Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
How do you propose "not being a financial drain" on society and by, "taking personal responsibility"? How do you propose "not being a criminal?" Does this extend to, "Don't speed, it's the law." because most Americans break that law.
Created:
Posted in:
The following ideas I don't like because of a reason you can figure out and nobody has a plan for how they will do it:
1) "Lets reform education." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you reform education?
2) "Lets end single motherhood." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you end single motherhood.
3) "Lets reform the immigration process." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you reform immigration?
4) "Lets make it harder to get a gun." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you make it tougher to get a gun?
5) "Lets increase taxes on the rich. My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How much are you going to raise taxes on the rich and what would be the point of it?
6) "Lets cut taxes (in general)" My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How much are you going to cut taxes and what government programs are you willing to cut to make it a reality? Will we go deeper into debt. If you or a parent is a federal employee, are you willing to but their salary to make your tax cuts a reality?
7) "Lets reform/fix up the foster system". My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How, specifically, are you willing to reform the foster system?
All these lazy thinkers (on both sides) advocate these very vague, good sounding ideas to try and make America better in their view. But nobody has a plan for how they would accomplish their goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
That's false. Democrats believe in paying employees a high minimum wage so, unlike Republicans, we have no use for undocumented labor to illegally underpay. As Donald Trump proves every day, demand for undocumented labor comes overwhelmingly from industries famously dominated by Republicans- mining, agriculture, meat packers, etc. As soon as Republicans like Trump stop hiring illegal labor, the undocumented will stop coming to America.
Most democrats don't want to deport the undocumented because they claim, "No human is illegal".
Democrats do demand that the undocumented peoples that are here be treated with basic Christian values- food, shelter, the fundamental human rights on which our nation is founded, etc.
America is not a theocracy, so what the bible says on any political issue (like helping the poor with federal funds) is irrelevant. I also make this argument about abortion, even if I were pro life (I don't care what happens to Roe V Wade).
If you want the undocumented to get free shit from the government, take care of them YOURSELF. Your free to adopt some random undocumented person from El Salvador and give him, "food, shelter, the fundamental human rights". America should not give free shit to foreigners (that includes Israel). America first.
But no, you are entirely wrong to think that Democrats want undocumented immigrants.
Your logic: I don't want the undocumented in America, but if they come to America, I want to give them free stuff.
Me: If you give the undocumented free stuff to be here, they will come here.
I just don't care if they are here as long as all government programs that they receive are 100% eliminated (and as someone who lives in a blue county, if these were the terms that they came here under, I don't mind them being in my town). No free shit to foreigners. Taxation is theft and all charity (from healthcare to medicaid) should be paid by consenting entities. If you want more medicaid going to the poor, donate to organizations that give free healthcare to the poor. If you want more housing for the homeless, adopt a homeless person. All charity should be done at an INDIVIDUAL level instead of the government level because the individual consents, the government does not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The left wing resistance to deportation is mostly about empathy for people who have built a life for themselves being torn apart from it.
So if the undocumented built a life for themselves in America, they and their family can just go to a blue county.
You can rationalize it all day long, that doesn’t change the pain it causes.
If I cared about other people's pain in the SLIGHTEST, I would sponsor children in Africa who are in much more pain than most undocumented people. But since most of society isn't willing to sacrifice for others, they don't care about the pain undocumented people endure.
The rise is left wing passion for this topic is not out of no where, it’s a reaction to the right wing’s increase of bigotry and racism being not only tolerated but featured amongst party and group affiliated leaders.
The 10th amendment solution of sending the undocumented to blue states isn't bigotry. If your definition of bigotry is "not wanting the undocumented in your town", then the left is being bigoted because they refuse to accept undocumented immigrants from red counties in their town.
You don’t pick up groups of people and dump them in US cities or other areas in the US. Our politics may be intensely divided, that doesn’t mean we literally divide the country.
The country will be less divided if this happens; both the "pro undocumented, diversity is a strength, 3rd world immigrants make America great" camp and the, "Build a wall, secure our southern border. These foreigners are taking our jobs" camp are happy because the undocumented and their families go where they are wanted in the US.
