Democrate part is communist

[Prometheus85]

No, its not about groups, its about liberty. Why is this impossible for you to comprehend? Are you that decieved that you cannot comprehend this?


This makes no coherent sense. The more right you lean the more liberty, not the more "reactionary ideologies" whatever that suppose to mean.



No, im not all over the place. Im in the same place i already was.

More liberty, less equality, more equality means more force, more force means less liberty.

Common sense.

Let me get this straight the more you lean to the right wing of the political spectrum the more liberty there’s going to be? Can you please provide some sought of evidence for this claim?

Because according to my knowledge, in the 21st century the far right in the western world has increasingly drifted towards broadly authoritarian nativist thought, often influenced by former fascist movements. I don’t see how that can lead to liberty...

Like @Evangelicalhumanist pointed out to you already, it’s not a good look to just claim what something is and what something is not without any evidence to back up that claim.

 

[Shad]

***edit***
So what is your point, both communism and socialism can be very good for the general populace if done right and only penalizes the wealthy slightly taxing them slightly more for increased wealth but still allowing them wealth. Capitalism a system based solely on money can never be fair no matter the people in charge. The general populace will always be disadvantaged against the wealthy in all capitalistic societies.

Works on paper! Same old line

 

[Howard Is]

The former case where government regulates the business and taxes it and its land, you may as well say the government "owns" it.

For the moment I will ignore that you are presenting two extremes, neither of which exist in a pure form anywhere.

Having said that, let me ask you, if there were no government controls on business and land use, how well do you think business, from corporations to sole owners, would manage the environment ?

Things like protecting water quality and supply, emission standards, deforestation, preservation of threatened species, use of insecticides etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is that really all you can think of?

Help me out.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You left out a paragraph or two that come later -- the ones that describe HOW the government attains those most worthy ends. Things like making laws, taxing for the common good, adjudicating disagreements and like that....

Somewhere along the line, the common good of the people has gotten lost since.

We have so many laws now, nobody can even count them anymore.

Taxes have turned into extortion and the people seems to be replaced with special interest of which those taxes now benefit.

Adjudication has turned into two sets of unbalanced standards. One for the privileged elite vs one for the commoners.

 

[Jollybear]

Flipping the OP 180 degrees around:

Republicans believe that our economy should weaken our country and not work for every American

This is the great deception. This is where it all hinges and history proves you wrong. The more you control the economy in order to install those good intentions to make the economy work for all, the more you destroy the economy because youve robbed economic freedom. When that happens then entrepreneurs, inventers, inovaters and business people start to leave and move elsewhere. When that happens the country COLLAPSES.

Republicans want to ensure corporations, the wealthy, and Wall Street don't pay their fair share

They already pay there fair share. They pay enough. Arguably they pay too much now.

Communism works like a cancer. Cancer does not destroy in its infancy. It first grows and then finally destroys.

You start making corporations and the wealthy pay too much and then they will leave. When that happens, yep, again, collaps.

Republicans cut taxes mostly for the super wealthy and gigantic corporations and not for working families

Because republicans understand a fundemental principle that cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations means they get to have more profits. Those profits help either to expand business, hire more, give raises, bonuses or profit sharings. All of which stimulate more spending from people, which in turn stimulates the cycle again and again. More profits and you know the cycle. And yes, it does work.

Republicans don't want to provided relief for hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Because its not governments job to rob others to give to others. If they lose a job, go get another one. Ive lost jobs in my life, i went and got another one.

(and let me add a few)

Republicans don't believe that people should get health care unless they are wealthy enough to afford it.

Right and whats wrong with that? Why should others be intitled to your money?

They can go get a job, get health insurrence and thats it.

If others want to donate to a charitable medic, they can do that to to help the poor.

Oh by the way, statistics show that its republican conservatives that donate to charities more so then democrate lefties. That i think SAYS IT ALL!

Republicans don't believe that people are entitled to clean air and water unless they are rich enough to afford it.

I dont know what republicans your talking about, but certainly not all believe that. Air and water effect everyone, so it behooves them to make water and air clean.

