Total posts: 4,340
Left wing voters don't vote against their own interests on the issue of welfare; right wing voters do. One of the interests of people on welfare is, "keep taxes high so I can continue to live off of welfare (maybe until I find a job, maybe indefinitely)". Wanting to cut welfare while you are on it as an adult is hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
The Left: Ban Coal!
Me: Why?
The Left (TL): Because the CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.
Me: By how much?
TL: .02 degrees Celsius per year.
Me: Bah; that's nothing.
TL: OH NO! The concern is sea level rise!
Me: By how much?
TL: 2 Cm per year!
Me: Can't we just build sea walls?
TL: No! A lot of economic damage will be created from climate change!
Me: How much?
TL: About 3% of the GDP in North America (This is How Climate Change Could Impact The Global Economy | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)) by 2050.\
Me: The current US GDP is $25T. So about $.75T?
TL: Yes.
Me: How much would it cost to go all renewable?
TL: $8T.
Me: I think I'll pass.
TL: FASCIST!
Note; this is not an endorsement of republicans on some other issues. But on this issue, the GOP has more common sense.
Created:
If half the country can look at a long standing self-defense law and call is license to murder migrants there is no hope, war is the only outcome, and we'll win because we know how read plain text (among other things).
Pro life and pro small government unless they disagree with you, then you murder them in war with the government. Smh.
My hope is that half the country is not like that, rather they are being deceived by people like Kyle Kulinski and yourself.
Oh; about half the country agrees with Kyle Kulinski on this alright. If that offends you, IDGAF.
Kyle clearly has a duty as someone with a considerable audience to do due diligence, he's hurting American society and there is no excuse for it BUT I don't know for a fact that he's read the original law or the modification. If he has, then he is as bad as you.
I read the paragraph, but I didn't feel like reading the bills they referenced because that could be like 30 pages long. I didn't feel like reading it. I trust Kulinski over partisan hacks like yourself (and I agree with the right on many issues; so I'm not a partisan hack).
But for someone that said they wouldn't read any of my forums, you seem really interested.
Created:
@GP:
Self defense is no more murder than abortion is.
Correct; but this wasn't self defense as Arizona already had very right wing self defense laws. This was so you can murder undocumented immigrants who are walking on your property for a few seconds. If someone was just walking on my property and I knew they were just passing through, then I would leave them alone.
Oh, you mean like America should have stayed out of the Maidan revolution that started the whole Donbas war in 2014?Too late for that. Only now, if you say America should stay out, you are a traitor for questioning your unelected war department.
We should have stayed out then. I'm not a traitor for being pro isolationist, but those that think I am have free speech to believe and state that.
If this is the case for America, then the flag has last its meaning, and isn't worth respect anymore.
Alright; you have decided that standing for the flag is political; fine. So then don't be upset at BLM protestors who want to kneel and sit for it. I'm cool with anyone refusing to stand for the flag for any major political disagreement they have with American policy as it is free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
racism creates hierarchy
Valuing a human being over a chicken creates hierarchy; it doesn't mean communists want to try Chick Fil A eaters with a murder charge.
Putting one race above or under another is a very right wing thing to do.
It is right wing, but it is also collectivist. Right wing and collectivist aren't interchangeable nor mutually exclusive. The least collectivized ideology is American style libertarianism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
Communism is an extreme form of both political and economic Democracy where businesses and political institutions are run in the most decentralized and collectivist way possible.
This is the same as my first bullet point. Capitalism is individualistic; communism is collectivized; and racism is a subset of collectivism; treating people by their group rather than them as individuals.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Doubling down on crazy. You can leave any time the sanity gets too annoying.
Well to you, left wing and crazy are synonymous and there are a lot of people that think Arizona is trying to legalize murdering undocumented immigrants, so keep on calling half the country crazy and see how irrelevant you become.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just so you know I'm at the point that I'm just going to stop reading threads you create.
Then I won't read the rest of your post. Simple as that.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well a person who supports stealing from the American public is stealing from each person in America to varying degrees.
That's just taxation. Taxation is the only time when theft is justified. Abolishing taxes means abolishing government spending (so you would have to by definition defund the police) and I know you probably don't want to do that. Police officers are just as much government employees as teachers.