Most undocumented immigrants in the US live in blue counties, so this is a solution that can work for everybody.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m sure many would disagree with that assessment, but however you would characterize it the point is that our beliefs do not live in a vacuum so the way we approach one issue will be the same for nearly all issues. This is why when someone for example buys into one conspiracy they’re more likely to believe others.
People who are conspiracy theorists are consistently skeptical of the government and institutions. They could be either republicans (who are also skeptic of the government) or democrats (skeptical of institutions like big business). Whether or not one is a conspiracy theorist should have NO impact on their stance on abortion or their stance on the death penalty.
If everyone was split 50/50 you would be calling that evidence of people not thinking for themselves.
If someone happened to agree with the left half the time and the right half of the time, I might not agree with all their conclusions, but I would relize that they are thinking for themselves.
This whole charge of not thinking for oneself is pointless without specific and valid evidence.
It's because most people either agree with the left over 90% of the time or the right over 90% of the time.
On the following issues:
- Additional gun control
- Abortion ban/Additional abortion restrictions
- Mask mandate
- Qualified immunity support
- Mandatory vaccine
- Climate change denial
- Anti religious freedom
- Gay marriage discouraging
- More Environmental regulations
- Death penalty for murder
- Tough on vape
- Relocating peaceful (undocumented/illegal) immigrants(to either their home country or to blue counties).
- Tough on Nicotine
- Tough on weed
- Affirmitive action
- Tariffs
- Medicare for all or public option
- Increase Military spending
- Subsidize renewable energy
- Corporate welfare
- Foreign aid (not war related)
- Foreign aid (war related)
How can somebody think for themselves and consistently side with the left or the right on all of these issues? For instance, I agree with the left on issues 4, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 22. I also agree with the right on #1,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,19, and 21. I agree with the left on 7 issues and the right on 14 issues, but I have enough of both viewpoints to convince myself that I think for myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The democrats want the undocumented here. This means one of the 3 things must happen:
1) The undocumented get jobs.
2) The undocumented live off the government.
3) The undocumented live off a consenting charity.
#3 is unreliable as private charities might run out of funds. You claim dems don't want #1. This leads to the only option that democrats would have to support (#2). I don't want the undocumented living off the government and hopefully neither do the dems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's more like comparing Baptists with Mormons. One is loud, the other is crazy, but all of them throw their money away to Washington DC.
I don't get what your saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
How exactly do you tell when someone is not thinking for themself?
There are roughly 20 political issues. Think of this as 20 coin flips, with heads representing democrats and tails representing republicans.
If someone was thinking for themselves, then they would get roughly the same number of heads and tails (or democrat and republican beliefs).
Instead, most people don't think for themselves. If they happen to pick tails/republican on the abortion issue as their main issue, they end up getting tails on almost every other issue (and they are under the illusion that they think for themselves when they don't).
If someone has a significantly more number of left wing beliefs than right wing beliefs (or vice versa), then they probably aren't thinking for themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I disapprove of it. A one party state can do anything they want and not risk losing an election. A 2 party state is bad because people flip flop between the 2 parties and people vote for the lesser of the 2 evils. A multi party state is bad because people still think in terms of their party rather than thinking for themselves.
America should prohibit it's politicians from having political parties and they should all run as independents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
They stole from shops and caused damages. The locals disliked them and wished them away.
If they steal from shops, you punish the INDIVIDUAL for theft. Not every undocumented African stole from shops. Just like some men commit rape, but if a man commits rape, you punish just the man that did rape, not every man. If an undocumented immigrant steal from a shop, you punish the individual that stole, you don't punish every undocumented immigrant.
but if the counties are free to choose which side to take, then why is it not that blue counties have the service to register and recognize these people, while the red ones do not provide such services?
The blue counties think that the undocumented are worth having in their counties because they think they are extra taxpayers. The red counties disagree because of the fear of crime and job displacement. It therefore makes sense to let each county experiment with what works best for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
however, I do know that black immigrants used to hoard Guangzhou and now the Chinese in vicinity are inclined to hate them not because they are racist, but because the African immigrants cause troubles.
What does it mean to, "hoard Guangzhou"?
Well, I might not be qualified enough to speak on this issue, but illegal immigrants ought to be deported, because they are illegal. If they actually help the nation, just loosen the law.