Republicans believing in propping up dying businesses like coal rather than invest in future green technologies.

Why not nuclear energy? Its more efficiant and cost effective. And this whole CO2 is overated.

(and to go from the Republican party to the Trumpian party)

Trumpians believe it's perfectly OK to lie, cheat and steal if you are a Trumpian.

Wow, just wow. Totally false. And its the democrats that really believe that due to there intitlement mentality.

Trumpians believe that laws are for other people rather than Donny and themselves.

No, thats what the democrats believe.

Trumpians believe that groping women is perfectly OK

Ok, this is getting rediculious.

Trumpians believe that the Constitution is just a piece of paper and that Trump can do whatever he likes.

Thats what the democrats believe!

 

[Revoltingest]

We

Help me out.

There are several.
But my favorite is having cancelled the draft.

We should not be blind to meritorious acts in the side we dislike.
If something good is done by someone hated, it's still good.

 

[Father Heathen]

There are several.
But my favorite is having cancelled the draft.

We should not be blind to meritorious acts in the side we dislike.
If something good is done by someone hated, it's still good.

You're right, but to serve as an example what are some things you like that the "other side" has done?

 

[Revoltingest]

You're right, but to serve as an example what are some things you like that the "other side" has done?

I've oft praised Obama for resisting calls for war with Iran.
I'm sure that you noticed, but generously asked so as to
give me the opportunity to appear fair & magnanimous.

 

[Woberts]

@Jollybear As a communist myself, I can confirm that the 'Democrate part' is not communist. Nor Communist, for that matter.

 

[Father Heathen]

So babies are not at liberty to life?

Of course, so it's a good thing embryos aren't babies.

And LGBT they just dont pay attention to it because they DO have rights. The same rights as everyone ekse does.

So Christians in the middle east aren't being persecuted because they have the same right as muslims to worship like muslims do?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, its not about groups, its about liberty. Why is this impossible for you to comprehend? Are you that decieved that you cannot comprehend this?



This makes no coherent sense. The more right you lean the more liberty, not the more "reactionary ideologies" whatever that suppose to mean.



No, im not all over the place. Im in the same place i already was.

More liberty, less equality, more equality means more force, more force means less liberty.

Common sense.

Not in the slightest is this "common sense." Just for example, less equality means that some people will have more opportunities, more advantages, etc. than others. Indeed, it might just be that some people, in a world that is less equal will have no rights to many things.

And what's the problem with that? You have no "liberty" if you lack the means to exercise it. For example, during my younger years, when (as a battered and orphaned child) the most important thing to -- finding the love of another person -- was forbidden to me by law. By laws that conservative and libertarian people still support. What liberty did I have with respect to that problem, would you say?

In any case, it is impossible to legislate "equality." You can't make people equal without some sort of Procrustean solution (you can look up procrustean for yourself). The best you can do is to try to find as many ways providing equality of opportunity as possible. Even then, some people will use those opportunities better than others. Nobody can stop that.

But at least everybody should have as much freedom to try as possible. And sometimes, that requires changes in the law. Did you know that it wasn't until 1972, a mere 47 years ago, that the last law forbidding people of different races to marry was finally abolished (Loving v. Virginia). In 2005 -- only 14 years ago -- my partner and I were finally allowed to be married. That's 11 years after we began our life together. Before that, we were denied many liberties. For example, 2 1/2 years ago, he came down with Guillaine-Barre Syndrome, which paralyzed him from the neck down. He was in hospital for 8 1/2 months, and required a great deal of care. If this had happened not a lot of years earlier, I would not have been allowed to accompany him in the ambulance, because I couldn't possibly be "family." Yet, I'm the one who is the care-giver. I have the liberty to do that now, because laws were struck down -- by an act of a sitting government -- making that so.

If you really want to know about "liberty," the struggle for it, the cost of it, the nature of it, and the danger of losing it, try reading A.C. Grayling's book "Towards the Light of Liberty, the Struggle for Freedom and Rights that Made the Western World." And for the record, Grayling writes from a Libertarian viewpoint -- but a much more thoughtful one than yours.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is that really all you can think of?

I think the Patriot Act a horrible affront to liberty.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the Patriot Act a horrible affront to liberty.

I don't like it either.
But judge not one's opposition based
solely upon what one dislikes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't like it either.
But judge not one's opposition based
solely upon what one dislikes.

Not judging any opponents. I only think, as a great American once said (I paraphrase), "he would give up his liberty for security deserves neither."

 

[Revoltingest]

Not judging any opponents. I only think, as a great American once said (I paraphrase), "he would give up his liberty for security deserves neither."

No argument here.

 

[Jollybear]

Not in the slightest is this "common sense." Just for example, less equality means that some people will have more opportunities, more advantages, etc. than others. Indeed, it might just be that some people, in a world that is less equal will have no rights to many things.

And what's the problem with that? You have no "liberty" if you lack the means to exercise it. For example, during my younger years, when (as a battered and orphaned child) the most important thing to -- finding the love of another person -- was forbidden to me by law. By laws that conservative and libertarian people still support. What liberty did I have with respect to that problem, would you say?

In any case, it is impossible to legislate "equality." You can't make people equal without some sort of Procrustean solution (you can look up procrustean for yourself). The best you can do is to try to find as many ways providing equality of opportunity as possible. Even then, some people will use those opportunities better than others. Nobody can stop that.

But at least everybody should have as much freedom to try as possible. And sometimes, that requires changes in the law. Did you know that it wasn't until 1972, a mere 47 years ago, that the last law forbidding people of different races to marry was finally abolished (Loving v. Virginia). In 2005 -- only 14 years ago -- my partner and I were finally allowed to be married. That's 11 years after we began our life together. Before that, we were denied many liberties. For example, 2 1/2 years ago, he came down with Guillaine-Barre Syndrome, which paralyzed him from the neck down. He was in hospital for 8 1/2 months, and required a great deal of care. If this had happened not a lot of years earlier, I would not have been allowed to accompany him in the ambulance, because I couldn't possibly be "family." Yet, I'm the one who is the care-giver. I have the liberty to do that now, because laws were struck down -- by an act of a sitting government -- making that so.

If you really want to know about "liberty," the struggle for it, the cost of it, the nature of it, and the danger of losing it, try reading A.C. Grayling's book "Towards the Light of Liberty, the Struggle for Freedom and Rights that Made the Western World." And for the record, Grayling writes from a Libertarian viewpoint -- but a much more thoughtful one than yours.

Oh my goodness. You just argued AGAINST what you argued FOR previously!

Make up your mind! Which are you defending, communism or libertarianism? It cannot be both!

 

[Jollybear]

Of course, so it's a good thing embryos aren't babies.

Tell that to the embryo.

So Christians in the middle east aren't being persecuted because they have the same right as muslims to worship like muslims do?

Wer not talking about the middle east, but america. We wer also not talking about christians either, but LBGTs. They have rights like everyone else.

 

[Jollybear]

For the moment I will ignore that you are presenting two extremes, neither of which exist in a pure form anywhere.

Having said that, let me ask you, if there were no government controls on business and land use, how well do you think business, from corporations to sole owners, would manage the environment ?

Things like protecting water quality and supply, emission standards, deforestation, preservation of threatened species, use of insecticides etc.

Right, there is very little PURE anything.

But, the MORE communist things get, the WORSE it gets. The more liberty, the more prosperity. Thats what the evidence suggests.

Now, what would business owners do if left to pure liberty?

Heres what they would do. It would be a MIXED bag. SOME business owners would be terrible. Some would not. And SOCIETY RATHER then government would decide which business should not recieve support and which one should.

 

[Jollybear]

@Jollybear As a communist myself, I can confirm that the 'Democrate part' is not communist. Nor Communist, for that matter.

So, wait a minute, you ADMIT you are a communist?

Did i hear that correctly? Or am i seeing things?