You are crazy enough to think switching "Lodging AND residence" to "Lodging OR residence" is a "law to kill migrants"
This is off topic and the bill was unnecessary if it merely protected self defense as Arizona already has very right wing self defense laws. The bill is designed so you can murder undocumented immigrants. If it was for self defense, then it wouldn't be needed as Arizona already has stand your ground laws. It's just Arizona's politicians trying to hang onto power because they know their state is heading blue when Mark Kelly won it by about 5 pts.
A person as crazy as you cannot be trusted about something far more complicated like assessing the true degree to which speech is free in a country, nor can you be trusted to tell the difference between "backing Russia" and believing Russia was provoked by anti-democratic coups caused by the US deep state.
You say that about anyone (even someone who has many right wing opinions) if they dare to criticize the right.
How nice, in that case they may simply decline your offer to pack because they're staying right where they are.
They can decline the offer; it shouldn't be a requirement to make them leave. But the ones who coined the term, "If this flag offends you, I'll help you pack" are conservatives. You wouldn't strawman them in the same way as when I co opt it against them.
Created:
Posted in:
The right usually defines communism in one of 2 ways:
1. The economic opposite of capitalism. This means they don't want well off people being forced to subsidize less well off people.
2. The free speech opposite of the first amendment.
With this definition, then the Catalonian independence movement would have no communist backing. They are the ones who get censored by the Spanish government in protests and the rich Catalonian province (by the standards of Spain) subsidizes the rest of the country. So you figure the Catalonian independence movement would be a right wing movement; but it turns out to be a left wing movement, therefore communists are more likely to back it.
How did this happen?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You don't get to choose what offends people.
What's your point?
What if he steals from his family to send the $100?
You can't steal from your own family. You can steal from people in your family; but not the family it's self.
I have a message for those who would clutch pearls over a lack of blind "nationalistic" loyalty
Blind nationalistic loyalty means, "America is always correct even when we send money to Ukraine". I don't agree with blind nationalistic loyalty. I disagree with my state and country plenty. But I'm not crazy enough to back anti-free speech Russia.
If you can't live with people who demand virtue for loyalty
I don't care who my neighbors are if they are harmless.
But if one prefers Russia to America, then why don't they move to Russia? It's one thing if you want to incorporate Russian ideas in US policy; it's another to prefer Russia to America.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I thought you were referring to National debt.
I was. The National debt is not make believe.
Created:
If you prefer this flag:
to this flag:
because of allegations that the US is, "woke" (which to you, is a synonym for left wing), then this flag:
inherently offends you and I'll help you pack. It also means you aren't America First, but Russia first.
I don't believe the US should be involved with Ukraine, but if you think we should take RUSSIA's side because Russia is allegedly less woke, then you put Russia before America.
America should strictly stay out.
A poll I read a while back indicated that only like 4% of the US population backs Russia (over America). The people who back Ukraine still put America first, but they are fine with helping other countries and they still love America. If a husband wants to donate $100 to charity and spend $40K on his family, does that mean he doesn't put his family first? No.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Yes our "freedom". In the mean time while there's war, there's money cost. While's there's peace, there's money cost. Somebody has to be obligated to make it.
Obviously war is more expensive than peace. And it's far more deadly.
War is legalized murder. End the wars.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Debt is make believe,
Not accurate. If you believe this, then I would like to loan $100K from you and never have to pay it back.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You assume Trump is going to read your post (which he won't).
A liberal who votes for Biden because of abortion will probably believe that Biden would re instate Roe on day 1 after it got repealed. That didn't happen.
All politicians work slower than the people that voted for them want them too. A lot don't even keep all of their promises at all. Did Trump bring back our jobs that were outsourced? No. There was more outsourcing under Trump despite him promising to bring jobs back. Did Biden keep his promise to create a public option? No.
Don't expect any politician to keep all of their promises.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I would probably vote for the one that would keep us out of the Ukraine.
For you, Ukraine war > Abortion Policy.
For the leftist, Abortion policy > Ukraine war.
How about you both get what you want on the issue biggest to both of you?
literally on day 1 trump makes a call that will end the war and piss off both putin and Zelensky.
No POTUS ended a war day 1 of their time in power. Trump will be no exception.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
This makes no sense trump has no influence on how the Supreme Court rules on murdering babies anymore and he is definitely less war inclined as we can see from the last 4 years and practically every year that preceeded Trump.