The blue counties disagree. Ron DeSantis and Trump both advocate for sending all undocumented immigrants and their families to blue places. Counties should decide their own immigration policies under the 10th amendment. If you are living in a blue county and you don't like the undocumented strongly, move to a red county. If you live in a red county and you want more undocumented immigrants because you think it's good for the country and you really want to have more of it, move to a blue county. The 10th amendment allows for places to have different policies while being in the same country and people who strongly disagree with certain laws can move to a state more to their liking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
There is no need for political parties anymore and they should be banned.
As of right now, your profile contains a political party I think. I think, "Progressive" implies the democrat party.
But I'm glad we agree. :)
Created:
Posted in:
Republicans: We want to deport the undocumented. They are taking our jobs. The democrats are unamerican because they aren't putting Americans first.
Democrats: We don't want to deport the undocumented. They are improving our country. The republicans are being racist because the Latin Americans are often brown people.
Republicans: Clearly we disagree on this issue, so I present a compromise. How about lets send all the undocumented immigrants and their families to your counties? If they improve America, then your counties would benefit from this. If they harm America, our counties won't be effected.
Democrats: That is a terrible idea! You can't just dump migrants into our counties. That would destroy our cities.
Republicans: But you just said they would be beneficial. Lets send all peaceful undocumented immigrants and their families to your counties.
Democrats: No! I only don't want the undocumented in MY county. I want them in yours though.
Me: If you want America to not deport the peaceful undocumented immigrants, why not let them and their families come to your county? I live in a blue county; I want more undocumented immigrants here as long as we don't give them government assistance and as long as my state replaces the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax (so they end up paying the state's bills since they would be paying taxes). But these left wing politicians don't want that. They just want the undocumented in red states. My guess is they are trying to flip those states blue.
Created:
Posted in:
America has 2 main religions. They are called Democrats and Republicans.
Why do I call political parties religions? Because most people take their most passionate issue (for example, someone who is prochoice on abortion) and they use their prochoice stance (which the democrats happen to back) to determine all their other stances on issues. This is a problem as it leads to people not thinking for themselves and it leads to people being partisan hacks.
If someone does something because of their faith based religion (a Muslim praying to mecca, a Jewish person being kosher, etc) then this is totally fine. We all have our guess as to who is the true God that will send us to heaven (except atheists and agnostics ) so it makes sense that for faith based religions to treat these faith based ideologies like religions, where you do and believe something because of your religious beliefs.
However, people unfortunately apply this same logic to policy based ideologies. They may say, "I think abortion is wrong because it kills a child" or, "I think abortion is okay because a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her own body", but unless abortion is their voting issue, they are more often than not just parroting talking points from the party that they hooked up with based on a different issue. They might as well say, "I think abortion is wrong because of my republican religion" or, "I think abortion is okay based on my democrat religion"
Political parties should not be treated as religions. Every issue should be analyzed with a fresh lens not corrupted by any other issue.
For example, Abortion Trends by Party Identification (gallup.com) states that republicans have a 31% chance of wanting all abortions banned, a 54% chance of wanting abortions legal under certain conditions, and a 15% chance of wanting all abortions to be legal. I could argue that the average republican has 112 prolife points (31x2+54) and 84 prochoice points (15x2+54).
The same site states that the typical democrat has 57 pro life points and 141 pro choice points.
If people really thought for themselves, then the number of pro choice points each party has would be about the same and the number of pro life points each party has would be about the same. But the reason there is such an enormous difference in points for either abortion position is because most people from BOTH parties pick an issue they care a lot about (it's usually not abortion), and if the democrats agree with them, the person ends up agreeing with the democrats on the vast majority of issues (and vice versa for the republicans).
If the next democrat presidential candidate said, "We should fight for equality, and that includes for the unborn, so I'm pro life", and the next republican presidential candidate said, "I oppose the welfare state, so I'm pro choice because it minimizes welfare use" then both parties would flip on abortion. All of the members of either party would do one of the following things:
1)(If their voting issue was abortion) Switch parties, and switch all of their other stances along with it to fit into their new party.
2) (If their voting issue was a different issue) Change their stance on abortion (they would think they are thinking for themselves when in reality, they are just letting a party think for them)
3) (If they are truly thinking for themselves) Not changing their stance on an issue because some politician hundreds of kilometers away advocated for some position.
Hopefully, people pick #3, but most people are going to pick #1 or #2.
This is a problem. Your stance on abortion should not correlate with your stance on guns, immigration, white privilege, stance on LGBT organizations, taxes on the wealthy, military spending/war, climate change, or any other issue.
Think for yourself!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
If God tells me to cut off my right arm, I’m not doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
When you say certain people aren't going to be in the world to come, does that mean they get eternal torment in hell, or does it mean that they merely cease to exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I fail to see what that has to do with this, but uneducated Republicans take too much welfare for my tastes, especially since they vote anti welfare.
Created:
-->
@Lunar108
LMAO
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The Hebrews seem to have had different theological priorities.
Like what? If their goal was to become a better person, you don't need religion to do this. You can do it by living according to your own morals (with some exceptions. If you think raping is moral, you still shouldn't be allowed to rape).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Why would someone want to be Jewish if they weren't focused on the afterlife? I thought the whole point of being in a religion was so that you got a chance at some afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
There is a period of time after death when the soul goes through what can best be thought of as a period of re-education
There is a period of time after death when the soul goes through what can best be thought of as a period of re-education
Who does the re education, if the divine presence is separated during this time?
What are the requirements to be in the purely evil, middling, and purely good category?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
He is causing psychological and emotional harm to his loved ones by his actions.
You are free to ignore him if you don't want to deal with him. My grandmother smokes and it's her body. I don't recommend she do it, but her body, her choice.
He is weakening the fabric of society, by his example.
He is just weakening himself, by his own consent. He isn't causing everyone else to become weaker unless they have to deal with him (you can kick him out if you want).
He is victimizing himself, by his poor decisions and lack of control.
He consents, so if he victimizes himself, that's on him.
Moreover, the drug war is worse for drug users than drugs are.
I also sent a PM, that felt too emotion laced for forums,Felt a bit anger.
I don't understand why you're so emotional about drug legalization. Most normal people support drug rights or don't, but they wouldn't get emotional about it unless they themselves used drugs, and even than the emotion is often minimized.
His body, his choice. Also, your house, your choice. You don't have to house your brother.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm getting so many different answers from this one Jewish site that I am so confused.
The Torah, the most important Jewish text, has no clear reference to afterlife at all. It would seem that the dead go down to Sheol, a kind of Hades, where they live an ethereal, shadowy existence (Num. 16:33; Ps. 6:6; Isa. 38:18)
Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence (Dan. 12:2; see also Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37:1 ff.).
Thus, IV Maccabees, for instance, though on the whole tending toward Pharisaism in its theology, promises everlasting life with God to those Jewish martyrs who preferred death to the violation of His Torah, but is silent about resurrection
This year remains a purgatorial period for the soul, or according to another view only for the wicked soul, after which the righteous go to paradise, Gan Eden, and the wicked to hell, Geihinnom (Gehinnom; Shab. 152b–153a; Tanh. Va-Yikra 8). The actual condition of the soul after death is unclear.
I'm not even 25% done with the article, and the site found 4 contradicting things that happen to you when you die.
Created:
If I shaved my pubes, then it would get very itchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
People should be allowed to decide if they want to inject themselves with a vaccine. People should be allowed to decide if they want to use heroin if they are living on their own. Your body, your choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
If your brother wants to smoke drugs and isn't harming anyone else in the process, that ought to be his right. If he harms someone, then he gets punished for the victim producing crime, not for the drug crime.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If the fetus is a human being then I should be able to take out a life insurance policy on it, it should have a birth certificate, I should be able to get an ID for it and I can't do any of those things.
This is what I call the ancilary alternative fallacy.
Pro choicers might argue something like if a fetus is a human being, "why the census doesn't count them".
At the same time, a pro lifer could say, "If a fetus isn't a human being, then how come murdering a pregnant woman is a double murder"
In this situation, your going to have to bite the bullet with either advocating that the census count fetuses if you are pro life or your going to have to advocate for murdering a pregnant woman being counted as a single homicide if your pro choice. Biting the bullet in either of these situations is something that would be done.
But in the end, will society change that much if the census counted fetuses? Not really; the population of every country increases 2% and it's merely classification. At the same time, if society counts murdering pregnant women as a single homicide rather than a double homicide, is that going to change much? Not really either. The person who did the murder is about as likely to get the death sentence for the murder whether one person was killed or 2 were because in the practice of law, people are about as likely to get put to death for murdering one person as they are 2 people since the vast majority of American murderers. The number of extra murderers that are saved by making it so murdering a pregnant woman is a single homicide will be extremely nominal in a country of 330 million people, and judges almost always see the murder of the pregnant female producing 2 victims; the mother, and the fetus (even if those judges are pro choice).
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Define very bad effects.
Any negative effects from the vaccine that you experience. If you get a sour arm for a day, you won't win much in court since you would have to pay the legal fees of the lawyer.
Created:
I think if the answer is yes, more people would be willing to take the vaccine.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
After dropping everything I said
If the unborn is a human being, then the unborn' s life is violated. The overwhelming majority of science confirms a fetus is a human being. A woman who gets an abortion is like a deadbeat parent for abandoning parental responsibilities (that they owe their kid and that nobody else does though their tax dollars). They both should be punished the same way since they are both about as common.
Created:
Posted in:
Vaccines: Your body, your choice.
Drugs: Your body, OUR choice.
Me: Let people decide if they want to put a vaccine in them, and let people decide if they want to put drugs in them.
Created:
@RM
Suffering is minimized when the government leaves us alone.
There are 100 million gun owners in America and roughly 2 million soliders. The soliders won't nuke us because it does nothing for them. They would have to enslave us, and our guns prevent that from happening.
Moreover, in any free society, the burden of proof as to why anything ought to be banned rests on the authoritarian.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And I don't know what you mean by poor but there are middle class families who can't afford the attorney and the investigation fee.
Okay; make sure the foster kids don't end up with them. Make sure the only people that can adopt are those that can afford to. That would get these poor foster mother fuckers out of poverty.
Obviously it is considered an extraordinary because it's segregated out from every other medical procedure on the planet.
What is the definition of a medical procedure? Once we figure out that, we can see if abortion qualifies.
If abortion doesn't qualify, then it's not a medical procedure.
If abortion does qualify, then it's a medical procedure that needs to be severely restricted because what you call something is irrelevent. It doesn't matter if you call gun grabbing, "common sense gun reform". It doesn't matter if you call separating children from their parents, "securing the border". Fuck Euphemisms! What does an abortion actually do? If abortion does something victim producing, it ought to be banned (or at least restricted severely).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
If you are antiwar then you should always vote Democrat.
There are democrat and republican Hawks and Doves.
My main issue is the US debt ($29 trillion of insanity).
If every billionaire was taxed at 100% of their wealth, it pays for about a third of the debt.
We have a spending problem initiated by Joe Biden and the radical left (and Trump and the radical right).
I need to run for president to do something about the debt, like implement the following plan to get us out of debt:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Lol. People shouldn't be afraid to disagree with their political party.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you don't believe adoption should be free, you're not pro-life.
I've considered advocating for making adoption free, but if adoption is free, then more poor people would adopt and that's worse for the kid if they end up in a poor family. Given that 94% of kids ALREADY get adopted within 5 years with a very expensive adoption fee, it makes sense to keep the fee in there.
If you don't believe all children under the age of 18 should have complete healthcare coverage, you're not pro-life.
Children get complete healthcare coverage paid for by their parents; the people that chose to breed them. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have sex, and don't expect either an aborted fetus (if an abortion happens) or a taxpayer (if an abortion doesn't happen) to pay for YOUR mistakes.
Vasectomies are now reversible if you get a woman pregnant you're as responsible as she is as far as the finances of the child after being born
Correct. Men should be less slutty and keep it in their pants. The issue with mandating vastectomies is it would lead to more promiscuious sex which leads to more STIs spreading and STIs can be deadly. This is why 1/5 gay and bisexual men (who don't worry about unwanted pregnency) have HIV(1 in 5 Gay/Bi Men Have HIV, Nearly Half Don't Know (webmd.com)).
The fact that you don't know the difference between money and an actual human body being forced to go through an event
The amount of pain a female goes through for birth isn't priceless. X amount of pain = Y amount of dollars. If it's morally acceptable to force a deadbeat to pay child support against his will for the kids he chose to create, you can force a female to give birth against her will for the kids she chose to create. If the deadbeat is not allowed to set his kids up for adoption, neither is the female. Grow a pair and take responsibility for the sex you choose to have.
that could cause their own death
Pretty rare and abortions should be legal to save a mother's life.
is why men should not make any decisions regarding pro-choice or pro-life
I'm presuming your against Roe V Wade? After all, it was decided by 9 men who will never get pregnant and know what it feels like. But in any society with freedom of speech, men are allowed a say on abortion and there is nothing women can do about it because we live in a free society.
It's nine times out of 10 the monotheist religious psychotics that want to prevent any and all birth control
I'm an atheist (because God is evil) and I think birth control should be legal, but you pay for it yourself.
If you decide a woman has no right to privacy when it comes to abortion then no one has any right to privacy on any medical concern.
Abortion isn't an ordinary medical issue, although if I asked the typical person, "Have you had cancer"(an actual medical issue), they would respond honestly and not be ashamed of their answer, no matter what it is.
If abortion is a medical issue, then bombings are target practice. I'm pretty sure both abortions and bombings are something other than a medical issue or target practice.
Created:
She has sex one night with a man, both not too educate on how silly the 'pull out' method is and one of the only nights of thirty mins of stress-free life for whatever reason.So... She's pregnant.
Poor women should find other things to do than get penetrated by random people (and poor men should have better things to do than to penetrate random women).
@RM
Welcome to reality Underdog, tell them to get a job, they both have them.
If their current job doesn't pay enough for them, find a better one; the University of Georgetown found 13 million good paying jobs in the US that only require a HS degree to complete that pay $55K/year or more. But democrat politicians won't tell you that because they need poor people to continue to vote democrat and for handouts.
I'm sure no back alley abortions will occur and that those born into the poverty and unwanted arena of the slum/ghetto/already-full-family will enjoy their life either neglected (even worse, emotionally abused at least) by their parents or in the foster care system.
Once the kid is born, it's not my problem. The female has to live with the fact that she was too slutty for one night and got pregnant as a result. HOW HARD IS IT NOT TO HAVE SEX? Just jerk off to porn if you need a way to get your sexual urges out.
Created:
@RM
It was basically hate speech against Europeans mixed with some urge to feel big and bad yourself.
It's hate speech against their governments to a large degree because of all the left wing policies in Europe that the European conservative politicians don't have the guts to challenge the European radical left on. In conservative run UK, they give free money to undocumented immigrants to come here:
Keep in mind that the UK is run by consrevatives right now:
My ancestors fled authoritarian British run Malta to move to a land where the government left them alone and didn't tax them as much and didn't spend their money on the poor as much.
Britain is for subjects. America is for citizens. We have guns. We have guts. We distrust our government. Americans are a free people, and it's why we attract the rugged individualistic people from all over the world. All the UK attracts for the most part is welfare bums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'm just saying that the liberals (just like the conservatives) aren't 100% principled with anything that they believe. Now granted, if one values safety and freedom even a little bit, then they are going to contradict themselves by ideology, so contradictions are justified in certain circumstances, but people shouldn't believe an idea just because it's a left or right ideology. Everyone should think for themselves.
Created:
I'm one of the few pro lifers willing to admit they are not consistently pro life and here is why:
Why I'm pro life with abortion:
Feminists: We don’t think you should be forced to take care of someone so we are pro choice.
Me: A deadbeat dad agrees. He doesn’t want to pay child support because he doesn’t want the pain associated with parenthood, just like you don’t want the pain associated with an unwanted pregnancy. Are you fine with deadbeat dads not paying child support?
Femenists: Absolutely not! His money, our choice. He ought to be responsible for the kids he created whether he consents or not.
Me: If he should be responsible for the kids he created without his consent, so should you.
Why I'm not pro life with issues in general (healthcare, guns, welfare, foreign aid, adoption, etc):
Femenist: If your pro life, you should be in favor of you yourself paying for my kid's healthcare by raising your taxes.
Deadbeat Dad: If you are forcing me to pay child support to take care of my kid; if you care about my kid, YOU should pay for the kid, not me through your tax dollars going to pay for my kid that you seem to care about so much.
Me: You both chose to create the kid from your sexual habits, so that kid is entirely your responsibility and not mine. Don't make me or your kid pay for YOUR irresponsibility. Get a job moochers! If you don't know where they are, get a way up account and search for them. We have the fucking internet!
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
If forcing people to join a religion prevents the eternal torment in hell (just like how vacciene mandates prevent the less intense pain of covid), then you'd figure anti pain advocates would be forcing people to join whatever religion they thought would save them from hell (a pain much worse than any pain expierienced on earth if God exists (which a majority of liberals believe).
Created:
Posted in:
Now I think even the left is inconsistent with their anti pain ethos. Otherwise, they would be theocrats as theocrats attempt to minimize pain by preventing people from burning in hell forever (which is way more painful than anything experienced on earth if God exists).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Yeah, but if someone said that they were libetarian on everything except X, then that's fine. You just need a justification for that. That justification is going to be your 2nd value.
Everyone gets 1 value unless they are independents (because often values contradict each other). If one person values freedom and another person values saftey, then they will disagree on some things. The person that values freedom will want more gun rights and an easier time getting abortions, whereas the person that values saftey would want more gun control and more laws that restrict abortion.
The values disagree with each other, so pick a value or be an independant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
There's 'going to be an unavoidable war at some point, I'd hazard.
I think I know how war won't be feasible in the world for the foreseeable future.
If the world became one nation, then we get to save $1.7 TRILLION on the military every year. That money can go towards a tax cut for working class Americans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
To me, Conservativism, 'roughly means tradition.
Then why don't conservatives support Roe V Wade? I mean, that's tradition. For the past 50 years, America has had abortion legal. Roe V Wade is an American tradition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Conservatives don't want "more" gun rights; they want their gun rights (in reality, privileges) respected.
Their whole montra is, "Shall not be infringed" with guns. Meaning they want to remove all gun restrictions. Some want background checks, but the majority are more pro gun than some blue states are.
they would support open bordersAsk them what they'd think of open borders if they didn't have to pay taxes.
If undocumented immigrants don't pay taxes and the right wing approach was to replace the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax, then undocumented immigrants would pay the same amount of taxes as documented citizens. Why doesn't the right support this policy?
they would want to end all the foreign warsHow do foreign wars undermine freedom?
Because they cost a lot of money, so the government has to force you to give money to them to fight all these wars. If theft isn't freedom, than neither is war because taxpayers have to pay for it without their inherit consent.
Unfortunately, not even Libertarians consistently believe in freedom.
True.
Once again, according to their reasons, abortion is murder.
Conservatives believe that abortion is an unjustified killing, but not murder. Murder has to be illegal as a requirement to be murder.
But should abortion be classified as murder? No, for 2 reasons:
1) If it was classified as murder, then the penalty for abortion would be the same as murder (life in jail or the death penalty). This would lead to mass incarceration.
One does not keep another "safe" from starvation.
If the starving person gets fed, then they are temporaraly safe from starvation.
Name one (new) war waged by Trump. Just one. As far as presidents go, Trump was relatively among the most peaceful and diplomatic.
Trump's Endless Wars - CounterPunch.org states a bunch of wars Trump caused. Granted, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Biden and Regean also caused horrible wars, but Trump is as bad as the other presidents for the most part on war.
"Disarming everybody" would not make society as safe as it can be. 90's Australia, and 2000's U.K. would see to that. And it has not been substantiated that owning and possessing a firearm in and of itself poses a threat.
Both these regions have low levels of homicide and the UK used to have a lot of guns. It's how America became so gun friendly. But the UK lost their gun pride and America has expanded it. I'm not saying implement gun control. But if saftey is your value, you should support gun control.
Independents don't think for themselves; they're just contrarians.
Not inheritely. Independents tend to come up with some sort of principle that partisan hacks don't abide by. You don't have to agree with the left or the right all the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If national security is what conservatives want, then why don't they support UHC, mask mandates, and vaciene mandates? I mean, covid is a national security threat bigger than terrorism (because covid is responsible for more American deaths than terrorists are).
I'm just asking for consistency from these right wingers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I know. But in order to stop making veterans, we need to stop sending people to these horrible wars.
I have no problem with most veterans. I have a problem with the creation of new veterans.
It's like saying that you have no problem with smokers as people, but you have a problem with the creation of new smokers (ie getting people addicted to cigarrettes).
Created:
Posted in:
Conservatives have a bunch of things they want. For instance, they want more gun rights because of their, "small government" ethos. They want to ban abortion because of the safety of the unborn. Some of them even want to ban homosexuality because "the bible says so". Pretty much every republican wants to deport undocumented immigrants because of "nationalism; America first".
So there are 4 values here; small government, safety, theocracy, and nationalism.
Conservatives aren't consistent with the first value; small government because if they if their value is freedom, then surely they must also be in favor of the recreational legalization of all drugs, they would be in favor of abortion rights with no restrictions, they would support open borders, they would want to end all the foreign wars, and they would essentially be libetarians. Conservatism can't mean freedom because if it was, there is a party that already exists that consistently believes in freedom; libetarians. Conservatism therefore has to mean something else.
Another value conservatives have; safety. They apply this value towards the unborn. They call it the "right to life". I call it safety. It's the same thing. However, they don't apply this logic to letting undocumented immigrants in, even though America is a safer place for the undocumented than their home country. They often claim that the undocumented immigrants are a danger to America (which they aren't)(Undocumented immigrants far less likely to commit crimes in U.S. than citizens (wisc.edu)). They oppose welfare programs which keep the poor safe from starvation. They support these foreign wars whenever Trump wages a war even though it causes foreign civilians, our troops, and even the United States to be less safe because as we wage endless war, more countries hate us and are therefore more likely to fund terrorist attacks on us. They oppose the concept of safety on gun, insisting that their freedom to own guns is more important than the safety of others. You'd figure the conservatives (if safety was their value) would want to disarm everybody to make society as safe as it can be. Conservatives often claim it's impossible, however THEY ARE THE REASON IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. If every conservative wanted to ban all guns, they would immediately turn all of their guns in. This would only apply if the conservative value was safety.
If the conservative value was theocracy (implementing black and white biblical law into society), then conservativism calls for treating the undocumented just like the native born (Exodus 12:49) and a 100% wealth tax on anyone with more than enough money to survive (unless they were a ruler, the bible lets rulers keep their money, just like communism)(Mark 10:21)
If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade, Affirmative action, and not cutting taxes because off of this goes against the status quo/nationalism (the belief that your nation is great just the way it is)
The liberals on the other hand, they have a value, but they never state what their value is, which is how they lose support from the independents who think, "How is this party consistent with any of their beliefs?" The left wing value is anti pain. All of their beliefs follow a consistent anti pain ethic. Abortion? Let the people abort to minimize pain. The liberals have mixed views on late term abortions, where some support them if it prevents future maternal pain and others oppose them on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain.
On guns; minimize the pain from school shootings while also trying to appease the conservatives by trying to ban semi automatic guns. This view is greatly distorted because mass shootings are a small portion of homicides, but the liberals don't care. They want to minimize pain that they see; they don't care that much about pain they can't see unless it's super graphic. This is why you see liberals caring a little bit about starving people in Africa. If those starving people were here, liberals would be demanding that we give free housing and healthcare to the suffering people that we can see merely because we can see them. If those people are suffering far away, then the left doesn't care as much.
On taxes, they want higher taxes on those whom the sacrifice would be minimal to minimize the pain of other people that they can see.
Conclusion:
The conservatives have no principles. The liberals have a principle (anti pain ethic (but only for the pain they can see)), but it is based off of emotion, news stories, anecdotal data (they are more upset about a mass shooting that kills 26 people than they are about traffic deaths that are responsible for 30,000 American deaths a year (the deaths from traffic accidents are more painful and graphic usually than dying from a gun), but if traffic deaths were broadcasted as much as school shootings per death, the liberals would want to reduce speed limits).
With one party having no principles, and another party having principles that are partly based on emotion rather than reality, I think both parties are absolutely horrible. It's time for DART members to break away from the democrat and republican parties. The chads are the independents, who think for themselves.
Created: