overlap with them. I know they're not in full communion with Rome, but they still give Catholics a bad name online. x.com/Catholicizm1/s…

Anthony @Catholicizm1

7 months ago

Have your opinions on the holocaust changed? If so,when?

124 4 162 15K 16

@kalezelden I respect a lot of your takes, but I think you made a mistake by going on Avoiding Babylon. They are big Fuentes advocates, along with this crazy ex-priest Mawdsley, who is even more like Coughlin. Here they are all talking about Fuentes doing God's work by bashing the Jews.

@tmsilverman I don't think it'd help the cause of sanity to make this a Catholic vs Jewish thing. The Catholics who foam at the mouth about Jews all day are part of a very small group of "Trads" that often are part of groups like SSPX or sedevacantists that aren't even in full union with Rome

A few days ago, I posted a brief statement of what I, as a conservative, seek to conserve. The first item on the list was what I regard as the foundational principle of all sound morality: the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family. Everything else I believe about ethics and politics in one way or another stands upon or presupposes that principle. Any form of “conservatism” (or “liberalism”) that denies it in principle or transgresses it in practice is alien to me. That is why I believe that the conservative movement, though it can and should be a broad tent, simply cannot include or accommodate white supremacists or racists of any type, antisemites, eugenicists, or others whose ideologies are incompatible with belief in the inherent and equal dignity of all. As a conservative, I say that there is no place for such people in our movement. So, while I understand and appreciate that politics is about “adding and multiplying, not subtracting and dividing,” and though I welcome conservatives representing a range of viewpoints on a wide swath of issues, I will not—I cannot—accept the idea that we have “no enemies to the right.” The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots, must not be welcomed into our movement or treated as normal or acceptable. Is this a call for “cancelation”? No. It’s a reminder that we conservatives stand for something—or should stand for something. We have core principles that are not negotiable. I am—notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—committed to the principle of free speech for everybody, including people with whom I profoundly disagree even on the most important issues, indeed, including racists and other bigots. But defending their rights does not mean allying with them, welcoming them into our movement, or treating them as representing legitimate forms of conservatism. I am also—again, notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—willing to engage people with whom I deeply disagree, so long as they are honest and are willing to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse, a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments. (It is pointless to engage bad faith actors, charlatans, and con men.) But, again, engaging and forcefully arguing against people who deny the inherent and equal dignity of all is one thing, welcoming them into the movement or treating their ideas and ideologies as representing legitimate forms of conservatism is something entirely different. Let me be plain. American conservatism today faces a challenge. That challenge comes from those who reject our commitment to inherent and equal human dignity. They are seeking acceptance in the conservative movement and its institutions, and they do so with the ultimate objective of transforming them by undermining that commitment. They openly preach white supremacy and the hatred of Jews, among other noxious ideas. They no longer feel the need even to try to hide their bigotry. It is incumbent upon those of us who maintain the “ancient faith” (to borrow a phrase from Lincoln) to make clear to friend and foe alike that we will not permit the integrity of our movement and its institutions to be compromised. We will not treat its foundational principle of inherent and equal human dignity as optional. On the contrary, we will insist on it, defending and advancing it with renewed dedication.