I give Trump on the, "Stay out of Ukraine" issue; credit where it's due. There; he has credit. I'm not a one issue voter. I'm still not voting for him.
So the lefts criticism of Trump is that although he is pandering with pro life views but would genuinely and dramatically reduce foreign interventionism that they are so passionate about being pondered to they would still support a war hawk like Biden
I didn't say the left was smart either. I'm not on the left like you think I am.
The left wants abortion legal and they want us involved with Ukraine. I imagine they think the 1st issue takes precedence to them. Biden gives them both of what they want; Trump neither.
Like would you rather vote for a pro choicer that wants us out of Ukraine or a pro lifer that wants us involved with Ukraine? You may have a preference, but if someone comes and says that's their preference, I wouldn't expect you to change your less important view to fit into the mold; and the hardcore left would do the same.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
How do you feel about sending several billion in money and equipment to the Ukraine?
I'm against it. Ukraine is not in NATO. I think NATO should be expanded to include the Causas countries. I would like to include Iran, all European countries not bordering Russia. More countries in NATO increases American security, therefore it puts America first.
This policy puts America first because Russia won't mess with a militarily united NATO.
How do you feel about the biggest criticism of the new conservatives is their isolationist tendencies?
It's not the biggest criticism they make of conservatives. You ask a generic sample of 100 left wingers if they prefer a pro choicer that is America first on Ukraine or a pro lifer that supports funding Ukraine's wars, I imagine a majority would pick the first. Because putting American Citizens first means the unborn get no consideration as they are not American Citizens until they are born (unless they go through the legalization process which they can't do because you need to be able to be out of the womb in order to apply for citizenship). So unless the 14th amendment is expanded or there is a supreme court ruling that gives zygotes conceived in America citizenship before more self sufficient dudes from Cuba (neither of which is the status quo, and the status quo should only change if it expands victimless or barely victim producing liberty), then I could argue one who puts American Citizens first both would be pro choice and not want to fund Ukraine, Israel, or any foreign conflict.
Created:
Hawks from both parties: The military protects our FREEDOM!
Me: From who?
Hawks: Russia! China!
Me: If these places won't invade Mongolia, why would they invade America?
Hawks: TRAITOR!!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Or instead of being snarky, you can actually implement my tax and spending plan to get us out of debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I agree except not with force.
Kids (especially young kids) should be forced to do things that are objectively beneficial to them. This is why the age of consent forces young kids to be abstinent; because sex at that age ruins their brain. It's why we don't let 8 year olds get drunk.
Besides, I am opposed to the idea of people giving birth to kids, but if they do give birth to them, they shouldnt cause them any more pain.
My pro liberty ethos (for those old enough) allows for pain though. If you want kids, then have kids. People should decide for themselves, if they can afford it, if they want to have kids or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think causing pain by forcing children to go to school is worse than not doing anything, even if not doing results in some starvation. Its still not you who causes the starvation.
And this is a crazy idea.
Kids should be taught.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Our society is stupid.
Not as stupid as a society where kids are free to not go to school.
It doesnt matter what I want. Maybe I am just a bad person and the moral system is good.
Or you can change your mind when someone makes a good point.
so would they as they would be starving since they would have no useful skills).Well, it would still be a better world.
Starvation is better to you than slightly painful school? I don't see how anyone smart can agree with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Taking bribes from people who have cases before your court isn't technically illegal for the supreme court. But everyone knows that is a terrible thing to do. So your comparison is ridiculous.
This doesn't change that you can't punish people for things that were legal when they did them. It would be like punishing a woman who got an abortion when it was legal for her to get one in the state she was in. Not even the most hardcore anti-abortion politician is advocating punishing women that got abortions when it was legal for them to do so. People are a product of their environment. With curroption, change the environment by outlawing curroption while not punishing those that were curropt when it was legal.
Democrats ruled against him because he was unqualified.Every anti Roe V Wade judge the right could present the democrats would argue is unqualified. The same thing for any left wing judge in the eyes of generic republican politicians.
I guess that depends on what Matt Walsh says, because I have no idea.Matt Walsh'es position is that a woman is an adult human with XX chromosomes (a majoritarian position).
The right wing has cried for years and years about how the constitution needed to be read literally.The right doesn't advocate that. Otherwise, if someone abuses a child, then they could get off under the, "right to privacy" law. If Warrants are an exception, then that could be applied to abortion as well if it is banned.
so you are only in favor of doing something democratic, if you also do something undemocratic at the same time to allow the unpopular party to have a chance at powerI am a pro balance guy; it seems every single way to increase the number of people who can vote in the election benefits democrats and would make the GOP irrelevant. Before it was obvious the electoral college helped republicans, nobody was advocating getting rid of it. Now, the democrats are advocating that position because they know it helps their team and they hope the GOP doesn't realize that (even though they do). Nobody was trying to make PR a state until they realized it would be super left wing, then the democrats adopted the idea.
the left wants to give more protection to people. A fetus is not a person. At some point a fetus becomes a person, but almost no one thinks that a fertilized egg should have the protections of a person. And that is what the right wants.
Around 40% of the US population believes a zygote deserves the same legal protection as a born human; if the position was at flat earth level popularity, then Roe V Wade would still be the law. This is not almost no one.
libertarianism is basically just a tool to help the rich.
Libetarianism's goal is economic and social liberty; so there is the low taxes on the rich (which they interpret as economic liberty) but then there is also the "end the war on drugs", "repeal Qualified immunity", "abolish ICE" that libetarians also support. Most are even pro choice. Claiming it's just, "low taxes for the rich" is inaccurate. You agree with libetarians on many social issues.
there is no such thing. The government has had the power to mandate vaccinations for a very long time.
Well with the COVID vacciene, that power doesn't exist and there are a lot of people who didn't want the COVID vax, so it looks like the government won't be able to exclude 30% of the population from society.
yes, they support the profits of the gun lobby who are generous donors.
The right supports the gun lobby as much as the left supports the planned parenthood lobby.
The left's reason for wanting abortion to be legal isn't, "so planned parenthood can make money"; it's, "People should have the right to abort their kids".
The right's reason for wanting AR 15s to be legal isn't, "so the NRA can make money"; it's, "People should have the right to own AR 15s".
obama picked centrist judges.
Obama picked Pro Roe Judges; Trump picked Anti Roe judges.
Republicans voted for him because he was a right wing hack that would vote in their favor.
So hackish for the republicans, that he voted against Trump when he claimed Biden won in 2020.
What they did wasn't illegal, but they definitely abused their power to seize control of the senate.
It was more hypocritical than anything else. But the solution would be to impeach all judges that were picked during an election year (or maybe have rotating judges; and I prefer the 2nd). I don't like people having power for too long.
1) the people opposing abortion are the same people who oppose things to prevent abortion. Such as sex ed for teenagers so they know how to safely have sex without getting pregnant. Right wing people fight against this, but then blame the teenagers when they get pregnant.
I live in a blue state, so I grew up with safe sex. But they should be promoting things like vasectomies for dudes so the abortion rate pretty much doesn't exist anymore. It's safer, although I'm waiting until marriage (not religion; I'm an atheist).
2) The right wing position is entirely hypocritical. They don't actually care about children, they care about controlling women. If they actually cared about children, then they would want to support children after they are born. Funding orphanages, child benefits etc. But right wing people fight to cut this kind of support. The moment a baby is born, they don't give a shit any more.
Arguing that it's hypocritical to be anti abortion and fiscally conservative is like arguing it's hypocritical to be both against murdering homeless people and not wanting them to get free homes. You can disagree with the 2nd claim if you want, but don't act like it's hypocritical.
Having government funded vasectomies would help to address the financial issues with your idea though. But it definitely isn't a solution to the entire problem.
I would be fine with this. However, to address the fact that some don't work, you can conduct post vasectomy sperm samples to make sure the vasectomy works and maybe make it so there is no plausible chance the vasectomy is reversible, but store pre vasectomy sperm in a hospital freezer so it doesn't have to be reversible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I guarantee you, if you let kids not go to school and leave the choice up to the kid, then maybe 5% of our kids attend and then our society would be stupid down the road. Parents know what's better for the kid in some situations than the kid.
The pain of the education system trained the minds who built the computer you use. I'm pretty sure you would want those people to endure painful education. Otherwise, you would be way worse off (and quite frankly; so would they as they would be starving since they would have no useful skills).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
By that logic, since school causes pain to students, that we should ban school. You may be preventing long term pain, but not preventing pain is not the same as causing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It's instinctual. We go to war to keep them safe. We go to work and are willing to put I 100 hour weeks to keep them comfortable. Women are superior in that respect.
The vast majority of men don't fight, but it your argument is, "If you are willing to go to war for someone, then you are inferior to them", then I guess soldiers are inferior to homeless people who aren't in war. Women and men both work in the workforce at comparable amounts, and being a stay at home Mom doesn't make you superior to your husband who works. But with this logic, I would argue men are more capable and therefore are superior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Not all murder is equal. The murder of an infant in the woman or even just born is less reprehensible than murdering women and children and even men though the value of man's life is also less important than women or children
I do believe the life of a newborn is less valuable than a woman/man. What makes a woman's life more valuable than a man's life (assuming all else like income and life expectancy left is equal)?
Vasectomy is also unethical for the same reasons abortion is.
How? Pre vasectomy sperm can be stored in a hospital freezer if the couple ever wants to have kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It just doesn't have the same ringtone to it to not have the N in it, especially since ANAL sex reduces the abortion rate by reducing the vaginal sex rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
We get it; you are pro choice.
But next time; if you are going to make that comment, then make it to someone that actually is ANti Abortion Legalization (or as I call it, ANAL). I don't agree with the ANAL position as of now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
If I'm pro vegetables, no matter which vegetable we're talking about, I'm pro that vegetable because it is a vegetable.
Correct. If one is pro choice, then no matter which choice we're talking about with abortion, they would be pro that choice.
Should abortion be legal? Yes or no.
People tend to shy away from saying pro abortion as it's too grim. Pro choice lands a softer mitigated blow.
For me, if a woman has a pregnancy that results in a 50% chance of her dying and she chooses to carry on with it, then I'm fine with that. But it's her choice to make.
Created:
Posted in:
Here is the video.
Note: He never debunks the arguments presented by the people he is critiquing. They claim (emotionally which isn't my taste) that abortion will harm those that can get pregnant (I'm not trying to make this about transgenderism, but fetuses can't get pregnant regardless of their chromosomes). Ben Shapiro attacks their character instead of the points they are making.
A mass murderer can say that the sky is blue and the sky is still blue. Character is irrelevant to the message you send.
Ben Shapiro never debunked their points, he merely attacked their character instead of attacking the idea they were stating.
The closest thing he said was, "You are killing your baby girl". The Pro Abortion Legalization (PAL) crowd has argued that regardless of the gender of the fetus, that it should be legal for most pregnancies to be aborted due to concerns of pregnant individual's right to bodily autonomy (most women aren't pregnant right now, so women shouldn't be confused with pregnant person).
If you are Ben Shapiro, you then justify why it is okay to force someone to be pregnant for 9 months based on consensual sex in order to save the life of a zygote. He would have to defend that position if it is what he believes.
He doesn't; he goes after character, and then dodges to make it about Trump.
If he wants to talk about Trump, then he makes the video, "Trump was involved with .... " and he doesn't then make the title, "Abortion ... ". If you want 2 separate videos, then do 2 separate videos. Just stay on topic.
But if Ben Shapiro takes the pro life position (or as I call it, the ANti Abortion Legalization (ANAL) position), then I have no issue with it. But then he has to defend that instead of attacking irrelevant aspects of the person he is critiquing. It would also mean he would have to disagree with the abortion policy of ISRAEL (which has very left wing abortion laws) (Israel eases access to abortion, days after US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade | The Times of Israel).
He won't do this though because he wants to appeal to Israel and to the ANAL movement (solely because both are backed by republicans) despite the contradiction (while Palestine is very ANAL in it's abortion policy). The left wingers are against genocide.
How does the right back both the ANAL position while backing a country in a war where they have the PAL position and their opponents have the ANAL position? If abortion isn't your big voting issue, then fine. But for a lot of ANAL advocates, it's their sole reason for voting republican, so you would expect them to be anti Israel.
But people have parties to stick too.
My position is I am neither too strongly PAL or ANAL; I'm Pro vasectomy; it solves the concerns of the PAL and ANAL crowd with abortion. I will get a vasectomy before I have sex and I should since my primary abortion position varies a lot from time to time, but I'm leading more towards the PAL side now because every pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'd rather if someone want to read an unpopular book (like a pro Hitler book), then they can just order it on Amazon. Because it's a bad idea to have a pro Hitler book in school in the library. It's banning unpopular books from school, but not everyday life.
But pro LGBT opinions poll at more than 10%. So does the, "What is a woman?" book. Have them both in public school libraries.
For city libraries, I would have the minimum percentage be 0%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You can preach from the bible and nobody can stop you because that's free speech. That doesn't mean you can use public funds to assign children bible reading assignments.
That I agree with (along with pro LGBT books), but I don't think there is anything wrong with pro LGBT book or Bibles in the library for kids to check out if they want too.
Banning sexually explicit material from school libraries and curriculum is just the absolute most basic level of regulation (along with banning teaching naziasm as a good thing).
This I agree with. I don't even think pro Nazi books should be allowed in the library.
But I think an idea must have at least 10% national support (or a more extreme stance) in order for there to be books about it allowed on the library; if the view gets over 90% popularity, then it can be taught in the classroom. All abortion books can be in the library, but not in the classroom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well then they won't have a problem with banning depictions of underage anal sex in schools....BUT THEY DO and fucks like you give them cover by believing and spreading whatever they tell you.
I like blunt; so I ignored your censor and bolded what I thought you meant. Being polite to me is irrelevant; I care about facts more than decorum (I'm like Ben Shapiro on that).
But yeah; ban porn books in school and let LGBT activism books be present in schools because it's free speech. Problem solved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Already explained.
If you already explained it and I didn't have my mind changed the first time, then why do you expect anything different now?
This is misinformation, debunked at my inconvenience:
It's what I heard from somewhere else and I think I posted the video. But I don't think you watched it because you believe republicans can only do wrong when they agree with the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
2. Military genocideWrong which is why the biggest opponents of military interventionism is the right wing currently
It's this weird situation. The right doesn't want us in Ukraine, but they want more military money. The left wants us in Ukraine, but they want less military money. I think a smaller military budget is more pro small government than the national demographics of which country gets military aid. I think we should cut the military budget probably to 1% of our GDP and stop funding Ukraine.
4. DrugsKinda except they want to set up free heroin locations and free subaxone.
I don't agree with free drugs; but I don't think the left wants to make drugs free unless it's for rehabilitation purposes. I live in a state where commonly used drugs (weed) are legal; no left winger I met told me they want weed to be free.
5. Qualified immunityIt's a mixed bag here. Different sides bitch about qualified immunity for different groups
Qualified immunity is more government power. Libertarians don't like government power.
7. TransgenderismWrong they want transitions subsidized and to push this sort of shit on kids in school
When I said this, I meant they want less government restrictions and more parental rights for who is allowed to get a gender surgery. They don't want to make it taxpayer funded (at least not yet unless it's a UHC ethos which the right is more libertarian on but the reason the right doesn't want UHC is because it would mean you would raise taxes on the globalists and to a lesser extent, the middle class). Now I don't agree with UHC; I am totally alright with poor inner city or trailer park children dying from lack of healthcare because I don't like raising other people's kids with my tax dollars and I'm fiscally libertarian. But I don't expect everyone to have this view. I think to get a gender surgery, you either need to be at least 16 or be on hormones at least 1 year or both.
It's laughable that conservatives are being fired for conservative opinions are meeting fierce opposition to even speaking on campus and are being deplatformed left and right and yet you think liberals are more pro free speech.
I've been blocked on another account I have by about 30 or so people; about half of them are left and about half of them are right wing. When Ye went anti semetic, I heard left companies saying, "We support his right to state these horrible opinions, but we just don't want to associate with him." and boycotting people is free speech. Just like you wouldn't want to watch an NFL game with Colin Kaepernick and Taylor Swift. Just like a liberal would boycott Kid Rock music. Boycotting is free speech. Big Tech actually censoring conservatives is Big Tech boycotting those conservatives. If you want to protect the free speech of people online, then it makes sense for the government to buy out Big Tech and then conservatives can say whatever political messages they want on a government owned internet which is subject to 1st amendment protections.
But this requires more government power and government spending, which conservatives claim to not like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If underage homosexual rape depictions in school libraries is free speech, then the mirrored position for "actual nazis" would be to have nazi propaganda cartoons in schools.
The left doesn't want to promote porn books in schools.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion; it means they want abortion to be legal despite it killing the unborn.
Pro life means you want to ban abortion in order to save the unborn despite the risk to the mother's life because the certainty of fetal death is a bigger concern than the possibility of maternal death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the bill was merely protecting, "self defense", then wasn't this already the law in Arizona? Or is Arizona just now a stand your ground state?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I can infer that you are no longer someone who can be reasoned with from unmitigated absurdity
How do you come to that conclusion? If RM wanted to only ban some speech, then he would have said, "The difference between why pro lifers should get free speech despite their speech being threatening to women and Nazis shouldn't despite their speech being threatening to Jews is because of _____."
He didn't say this; so he is a coward for refusing to be upfront with his actual beliefs as a non-free speech absolutist (for political ideas).
the fact that you continue to refuse to take responsibility for spreading egregious misinformation.
How is this misinformation? If they denied it, then they can correct me while explaining how pro lifers should get more free speech protections than Nazis (when both groups of people state speech that is threatening to some group).
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
1 million housecats would win.
A million minutes is about 2 years. A tiger can't beat 1 million cats unless they killed one every minute for 2 years (assuming no sleeping).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Best.Korea
I recommend you read Ebuc's post and RM's lack of posting. I can assume they believe that all conservative speech is hate speech and therefore want to censor it. I didn't tag greyperrot because he blocked me, therefore he believes the pro censorship position for views he finds abhorrent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
There is of course some hate speech that associates with threats to other humans, --if not some animals-- without logical common sense critical thinking necessity to do so.I have no problem with such comments being banned.
All conserative comments can be argued to meet this definition.
Advocating banning abortion can be argued to be threatening to women. Wanting to cut government spending can be argued to be threatening to those that rely on government spending (the elderly and poor people). Any sort of right wing RSG (Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender) comment can meet this definition as well (and the main reason poor whites vote republican is because of RSG issues). Pro Israel speech? It's threatening to Palestinians.
You want to ban all conservative speech (and as long as you are open about this, I'm fine with your right to advocate this position even if I personally don't agree) because all conservative speech is threatening to someone. Just understand that and be upfront with it if it's what you believe instead of saying, "Ban threatening speech" (which is a negative connotation for conservative speech in your opinion).
All conservative speech is hate speech. I think it should all be legal and not ban worthy; but people who aren't free speech absolutists don't hold this view.
Created:
Posted in:
Areas the GOP establishment is small government:
1. Tax cuts for globalists.
2. Gun rights (unless trans).
3. Free speech (unless it’s an LGBT book). They mean free speech for actual Nazis, and those that want to Terminate the constitution (Trump).
Areas the Democrat establishment is small government:
1. Immigration
2. Military genocide
3. Abortion
4. Drugs
5. Qualified immunity
6. LGB
7. Transgenderism
8. (At this point in time) Free speech. I see them advocating for stopping the ban of LGBT books in schools, and they have accepted that actual Nazis should get free speech. If only the conservatives thought the same thing about LGBT pride indoctrination books.
1. Tax cuts for globalists.
2. Gun rights (unless trans).
3. Free speech (unless it’s an LGBT book). They mean free speech for actual Nazis, and those that want to Terminate the constitution (Trump).
Areas the Democrat establishment is small government:
1. Immigration
2. Military genocide
3. Abortion
4. Drugs
5. Qualified immunity
6. LGB
7. Transgenderism
8. (At this point in time) Free speech. I see them advocating for stopping the ban of LGBT books in schools, and they have accepted that actual Nazis should get free speech. If only the conservatives thought the same thing about LGBT pride indoctrination books.
9. Parental rights to raise theybies. Conservative parents have the parental rights to homeschool their kid. The same should be true for LGBT advocate parents.
Who seems like the biggest defenders of liberty?
I don’t like either party, but I think I know the answer to this question.
Who seems like the biggest defenders of liberty?
I don’t like either party, but I think I know the answer to this question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I will bold all of my disagreements, although this is how people should be thinking (even though I have some disagreements):
Capitalism - good
Communism - bad
Abortion - bad, but it should be legal.
Religion - bad
Gay - neutral
Trans surgery - neutral, unless the person getting it is both under 16 and on hormones less than 1 year, then bad.
Trump -bad
Biden - bad
Russia - bad
Israel - bad
Ukraine - bad
Child marriage - bad
Veganism -good
Vegetarianism - good
Porn -neutral, but if you are a pedophile, then bad for you unless it's animated.
Smoking - bad
Drugs - bad
Guns -good
Accepting migrants - good
Government healthcare - bad
15.5/(17+3)=.775
77.5% agreement is pretty good in my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The bottom line is our state of mind. All speech influences our state of mind. My mind is looking forward to a good healing { immunity } sleep.It is much easier to hate without a good nights sleep. Sleep on that for a while. Refresh the nervous system. Start anew.
You dodged the question.
Would you ban all conservative speech due to it being, "hate speech"?
If you dodge this question or refuse to answer in a week, then I will assume the answer is yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm pointing out that you only care about corruption when it is politically useful to you
I don't want any politicians corrupt, but the penalty for corruption shouldn't be termination (even if it's corruption before it was outlawed). Otherwise,if the minimum wage is $14 an hour in a state and it bumps up to $15/hour on Jan 1, 2025, then you would have to punish all companies that pay below $15/hour even before Jan 1, 2025. After Jan 1, sure; but before Jan 1, you can't. You can't punish people for things that they do when it was legal when they did the action.
It is the republicans that insist on packing the court with politically chosen judges.
Every POTUS wants judges that will rule in their favor. There is a reason all the republicans voted for Kavenough and all the democrats voted against him (with very few exceptions if any).
the issue is that people are more complicated than single issues.
Are you willing to concede any issue to the republicans where the right wing position is the majority? Most republicans according to Pew believe that whether a person is a man or woman is decided by sex at birth and cannot be different than the sex. Does this mean the left should fall lock step with Matt Walsh on this issue? I wouldn't expect them too.
But lots of people believed republican lies when they said that they wouldn't support overturning roe.
If Kavanaugh was pro choice, then the GOP wouldn't appoint him. The constitution is like the bible; left wingers will interpret it for their best interests and so will the right.
When roe was overturned and republicans started racing to ban all abortions as fast as they could, people realized that the republicans had been lying to them and it drove them to vote in large numbers.
Democrats did well in the midterms not because of abortion (because people have known the GOP was anti-abortion legalization for a long time). It's the election denial stuff (the stuff that is new) that turned many people away from the GOP. Abortion is an older issue than, "Did Trump win in 2020?" (he did not).
true. And donald trump has never won the popular vote. He lost to hilary by 3 million votes in 2016. He lost to Biden by 7 million votes.
Correct; and although I support getting rid of the electoral college (under the condition that the right gets something in return; otherwise it's just making it easier for democrats to win federal elections like raising the voting age to 21 so it's unknown which party has the advantage overall), it is currently the rule, so you play by the rules until they get changed. But non electoral compact states with democrat majorities haven't joined the electoral compact, so they will preach about the need to get rid of the electoral college, but when they get in power, they don't act on it.
no. the left's goals are usually about giving more protection, more services to people.
The left does not want to give more protection to the unborn (and this is fine, but then don't act like it's the left's consistent ethos). The libetarians preach small government and liberty and they give the left credit when it's due, so their ideology is consistent. But those that want more protection for everyone are the safeterians; who prioritize safety above pretty much everything else.
The right is about stripping rights
Only some rights. They care less about gay rights and trans rights and immigrant rights, but they support unvaccinated rights and gun rights, although if there was a trans person who was vocal about how much they didn't want to get vaccinated, then I don't think the right would cover them like they did Kyrie Irving (black unvaccinated guy).
The left didn't really care about the supreme court until it became super obvious how far republicans were willing to go to pack the court. Now that those right wing judges are stripping people of their rights, it has become a literal matter of survival. But only as a response to the right's politicization of the court.
Obama wanted judges that agreed with him over half of the time; same with Trump; same thing with Bush (it's how you got bush appointed Clarance Thomas; there is a reason Bush didn't appoint RBG).
The Supreme Court is former presidents having power. Trump was very lucky to get 3 judges (and this made pro choice advocates very unlucky).
I'm pro choice, but abortion is very avoidable; if a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, then she should make sure her boyfriend has a vasectomy before they have sex and that the vasectomy gets doctor approved (and pre vasectomy sperm is stored in a hospital freezer if kids are ever wanted). It solves the abortion debate.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If the alternative to work is starvation, then I would much rather work.
Created: